Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F.
No, you're wrong.
You said this: "You might also note that the personal ethics that most complain about occurred before he became President. His past actions should not be used to accuse him of besmirching his present office."
Ken Starr and his leaky apprentices, one of whom was Kavanaugh (had to throw that in), spent two years investigating Whitewater, which occurred prior to Clinton's election and when they could not find what they wanted, the Republicans moved on to other things, since they were out to "get" him. That was called "a witch hunt" but by the Democratic minority, not the President.
Luckily for Clinton his approval rating was double what Trump's is and actually increased to 70% the week of his impeachment.
That's a far cry from Trump's, which floats one side or the other of 40%.
|
You'll note that I specifically said "His past actions should not be used to accuse him of
besmirching his present office." Was Clinton accused of besmirching the Presidency because of Whitewater or anything he did before he became President? His past actions, whatever they were or were not, did not besmirch the Office of President. They may have said something about his character before he became President. But his lecherous, unfaithful character, while actually being President, is what disgraced the office of President.
I also said, which you did not include here, was that "if his past actions have not been continued in his role of POTUS, should they be considered the "means" he uses to get things done as President?"
It is not reasonable nor logical to say that what Trump did in the past and is not doing while in office are the means or method that he uses now to do things like growing the economy. That makes no sense.
So the rabbit hole of Whitewater and Vince Foster have nothing to do with what I said. They are a change of subject.