benny 0 #151 February 14, 2004 QuoteThey determined he lied under oath under penalty of perjury, yet no sanction was done. Actually, according to the letter of the law in the United States of America, you're wrong. QuoteFebruary 12, 1999 The Senate adjudged that William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, is not guilty as charged in article II (Obstruction of Justice), two-thirds not having pronounced him guilty. (50 guilty; 50 not guilty). February 12, 1999 The Senate adjudged that William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, is not guilty as charged in article I (Perjury Before the Grand Jury), two-thirds not having pronounced him guilty. (45 guilty; 55 not guilty). Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #152 February 14, 2004 I suppose it depends on what the definition of "guilty" is.... Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #153 February 14, 2004 QuoteI suppose it depends on what the definition of "guilty" is.... Ciels- Michele Well, in most courts they require unaminous proclamations of guilt. For impeachment it's only 2/3, either way, Clinton was found not guilty. Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #154 February 14, 2004 QuoteQuoteThey determined he lied under oath under penalty of perjury, yet no sanction was done. Actually, according to the letter of the law in the United States of America, you're wrong. QuoteFebruary 12, 1999 The Senate adjudged that William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, is not guilty as charged in article II (Obstruction of Justice), two-thirds not having pronounced him guilty. (50 guilty; 50 not guilty). February 12, 1999 The Senate adjudged that William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, is not guilty as charged in article I (Perjury Before the Grand Jury), two-thirds not having pronounced him guilty. (45 guilty; 55 not guilty). So i guess his own admissions on the press, *ahem* I DID NOT HAVE SEX WITH THAT WOMAN, with a later disclaimer, that he indeed had improper relations with THAT WOMAN, is well, product of Plexar...."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #155 February 14, 2004 QuoteSo i guess his own admissions on the press, *ahem* I DID NOT HAVE SEX WITH THAT WOMAN, with a later disclaimer, that he indeed had improper relations with THAT WOMAN WEll I guess you would have to know the thinking in the minds of GOOD OLE BOYS.. in his mind sex is that whole man woman.. roll around and get sweaty thang..... and oral copulation just is not that. I grew up with plenty of guys who were like that in the south.. if its not "real" sex that can get you pregnant its just not sex. I didnt make the rules I just had to grow up with those attitudes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #156 February 14, 2004 THen by those standards, it will be great if I were single at the time. If you don't think nothing of it then, well, you can have fun BJ'ing anyone you like in public, we will have good thoughts about you then...."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #157 February 14, 2004 Quote you can have fun BJ'ing anyone you like in public Nah I leave that to you guys.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #158 February 14, 2004 >they see that, rather as a demonstration of virility that is so good for > this country, yet who figures, fighting bush gets smacked for > another way to show the same thing.... Was there a thought in that sentence? What's a fighting bush? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #159 February 14, 2004 Quote>they see that, rather as a demonstration of virility that is so good for > this country, yet who figures, fighting bush gets smacked for > another way to show the same thing.... Was there a thought in that sentence? What's a fighting bush? Bill, I ran it through pornolize.com hoping something might emerge, but no luck: >they see that, rather as a felching demonstration of virility that is so good for > this country, yet who figures, fighting bush cocksucks farted for > another way to show the same thing.... . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdweller 0 #160 February 14, 2004 Clinton was impeached. Wasn't he also disbarred as well?------------------------------------------------------ "From the mightiest pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" C. Montgomery Burns Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sdgregory 0 #161 February 14, 2004 Thank you thank you thank you thank you! Something we can disagree on! I think many of us do care about affairs. It is a sign to the CHARACTER of the person. I do not trust a man who is not trusted by his wife. She nkows him better than anybody and if she cannot trust him how can we. I dare you to tell a potential mate that noone cares about affairs, that people have them and its no big deal. Go on, I DARE ya! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #162 February 14, 2004 QuoteClinton was impeached. Wasn't he also disbarred as well? Well, impeachment is a process, not a proclamation of guilt airdweller. It's not my fault you have a limited understanding of the American legal and political systems. Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #163 February 14, 2004 QuoteIt's not my fault you have a limited understanding of the American legal and political systems. Benny, one would suggest you learn a bit more about the process before you start slamming others on their understanding of it. Might I suggest this as a place to start, and to follow, some research into how impeachment works? Below, I've primered the explanation for you. Quote impeachment is a process, No, it's not. Impeachment is the act of formally accusing a public official of crimes or serious misconduct. Under the Constitution, the power to impeach lies with the House of Representatives. Therefore, the House has the responsibility to charge a US official, and the Senate conducts any trial that might result from an impeachment. On December 19, 1998, Clinton was impeached by the House on two counts - 228 to 206 to approve proposed Article I of Impeachment, and voted 221 to 212 to approve proposed Article III of Impeachment. Therefore, yes, Clinton was impeached. As it is the Senate's responsibility to try the impeachment case, it then was sent to the Senate for resolution. As the verdict was not guilty, there was no further action taken. Clinton was not convicted of any crimes, but he was impeached. And yes, Clinton was disbarred. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #164 February 14, 2004 QuoteI don't think it was an intern, yet many now don't think that is reason enough to disqualify someone to be president......they see that, rather as a demonstration of virility that is so good for this country, yet who figures, fighting bush gets smacked for another way to show the same thing.... Bush fighting? Where? I thought he sent others to do that for him.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #165 February 14, 2004 >Clinton was not convicted of any crimes, but he was impeached. Which is akin to saying that Joe Smith was indicted for murder but found not guilty. You can, of course, claim that only the guilty are indicted etc but in our judicial system if you are found not guilty it means (legally) you didn't do it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiverRick 0 #166 February 14, 2004 QuoteQuoteI don't think it was an intern, yet many now don't think that is reason enough to disqualify someone to be president......they see that, rather as a demonstration of virility that is so good for this country, yet who figures, fighting bush gets smacked for another way to show the same thing.... Bush fighting? Where? I thought he sent others to do that for him. Then he didn't invade Bagdad either. never pull low......unless you are Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #167 February 14, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteI don't think it was an intern, yet many now don't think that is reason enough to disqualify someone to be president......they see that, rather as a demonstration of virility that is so good for this country, yet who figures, fighting bush gets smacked for another way to show the same thing.... Bush fighting? Where? I thought he sent others to do that for him. Then he didn't invade Bagdad either. Well, to be honest I'm not altogether sure what the original post (in blue above) meant since the language was so tortured. But IF it implied that sending other men to fight and die for your own political gain was a sign of virility, THEN I disagree. ELSE If it meant something different, then maybe someone will explain what it did mean.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #168 February 14, 2004 The verb "impeach" has several meanings: -- impeach -- challenge the honesty or credibility of; as of witnesses -- impeach -- charge with an offense or misdemeanor; "The public officials were impeached" -- accuse, impeach, incriminate, criminate -- bring an accusation against; level a charge against; "He impeached the man with spousal abuse" None of them imply guilt.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #169 February 14, 2004 QuoteNone of them imply guilt. But all of them happened to Clinton.... Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #170 February 14, 2004 QuoteNone of them imply guilt. Additionally, "On his last full day in office, President Clinton today finally acknowledged he testified falsely about his affair with Monica Lewinsky, striking a deal with Independent Counsel Robert Ray that allows him to avoid criminal indictment....." Further... "In ending the legal saga, the White House continued to carefully parse the president's words, insisting Clinton had not committed perjury. While he spoke untruths, aides say, he did not do so "intentionally." In effect, they say, he tried to speak the truth -- but failed. "He did not lie. We have not admitted he lied," Clinton attorney David Kendall said." Excerpted from Full article here.... So, Clinton was able to avoid criminal prosecution with an admission of guilt...and he barely squeaked by on a trial in the Senate (mostly by party lines). Furthermore, Clinton struck a deal with Ray to avoid any additional prosecution and dropping of further investigation. Well, lessee... 1. He was impeached. 2. The Senate found him not guitly. 3. He struck a deal to avoid additional prosecution by admitting he falsely testified. What part of that do you find incomprehensible? Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #171 February 14, 2004 QuoteHe struck a deal to avoid additional prosecution by admitting he falsely testified. I wonder if bush will use his last day in office to finally admit he knew there were no WMD and that the real reason for invading Iraq was oil and money for his croneys. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #172 February 14, 2004 What I find incomprehensible is that during the process of impeachment he was found not guilty and you guys still seem to think that equals guilty. Plus the fact that this man led the nation through 8 of its most peaceful and prosperous years ever despite the fact that he was under constant attack by the Republican party. And you still choose to ignore this and make his testimony before that grand jury the most critical part of his administration. But, that's what happens when people are more concerned when guys lie about their "little missiles" than when guys lie about "small and shortlived" budget deficits and real big missiles. Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #173 February 14, 2004 Benny, It really comes down to how you personally prioritize the issues. Clinton's priorities didn't even resemble mine. And as far as his guilt is concerned, there was so much evidence you would think the OJ jury was in the senate at the time. Chris _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #174 February 14, 2004 QuoteAnd you still choose to ignore this and make his testimony before that grand jury the most critical part of his administration. Benny, please. We are discussing impeachment. The topic was, and remains, impeachment...(actually, the topic is Kerry's infidelity and immorality....) Impeachment is the action of being accused of something. How difficult is that to understand? Was Clinton formally accused of something or not, in your opinion? Clinton falsely testified. How difficult is that to understand? Or did he not admit to testifying falsely, in your opinion? Clinton was found "not guilty" during the Senate hearings. He was impeached, or there could not have been hearings. (Despite admitting it later....sigh...I'm just waiting for OJ to finally admit it, too...) Are you going to argue with Merriam Webster's definition, the Constitution, and all of the factual happenings during the late 90's? If so, I am pretty well done with this. Your intentional obtusity (is that a word?) is boring. Justin, time will tell, yes? (oh, and to make the record clear, I voted for Clinton...how's that for a surprise?) Ceils- Michele edited to add an opening parenthesis... ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #175 February 14, 2004 When did I ever say he was not impeached Michele? Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
