Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Proud Liberal Dem

(25,028 posts)

9. Yet the courts found that Clinton was subject to Paula Jones' Civil Suit

Reply to ElementaryPenguin (Reply #7)

Thu May 30, 2019, 04:00 PM

May 2019

*while in office*

I understand that both are different- and occurred under different circumstances- you'd sort of think that if a President would be subject to one, they'd be subject to the other, perhaps moreso if it's a criminal matter?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

9 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Yes, I had hard time following Mueller, with his double and triple negatives [View all] question everything May 2019 OP

Mueller really can't bring himself to say Trump committed a crime Blues Heron May 2019 #1

From what I heard of what he said Proud Liberal Dem May 2019 #2

Dude was deliberately ambiguous. It was excruciating to watch him. Chin music May 2019 #6

Right. Also wanted to add that of course, for him impeaching Trump does not pose the threat question everything May 2019 #5

Rules are for Democrats. Chin music May 2019 #3

*Cough* Comey *Cough Proud Liberal Dem May 2019 #8

i can not imagine that the "original intent" of the founders was to make the president unindictable. rampartc May 2019 #4

If the founders had wanted the President to be unindictable they would have said so ElementaryPenguin May 2019 #7

Yet the courts found that Clinton was subject to Paula Jones' Civil Suit Proud Liberal Dem May 2019 #9