lawrocket 3 #51 November 1, 2006 QuoteClinton was not convicted... this guy was... Clinton was never brought to court. Do you think that an Attorney General is gonna bring his/her boss to face charges? I'll repeat - why did Clinton's Attorney General decline to press charges against him? I mean, really, the investigation revealed that, yup, he perjured himself and obstructed justice. Enough to bring charges against him, yessiree! Can you imagine that cabinet meeting? "Janet. I know there's pressure on you to bring me up on charges. You really don't wanna do that, do you? Just to make sure, watch what happens to Barr and Gingrich. I'm not saying you'll get the Vince Foster treatment, but you never can tell." QuoteThis guy was part of the Abramoff culture of corruption that was and is butt fucking the american people Actually, no, he wasn't corrupt. In fact, they made it a point to ensure that they knew he did nothing other than obstruct justice. A crime in and of itself. I ask you all this: Which is worse? Lying to protect your friends and associates? Or getting your friends and associaes to lie along with you to protect yourself. This guy who is going to jail GOT NOTHING for it. NOTHING. At least Clinton got blown by a young low-level government employee. CLinton got away with it BECAUSE he was president. Bush is getting away with it BECAUSE he is president. LEt the minions go to jail. We are a nation of men, not laws. Laws apply to all but those in power. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #52 November 1, 2006 Your knowledge of south America, seems to be close to none. Are you ok? Where you get this ideas of firing squads, in most South American countries there is no death penalty within their own justice system. I don't need to hang nowhere, I am not expecting for Bubba to be ever convicted. What really amazes me is how his admirers make all this fuzz about the BJ, while failing to see that it was the obstruction of justice and perjury what really matters to me. No firing squad mention as you can see."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
juanesky 0 #53 November 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteYou keep mentioning is a judicial process. Refer to this link so you can understand the impeachement process. http://www.abanet.org/publiced/impeach2.html Impeachements are different process from criminal and civil courts, refer to article 1 section 2 of the constitution. Clinton got off easy for the same offense this guy is now in jail for. Of course impeachments are different than criminal and civil courts. Just like state courts are different than federal courts or local courts. But they are all part of America's system of justice. Why is that so hard for you to understand? No, they are all part of the American system of Government, it is not the job of the house of representatives to dispense justice, but it is within their duties and powers assigned by the constituion to write the articles of impeachement. Let me spell it out for you, there are 2 branches of Govt. The executive, legislative, and the Judicial. (At least last time I checked."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
jcd11235 0 #54 November 1, 2006 QuoteClinton was never brought to court. Do you think that an Attorney General is gonna bring his/her boss to face charges? I'll repeat - why did Clinton's Attorney General decline to press charges against him? I mean, really, the investigation revealed that, yup, he perjured himself and obstructed justice. Enough to bring charges against him, yessiree! According to the Constitution, charges are brought upon a sitting president via impeachment. Clinton was impeached, and subsequently found guilty. He escaped neither persecution nor prosecution.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #55 November 1, 2006 So We can guess that lying under oath, and obstructing justice is ok with you. If that is the case the referenced sentence should not apply, and he should be set free."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
jcd11235 0 #56 November 1, 2006 QuoteSo We can guess that lying under oath, and obstructing justice is ok with you. If that is the case the referenced sentence should not apply, and he should be set free. What possibly gave you that idea. Clinton was charged. Clinton was prosecuted. Clinton was acquitted. What more do you want? We have laws against double jeopardy in the US.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #57 November 1, 2006 Your constant denial that he did committ perjury."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
jcd11235 0 #58 November 1, 2006 QuoteYour constant denial that he did committ perjury. He was impeached and acquitted of perjury. I have to assume that those who heard the testimony were better qualified to make a decision on his guilt or non-guilt than armchair quarterbacks on a skydiving forum. Until we get a better system, the Constitution will have to suffice.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #59 November 1, 2006 Quote We are a nation of men, not laws. Laws apply to all but those in power. I find myself agreeing and disagreeing with you on many of your finer points. Sometimes within the same point. However you nailed this one squarely. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #60 November 1, 2006 Quote What really amazes me is how his admirers make all this fuzz about the BJ, while failing to see that it was the obstruction of justice and perjury what really matters to me. Well for me, what it comes down to is this: Clinton was scrutinized and critized at taxpayer expense for his entire term. They kept the pressure on (through those 1000 Republican subpeonas referenced in another thread). Most of the scrutiny was over things of absolutely no real consequence and actually more resembled harassment. His actual crimes and supposed crimes were of no real consequence to anyone. To the contrary, Bush's actions, which have proven to be deadly and very expensive in more ways than one...have met with no legal scrutiny. In a nutshell, the Republican view is that "Clinton's personal habits which have no national consequence are deplorable yet Bush's actions which result in dead US troops, more enemies and a further bankrupt Treasury are somehow examples of acceptable...no.....admirable leadership. The double standard is so blatant that it's mind boggling. But then again, that's how "the big lie" works. Shove it in their faces and they'll think "no one would be so brazen as to be so blatantly deceptive". Me? I'm praying that my sons have access to accurate reference sources while they're growing up so that they can ask me "what in hell was the matter with you people back then?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #61 November 1, 2006 Yes, like Bush has not been criticized nor scrutinized either. Check the current movement that is calling for his impeachment. If Bush is charged with articles of impeachment, I'll say go for it. You may think that his actual crimes and supposed ones were of no real consequence, but that is your opinion, which you are entitled to. I beg to differ, he sent plenty of us to harms way, refused to go after OBL and made a huge blunder with NK, among other things. IMHO, we have been at war before GWB was President and Clinton did very little to even consider it."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
jcd11235 0 #62 November 1, 2006 Quote refused to go after OBL and made a huge blunder with NK, among other things. IMHO, we have been at war before GWB was President and Clinton did very little to even consider it. Clinton had plans to go after OBL, but FBI and CIA would not say with certainty that OBL was behind USS Cole attack. The right was bitching about how Clinton was obsessed with OBL back then. It's ironic that now they are complaining about how he did not go to war without good intelligence.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #63 November 1, 2006 You seem to be implying that the only attack from OBL during Clinton was the USS Cole."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
NCclimber 0 #64 November 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteSo We can guess that lying under oath, and obstructing justice is ok with you. If that is the case the referenced sentence should not apply, and he should be set free. What possibly gave you that idea. Clinton was charged. Clinton was prosecuted. Clinton was acquitted. What more do you want? To know what were the key factors to the deal he cut, with federal prosecutors, on his last day in office??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #65 November 1, 2006 QuoteTo know what were the key factors to the deal he cut, with federal prosecutors, on his last day in office??? How about we do that right after Bush's criminal record is made public? Would only be fair don't you think? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #66 November 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteTo know what were the key factors to the deal he cut, with federal prosecutors, on his last day in office??? How about we do that right after Bush's criminal record is made public? Would only be fair don't you think? Why does it have to be conditional to unrelated factors? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #67 November 1, 2006 Both relate to criminal activity with regards to a president. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #68 November 1, 2006 So we can't shed light on one as as a stand alone situation? BTW I think Bush's criminal record involves a single DUI charge, from many years ago. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #69 November 1, 2006 QuoteBTW I think Bush's criminal record involves a single DUI charge, from many years ago. Who knows, they have been sealed for a long time. If that is all there is, everybody already knows that, why keep the records sealed? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #70 November 1, 2006 QuoteClinton was charged. Clinton was prosecuted. Clinton was acquitted. What more do you want? We have laws against double jeopardy in the US. From the impeachment standpoint, yes he was. From the criminal standpoint, no he wasn't. Think OJ Simpson, okay? OJ was found "not guilty" of the crime of murder. OJ was later found "liable" for the death of his ex-wife. Double Jeopardy? No. I don't think that what you are syaing makes sense. Here's why - I have posited to you that impeachment and conviction removes a POTUS from the office of presidency. The process does not result in jail time or other such punishment that denies the POTUS of freedoms. Under your theory, the worst a President could face is removal from office. Let's say a President accepts $2 million to veto legislation. This is an impeachable offense. This is also a federal crime. You are saying that the House has a choice - either impeach him and let him walk free or letting him remain as POTUS - from jail. Such a set-up would make zero sense - it isn't double jeopardy. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #71 November 1, 2006 QuoteLet's say a President accepts $2 million to veto legislation. This Congress essentially has.. BUT we call them campaign contributions.. from corporations... legislation that benifits the american people has been woefully missing.. while corporate welfare is at an all time high. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #72 November 1, 2006 That's a hijack. So, would you then agree that Clinton lied under oath and did not face any criminal consequence for it while lower peasants would have? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #73 November 1, 2006 Would you agree that SEMANTICALLY..... he was NOT lying. There are a HUGE percentage of people in this country who actually BELIEVE... that oral sex is is not considered sexual relations....." I did not have SEXUAL RELATIONS with that woman" Come on Mr Lawyer.. you LIVE by semantics. I know you cant... but its nice to know that politics even clouds you view of the correct semantics to use. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #74 November 1, 2006 QuoteSo, would you then agree that Clinton lied under oath I would liek to see some evidence on where he lied under oath, other than related to his comment about "sexual relations". If he lied about anything under oath, then I agree with you completely. Though it has been said many times, technically he did not lie about the "sexual relations" part. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #75 November 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteHope there's room in his cell for the rest of them Many officials are competent Tony, such as Condi Rice and Bush himself I don't know enough about Condi to say one way or the other. Sometimes she seems sharp and I'm impressed, other times she seems like a lap dog and I'm disappointed that she isn't using what appears to be a perfectly functional brain. In either case, Bush himself is far from competent. The man is a buffoon. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
