[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

If what you say is the correct path to follow in looking at a president , why did the Republican Congress waste two years investigating Whitewater and how is that different than Trump’s history
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device