What is Digg?Sponsored by Norton 2010
80's metal band Dokken vs. a chicken. Who would win? view!
everyclickmatters.com - It's raw head-banging talent against raw meat. See the showdown. Seriously.
269 Comments
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -21/+329Excellent reminder that executive privilege can't be used to hide crimes. Also a great reminder that "Whitewater" resulted in no charges ever being filed against Mr Clinton. Also an excellent reminder that the Clinton impeachment was all about a blowjob.
- islingt0ner, on 10/11/2007, -1/+228party like its 1998
- frimple, on 10/11/2007, -2/+93must... buy..... pets.com stock....
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -4/+86For once the "But, but Clinton!" tactic has been used correctly.
- Cerialthriller, on 10/11/2007, -7/+89Damn, they forgot the BREAKING again! you submitters are slacking today
- sockpuppets, on 10/11/2007, -4/+86Well, when a man and woman loves one another they take their clothes off, then the daddy puts his weewee inside the mommy. Then, 9 months later a little baby is born, and they name him Kevin. They abuse him sufficiently to develop a real personality, then he takes out that aggression by making websites. He names one of them Digg, then he invites his friend bobstanley87 to post about something he finds interesting. Then bobstanley87's friends say "hey, I agree with bob!" And then it gets on the homepage.
- Xerokai, on 10/11/2007, -3/+54Correct, however the point is that you can't claim executive privilege the way that Bush co. throws it around. I'm pretty sure they would sodomize my cats and then tell me that it isn't a crime because of executive privilege.
- Bender4Pharoah, on 10/11/2007, -8/+57Right ruling, wrong president.
- knomevol, on 10/11/2007, -3/+50no doubt.
and if it isn't ruled the same this go round we'll know without a doubt: fascism is afoot. - brokenspatula, on 10/11/2007, -28/+75He lied under oath, getting a blowjob is not a crime (in the US)
- reed311, on 10/11/2007, -5/+44Clinton was never convicted, only accused of perjury.
- arTech, on 10/11/2007, -2/+34It's 1998...Hey what's that MLB owner doing at the White House?? When did gas go from 98 cents to 4 dollars? Why is everyone so afraid?
- br0ck, on 10/11/2007, -6/+38He said he didn't have sex. Which he didn't. If you're a virgin and you have oral, aren't you still a virgin? Anyway, why was he being asked about a blow job in the first place?
- heaintheavy, on 10/11/2007, -2/+33I see what you did there.
- PantherX, on 10/11/2007, -2/+32Wow. I just graduated from High School. Awesome.
- grendelboogie, on 10/11/2007, -1/+30I'd forgotten about this. Let's hope Congress's legal representatives don't when they take this to court.
- halavais, on 10/11/2007, -3/+31He lied under oath about getting a blow job. If it's not a crime, then why was he being asked under oath.
The original poster, I suspect, is asking us to consider that he was impeached because the congress was looking for any possible way to impeach him. It seems that this congress is looking for any possible reason NOT to impeach. - Drexus, on 10/11/2007, -0/+27This is a great reflection, so long as the inside process hasn't been changed by the Bush admin. As I recall, Bush had a record number of documents made classified - more so than any other president. In that light, would he have covered his tracks in this area knowing it would come to this? I only hope the same system that was used to crack Clinton, is still able to do the same.
- jay12645, on 10/11/2007, -0/+27Wait you mean to tell me Clinton isn't the president anymore. WTF when did that happen. Next your going to tell me were at war...
- LouFigs13, on 10/11/2007, -0/+25You have no idea what is going on, do you?
- theNazz, on 10/11/2007, -3/+27Clinton should have refused to testify under oath about his blow job the same way George Bush did about the 9/11 investigation and then the GOP would have nothing to ***** say.
- knomevol, on 10/11/2007, -0/+22because the whole country is waiting to see this same question get answered in this constitutional showdown between bush's whitehouse and congress.
- 1jaxstate1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+20So I hope they file contempt charges against the lady who's not even bothering to show up.
- johnpaul191, on 10/11/2007, -0/+19considering how muuch old stuff gets on Digg, this seems totally appropriate... and dare i say... informative?
good find! on a side note i am impressed their archives are open. most other papers require an account to dig through older stuff. - Cerialthriller, on 10/11/2007, -0/+17just wow... im still amazed how things can so easily go over peoples heads..
- sockpuppets, on 10/11/2007, -3/+20I'm content with my webvan stock, thanks.
- GeneralFault, on 10/11/2007, -0/+17Not if before asking the question you specifically define sexual relation as having intercourse.
- zephc, on 10/11/2007, -2/+19That reminds me, I need to check how my Amalgamated Spats and Confederated Slave Holdings shares are doing
- arTech, on 10/11/2007, -1/+17TheSmitty is trying to say "I am lost for words...I...I...Clinton sux...you suck....mom!...."
- Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -0/+16You need to be more specific about where "he said". In at least one case, he asked them explicitly what they counted as sex and they didn't include oral, so he said no, he didn't.
- mattt79, on 10/11/2007, -1/+16Man, I was really disappointed when I saw that second line.
- itswestbrook, on 10/11/2007, -1/+15You cannot get pregnant by dry humping. What sort of sex education are they teaching you kids these days. Can't get pregnant in a hot tub either. I see this "abstinence only" education is highly effective.
- nodonoug, on 10/11/2007, -2/+16not your cats, Bush is more of a farm animal kind of guy.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+15You mean everyone in general hates bush.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+15In the future, things wont be the same, afterall.
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13Two things have changed:
1) Clinton had a hostile congress, while the present democratic majority is extremely slim, hinging on Bush #1 admirer, Lieberman.
2) Bush has a solid loyalist majority in the supreme court. - qubesquare, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12Lets learn from history shall we?
- 0xbadfood, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12On the other hand, a failure on the part of the democrats to do something about Bush and Cheney before the end of their terms will not bode well for them in the 2008 election, and I should hope they know that.
- RedHerringHack, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12Nope, the law applies to all. They both deserve it.
- gropo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12Or for that matter, the entire ***** nation the next time we get an administration, Left or Right, that holds itself above the law.
- Bdog2g2, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11I think he didn't know where else he could use "democrap". I'm guessing he learned that from someone the other day and was just waiting to use it.
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11Special prosecutor Starr was appointed to investigate the Whitewater scandal. When it, despite his best efforts and the efforts of his backers - among them Cheney - turned out that there was no dirt with which to smear Clinton in the Whitewater scandal, the special prosecutor didn't step down, but instead went on a fishing expedition. There were rumors on the Hill that Clinton was having an affair, so Starr subpoenaed people left and right, and eventually got his dirt with which to smear Clinton.
The entire thing was entirely political, a travesty of justice, made possible by the GOP having a solid Clinton-hostile majority in Congress.
By contrast, the present Dem majority is too slim to even appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the politically-motivated firing of prosecutors, fired for the sole reason they refused to bring bogus charges against democrat candidates during an election. - r00t3d0ut, on 10/11/2007, -7/+18@chaki
clinton ignored the world trade bombing so much that those involved were prosecuted for the crime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_bombing
be sure to look at the section aftermath and ARRESTS
do not pass go. do not collect $20 - NotAChickenHawk, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12Uh - there is (was) in fact a precedent for firing all of the US Attorney's at the beginning of a Presidential term. Carter did it. Reagan did it. Bush 41 did it. Clinton did it too. What there was not a precedent for is selectively firing 8 of them, mid-term, for purely political reasons.
- ketemphor, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11Clinton may well have committed perjury, but he was NOT convicted of it. Your link merely spells out his lawyers' arguments.
- scottc, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11"claimed there was a precedent for it" Yes, because there was. It is a common practice at the beginning of a Presidential term. It is not a common practice to fire them midterm for taking on cases against your political allies, like Bush did.
- jabbaloca, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10I think you completely forgot the perpetrators of the first bombing were tried and convicted under Clinton.
- skulljar, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9Yes, I think most people realize that he did perjure himself. I also think that a lot of people realize what a joke it all was; well, other than the right wingers who thought it was not a joke, and impeachable- even though they conducted in this type of behavior as well (Newt was having an affair at the time, etc.) They really lowered the bar for impeachment, but now they're really dodging that bar aren't they?
- Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9Huh? Lying about sex is one thing, but engaging in illegal--and especially unconstitutional--activity in the direct role of President is another, and the latter seems to be the one we should care about a hell of a lot more.
- reed311, on 10/11/2007, -3/+127 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Republicans so this isn't not surprising. If this went to the Supreme Court with Bush, I'm sure they'd rule in his favor.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 273 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is