Why are you trying to pass lie after lie? Yes Bill Clinton was given this same treatment, the only difference being much of the investigation was handled by special council, but that also happened confidentially, and behind closed doors. And you're right, there is a big difference between investigation and normal investigations, which is why these are private hearings. And no evidence? Multiple corroborating testimonies and admission on TV and presentation of a memo demonstrate otherwise.
Stop trolling, you're only digging yourself a deeper grave.
The full house voted to conduct an impeachment inquiry. Clinton's attorney was permitted to be at every hearing and cross examine witness . The Democrats were permitted to call witness and cross examine and committee member voted on various matters. Bill Clinton's impeachment were the result of being found guilty of eleven charges of obstruction and lying by a special prosecutor. It was then referred to the congress for action. None of the Clinton inquires were conducted behind closed doors with no participation of Democrats. Before you accuse me of lying you better do some homework.
Solid job on wikipedia grabbing out of context info, but you forgot that the special council for Clinton included confidential testimonies and evidence which is exactly what I told you. His House didn't need to investigate testimony privately. Thanks to the Starr Report, their hearings were allowed to be public because information was already gathered. Notice how almost every hearing post Mueller Report was made public? Same thing. And again, as stated, House is granted the power to run the impeachment in broad terms in the constitution, so all of this is based on thin, desperate talking points to try and avoid the testimonies and evidence being provided.
And it's Republicans who voted that the minority should have less power in inquiry. That's your side's fault farmbot.
Log in to comment