|
|
#42
12-19-2005, 02:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: If it turns out that Bush broke a law with domestic spying....
[ QUOTE ]
Thats what the electorate thought, and that is one reason why he did not get convicted. [/ QUOTE ] I'm confused, are you telling me that the electorate wanted him to be impeached and that is why he was not convicted? That makes no sense at all. [ QUOTE ] However any reasonably intelligent person who followed the story knows he didn't get impeached, disbarred, or fined for getting a knobjob. [/ QUOTE ] What for then? All she did was give him head, so, it couldn't have been for sexual intercourse. Oh, I know, you are implying that he was impeached for false statements to a grand jury that an unbiased court of law subsequently ruled were irrelevant to the Paula Jones case, right? 
|
|
#43
12-19-2005, 02:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If it turns out that Bush broke a law with domestic spying....
[ QUOTE ]
Here is a good summary of what actually happened. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Impeachment is a means of removing criminal officials from high office. [/ QUOTE ] I'm never allowing my wife to give me head again, I don't want to be a criminal. [ QUOTE ] Republicans, who controlled both houses of Congress at the time, believed that Bill Clinton's suspected offenses qualified as impeachable high crimes. [/ QUOTE ] Now this is closer to the truth. [ QUOTE ] Article I: Perjury before grand jury on August 17, 1998 Article II: Perjury in Paula Jones case on December 23, 1997 and January 17, 1998 Article III: Obstruction of justice related to Paula Jones case Article IV: Abuse of high office [/ QUOTE ] None of which had anything to do with Whitewater, which is why he was being investigated in the first place. [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]
|
|
#44
12-19-2005, 12:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If it turns out that Bush broke a law with domestic spying....
[ QUOTE ]
Now this is closer to the truth. [ QUOTE ] Article I: Perjury before grand jury on August 17, 1998 Article II: Perjury in Paula Jones case on December 23, 1997 and January 17, 1998 Article III: Obstruction of justice related to Paula Jones case Article IV: Abuse of high office [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] Nothing in there about blow jobs or tossing the salad. Stu
|
|
#45
12-19-2005, 12:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If it turns out that Bush broke a law with domestic spying....
[ QUOTE ]
I'm confused, are you telling me that the electorate wanted him to be impeached and that is why he was not convicted? That makes no sense at all. [/ QUOTE ] First there is a difference between being impeached and being convicted. Clinton was impeached, thats a historical fact. He was tried by the senate and aquitted. What I'm telling you that the electorate did not want to see him get convicted. If the electorate wanted to see him convicted, Clinton would not have been aquitted. The electorate thought this case was about Clinton having an affiar and wanting to cover it up. [ QUOTE ] What for then? All she did was give him head, so, it couldn't have been for sexual intercourse. Oh, I know, you are implying that he was impeached for false statements to a grand jury that an unbiased court of law subsequently ruled were irrelevant to the Paula Jones case, right? [/ QUOTE ] He lied under oath. He may or may have not committed perjury. Our whole system of justice depends on people telling the truth under oath. Perjury is a crime that absolutely has to be taken seriously or our justice system becomes a sham. Stu
|
|
#46
12-19-2005, 12:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If it turns out that Bush broke a law with domestic spying....
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Right, he got impeached because he didn't think that a knobjob counted as sex. [/ QUOTE ] Here is a good summary of what actually happened. Stu [/ QUOTE ] Just to quote your source: [ QUOTE ] Allegations of perjury In his deposition for the Jones lawsuit, Clinton denied having "sexual relations" with Lewinsky. Based on the evidence provided by Tripp, Starr concluded that this sworn testimony was false and perjurious. The issue was greatly confused by an unusual definition for sexual contact which excluded oral sex. This definition was ordered by the Independent Counsel's Office during the initial questioning which led to the perjury allegations. [2] During the deposition, Clinton was asked "have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court." The judge ordered that Clinton be given an opportunity to review the agreed definition. Afterwards, based on the defintion created by the Independent Counsel's Office, which was limited strictly to intercourse, Clinton answered "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky." Clinton later stated that he believed the agreed-upon definition of sexual relations excluded his receiving oral sex. [/ QUOTE ] So he got impeached on allegations of perjury because he testified that he had not had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky because as it was defined, oral sex didn't count.
|
|
#47
12-19-2005, 08:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If it turns out that Bush broke a law with domestic spying....
[ QUOTE ]
Aren't you like a lawyer? If so, shouldn't you be better at reading cases? Some of the electronic surveillance was not covered because it wasn't authorized by the AG. But the surveillance that took place after the date of the AG's authorization was allowed in under the exception. Read pp.10-11 again: "[O]n April 4, 1997... the Attorney General gave her express authorization for the foreign intelligence collection techniques (including the post-April 4, 1997 electronic surveillance and the August 21, 1997 physical search) that were employed.... For these searches then, the exception to the warrant requirement for foreign intelligence surveillance is applicable and the government was not required to secure a warrant." [/ QUOTE ] Congratulations on getting through an entire post without name calling. Now, I will teach you another lesson: You are correct, I missed that the Court made a distinction between wiretaps. Thus, the Court's holding, as I originally thought (and should have stuck with) depended on the fact that the searches took place on foreign soil. Note the absence of any excuses about "two minutes of research" or any rationalization seeking to avoid confession of error. Not that I expect you to take the lesson, but, you never know. I am sure you read with interest Orin Kerr's volokh post analyzing the legality of this scheme. He concludes that the wiretaps may be constitutional (although he allows that his is a strained analysis -- a very significant concession considering the source), but concedes that they are likely illegal. What say you now?
|
|
#48
12-19-2005, 09:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If it turns out that Bush broke a law with domestic spying....
Thank God for an American president with the balls to take decisive action. Both parties in congress couldn't organize a circle jerk if their lives depended on it.
|
|
#49
12-20-2005, 03:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If it turns out that Bush broke a law with domestic spying....
[ QUOTE ]
Thank God for an American president with the balls to take decisive action. Both parties in congress couldn't organize a circle jerk if their lives depended on it. [/ QUOTE ] Haha, Bill's great.
|
|
#50
12-20-2005, 08:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If it turns out that Bush broke a law with domestic spying....
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I'm confused, are you telling me that the electorate wanted him to be impeached and that is why he was not convicted? That makes no sense at all. [/ QUOTE ] First there is a difference between being impeached and being convicted. Clinton was impeached, thats a historical fact. He was tried by the senate and aquitted. What I'm telling you that the electorate did not want to see him get convicted. If the electorate wanted to see him convicted, Clinton would not have been aquitted. The electorate thought this case was about Clinton having an affiar and wanting to cover it up. [ QUOTE ] What for then? All she did was give him head, so, it couldn't have been for sexual intercourse. Oh, I know, you are implying that he was impeached for false statements to a grand jury that an unbiased court of law subsequently ruled were irrelevant to the Paula Jones case, right? [/ QUOTE ] He lied under oath. He may or may have not committed perjury. Our whole system of justice depends on people telling the truth under oath. Perjury is a crime that absolutely has to be taken seriously or our justice system becomes a sham. Stu [/ QUOTE ] Clinton didn't get convicted because he didn't abuse the power of the presidency. Abuse of Power is the main condition for removing a president. He probably shouldn't have been impeached in the first place. Bush, seems to have abused the power of the presidency. I doubt the House will have the political will to impeach him. It almost is more about what the political will of the House and the Senate as to whether Bush actually committed a crime, if we suppose that he did. I doubt the House "wants " to impeach Bush. So it probably won't happen. Did you see C. Rice on Meet the Press? She refused to even defend the President against the charge of breaking the law. Instead she dodged the question and insisted that security was the most important priority. I'm guessing the House will probably see things her way and ignore the technicalities of whether laws were broken. If they wanted to get Bush they could have went after him for torture or illegal detainees of prisoners.
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
