OK hands up if you had this on your bingo card for 2025:

[ex-khobar Andy]

Oliver North and Fawn Hall got married. Apparently they reconnected at his first wife's funeral.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/po ... l-married/

[BoSoxGal]

https://nypost.com/2025/09/09/us-news/i ... al-report/

No paywall for this article; I found it noteworthy that at their low key wedding, none of North’s kids were in attendance.

Obviously they had something more than an employer-employee relationship back when she risked prison to shred mountains of documents for him. I bet his kids aren’t too pleased he’s married his affair partner not even a year after their mother died.

[liberty]

Oliver North and Fawn Hall got married. Apparently they reconnected at his first wife's funeral.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/po ... l-married/

I hope they're happy. Everyone, no matter who they are, has a right to happiness, and what happens in their personal life is their own business. It's the same thing with Bill Clinton. The only problem I have with him is that he Did it in the Oval Office. If he had done it in his car or in an apartment somewhere, I wouldn't have cared. That's the same with Shit Head. He can do the same thing too; I don't care if you want to do it a different way, as long as I don't have to smell it.

[Big RR]

I don't wish him ill for marrying Fawn Hall (now North?); I don't even wish him ill for cheating on his wife (if he did; it's none of my business). But I still hold a grudge against him for his activities and the lies he told to protect Reagan. Just another step (AKA unitary executive) which continues to this day and is fervently defended by those who crave a strong man running the country. And I wish him ill for that.

[liberty]

I don't wish him ill for marrying Fawn Hall (now North?); I don't even wish him ill for cheating on his wife (if he did; it's none of my business). But I still hold a grudge against him for his activities and the lies he told to protect Reagan. Just another step (AKA unitary executive) which continues to this day and is fervently defended by those who crave a strong man running the country. And I wish him ill for that.

Who really damaged this country was the Democrat Party, when they refused to convict Clinton in the Senate for a crime he committed: they virtually destroyed the impeachment process. They turned impeachment from an instrument meant to protect the nation into a political tool. For that, the Democrat Party should be condemned.

[MajGenl.Meade]

they virtually destroyed the impeachment process

Oh, I blame the 10 Republicans who voted with Democrats and prevented Andrew Johnson from being impeached on three charges - all defeated by just one vote!

[Big RR]

I blame Ford for pardoning Nixon; sure, he wouldn't be impeached, but he could have been tried in open court. But that was never going to happen...

[Sue U]

Who really damaged this country was the Democrat Party, when they refused to convict Clinton in the Senate for a crime he committed: they virtually destroyed the impeachment process. They turned impeachment from an instrument meant to protect the nation into a political tool. For that, the Democrat Party should be condemned.

Impeachment is by definition a political tool, you blithering idiot. It doesn't require violation of any criminal statute, it's literally whatever Congress decides it can justify -- and sell to the public -- as "high crimes and misdemeanors." Is lying about a blowjob -- even under oath -- a sufficiently egregious offense to warrant removal from office? How about withholding Congressionally-mandated military aid in order to extort a foreign head of state into smearing your political opponent? How about inciting an insurrection and turning a mob loose on the Capitol to keep yourself in power after losing an election?

[Crackpot]

I’ll save you some time and brain cells:

Libertys response:

Libs did it first!

[MajGenl.Meade]

I would have thought "my steppe people did it first" but there you go

[liberty]

Who really damaged this country was the Democrat Party, when they refused to convict Clinton in the Senate for a crime he committed: they virtually destroyed the impeachment process. They turned impeachment from an instrument meant to protect the nation into a political tool. For that, the Democrat Party should be condemned.

Impeachment is by definition a political tool, you blithering idiot. It doesn't require violation of any criminal statute, it's literally whatever Congress decides it can justify -- and sell to the public -- as "high crimes and misdemeanors." Is lying about a blowjob -- even under oath -- a sufficiently egregious offense to warrant removal from office? How about withholding Congressionally-mandated military aid in order to extort a foreign head of state into smearing your political opponent? How about inciting an insurrection and turning a mob loose on the Capitol to keep yourself in power after losing an election?

Well, you got your way. Instead of elevating the impeachment process into something nonpartisan—used to protect the country from a tyrant—it’s now just a political tool. Whoever has enough votes to ignore the will of the American people and select the president by impeaching both the president and vice president for being in the wrong party, then appointing their leader of the House.

Of course, I know you'd actually prefer the Politburo to rule, and for your political enemies to be taken out during the night—shot in the head and thrown in a ditch in some forest. But hey, you can't have everything.

So the Republicans did nothing wrong by acquitting Trump. It’s a political process—the only thing that matters is having enough votes to do what you want.

So, I reckon he was right: political power (and freedom) does come from the barrel of a gun (not reason).

[Burning Petard]

Me, I am still mad at Col. North for using his military office for personal benefit. And also for assuming the American people are stupid and ignorant. (sadly that since then, has been verified as true over and over) He had various improvements to his private home made and successfully billed the American tax-payer for it. Including a security fence that he said was necessary to stop rocket attacks against his home. As if rockets could not fly over his fence.

But of course the libs did it (and everything else) first. Liberals are for liberty and freedom. Conservatives are for conserving stability, against change, whatever the change might be.

snailgate.

[Big RR]

Well, you got your way. Instead of elevating the impeachment process into something nonpartisan—used to protect the country from a tyrant—it’s now just a political tool.

so, if I follow you correctly, you believe Clinton was a tyrant who had to be removed? Clinton was a lot of things--a liar, a philanderer, a guy who had an inflated view of himself, a bit of a jerk (IMHO), but i see no evidence of him being a tyrant. But go ahead and support your position.

WE have had a number of tyrants as the chief executive from both sides of the spectrum, and others who basically presided over the rule of their oligarchy (not tyrants exactly, but supporters of tyrannical views) in recent history, but none were even impeached, let alone tried for these actions. If that doesn't show that the impeachment is a political process, and has been through history, I don't know what would.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Thanks for this laugh of the day, Big RR:

But go ahead and support your position.

[Sue U]

Well, you got your way. Instead of elevating the impeachment process into something nonpartisan—used to protect the country from a tyrant—it’s now just a political tool. Whoever has enough votes to ignore the will of the American people and select the president by impeaching both the president and vice president for being in the wrong party, then appointing their leader of the House.

You truly are brick thick. Impeachment was the political tool available that could have been used to protect the country from further damage by Trump, but the Republicans apparently thought using the presidency to blackmail a European president into creating a phony scandal to smear a Democrat was no big deal, nor was inciting a mob to literally attack Congress to overturn an election. It seems to me these are tyrannical abuses of presidential power that would justify conviction and removal, but Mitch McConnell and the Senate Republicans weren't going to let the good of the country get in the way of their political power. As a result we've got Idiocracy 2: The Retribution Tour, now with 30% more white supremacist fascism.

If you're looking for impeachment as sheer political hackery, look no further than the impeachment of Bill Clinton for trying to cover up an affair with an intern. Seems almost quaint in light of the current president's record of sexual assaults (not to mention bank fraud, tax fraud, consumer fraud, charity fraud, etc.). Or how about the impeachment inquiry Republicans launched against Joe Biden that spent six months investigating Hunter Biden's penis, only to have the GOP's own star witnesses arrested by the FBI for lying and feeding them complete bullshit Russian disinformation. But sure, it's the Democrats.

Of course, I know you'd actually prefer the Politburo to rule, and for your political enemies to be taken out during the night—shot in the head and thrown in a ditch in some forest. But hey, you can't have everything.

Please fuck all the way off.

So the Republicans did nothing wrong by acquitting Trump. It’s a political process—the only thing that matters is having enough votes to do what you want.

That's literally American Government According To McConnell.

So, I reckon he was right: political power (and freedom) does come from the barrel of a gun (not reason).

Of course, it's a well known fact that the American Revolution, the French Revolution and the English Civil War were all won through arguments on the internet.

[BoSoxGal]

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. ~ Thomas Jefferson

[liberty]

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. ~ Thomas Jefferson

But it's unnecessary, we don't need to kill each other. All we need to do is agree on some basic principles. The Constitution says what it says, not what you want it to say. When it refers to "high crimes and misdemeanors," it means that if a president commits a crime, any crime that is a felony, it should be grounds for impeachment and removal from office.

Making Shit Head happy is not reason enough for Americans to murder each other.

[Sue U]

But it's unnecessary, we don't need to kill each other. All we need to do is agree on some basic principles. The Constitution says what it says, not what you want it to say. When it refers to "high crimes and misdemeanors," it means that if a president commits a crime, any crime that is a felony, it should be grounds for impeachment.

That's not what it says and it's not what that means. And according to the Supreme Court, the president can't even commit crimes while presidenting. The Constitution does not in fact say what you want it to say.

[liberty]

I thought you were a lawyer. As for me, all I have is a couple of civics books that I read alone in my log cabin on the Bayou, by the light of my coal oil lamp. But common sense should tell you, if not the books, that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime, tried, convicted, and sent to prison. If that were allowed, any prosecutor in this country could bring the government to a standstill by selectively picking a grand jury and indicting the president. I'm sure that's not what the Founders intended. If it were, why would they go to all the trouble of having a president in the first place? For a president to be indicted, he must first be out of office, and even then, he may have some immunity, like a judge does.

What was different about Clinton's impeachment trial was that there was hard evidence of a crime, specifically perjury, which is a felony under federal law. They also had physical evidence, the dress with the stains. But the Democratic side overlooked that. There was also a ton of evidence that wasn’t presented as criminal, but several women claimed he had molested them; one of them being Kathleen Willey, a Democrat who went to Clinton seeking a job. She alleged that he molested her by groping her in the Oval Office against her will. But that was all overlooked. Still, that’s politics. The only thing that seems to matter is having the power to do what you want, even if a Democratic president had committed murder, the party could choose to overlook it.

[MajGenl.Meade]

common sense should tell you . . . that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime, tried, convicted, and sent to prison

a) Thank you for the condescension.
b) No one (other than you) has even hinted that a sitting president can or should be "charged with a crime, tried, convicted and sent to prison". Why are you throwing indictments and such into a discussion of impeachment which is an utterly different animal?

For a president to be indicted, he must first be out of office—and even then, he may have some immunity

c) exactly as Sue (and everyone else here) understands. As she pointed out, the Supreme Court has now determined that almost any crime can be committed and if the President claims, no matter how spuriously, that he (Stan: "Or she") did it in the course of Presidenting, he (Stan: "Or she") is off the hook

d) you need to find some different books and also light your lamp. One that explains "high crimes and misdemeanors" would be a good start. Also, meditate upon oaths of office and public servants (this is a hint)