WHY SENATE DID NOT CONVICT (l)
Walt Horning
- Congress has no balls to stand up for justice?
- Clinton threatend Senator's lives?
- Carville and Flynt used more FBI data to blackmale Senate?
- Chinese threatened Senator's lives?
- xx Senators have also sexually harassed/raped women?
- They did not have time for a real trial before their winter break?
- Democrats are "convicts and liars" like Clinton?
- Madam Attorney General has her own set of FBI files on Senators?
- Bill Clinton promised he'd send Senators their own interns?
- Money and power never get convicted for anything? (poor always get
convicted; irony: Democrats, party of the poor? Like hell!)
- Rich Democrat supporters bribed Senators?
- Vernon Jordon hit a hole in one?
Philip Bourgeois
Walt Horning <whor...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:385ee628....@news.pipeline.com...
Dan Moore
>
> Why Senate did not convict:
>
> - Congress has no balls to stand up for justice?
True. If it were not true, Reagan would have been hanged
for treason and war crimes.
> - Clinton threatend Senator's lives?
No evidence of that.
> - Carville and Flynt used more FBI data to blackmale Senate?
No evidence of that.
> - Chinese threatened Senator's lives?
No evidence of that. Bizzare fantasy.
> - xx Senators have also sexually harassed/raped women?
Your use of the term "also" is noted. Some Senators
have been accused of these things.
> - They did not have time for a real trial before their winter break?
They choose their own breaks. If this is correct, it
demonstrates how little the Senate thought of the House's
silly charges.
> - Democrats are "convicts and liars" like Clinton?
Clinton is not a convict. Why the partisan distinction?
> - Madam Attorney General has her own set of FBI files on Senators?
No evidence of that.
> - Bill Clinton promised he'd send Senators their own interns?
They already have them.
> - Money and power never get convicted for anything? (poor always get
> convicted; irony: Democrats, party of the poor? Like hell!)
Ask OJ about money and aquittals.
> - Rich Democrat supporters bribed Senators?
And rich Republicans too. Unfortunately, these parties
have made it legal to do so.
> - Vernon Jordon hit a hole in one?
???
Gregory Gadow
> Why Senate did not convict:
- Because standing as a court, they found no grounds on which to impeach?
--
Gregory Gadow
E-mail: tech...@serv.net
American Liberal Party: http://www.americanliberal.org
I am a resident of Washington State. Any commerical
e-mail sent with false or misleading headers is in
violation of state law and subjectto a $500 penalty.
I WILL FILE CHARGES!
Johann von Tebbes
Gregory Gadow wrote in message <83oo4e$3c3$0...@199.201.191.2>...
>Walt Horning wrote:
>
>> Why Senate did not convict:
>
>- Because standing as a court, they found no grounds on which to impeach?
Klinton WAS impeached. The Senate simply chose not to remove him from
office.
>
>
Johann von Tebbes
Dan Moore wrote in message <385FA219...@earthlink.net>...
>Walt Horning wrote:
>>
>> Why Senate did not convict:
>>
>
>True. If it were not true, Reagan would have been hanged
>for treason and war crimes.
The vicious democrats in charge during Reagan's presidency did their damnest
to hang trumped up charges on Reagan. The failed inspite of their help from
the media.
>
>> - Clinton threatend Senator's lives?
>
>No evidence of that.
>
>> - Carville and Flynt used more FBI data to blackmale Senate?
>
>No evidence of that.
Don't know but seems natural for those two hate-mongers.
>
>> - Chinese threatened Senator's lives?
>
>No evidence of that. Bizzare fantasy.
Maybe. Certainly possible under this administration.
>
>> - xx Senators have also sexually harassed/raped women?
>
>Your use of the term "also" is noted. Some Senators
>have been accused of these things.
>
>> - They did not have time for a real trial before their winter break?
>
>They choose their own breaks. If this is correct, it
>demonstrates how little the Senate thought of the House's
>silly charges.
>
>> - Democrats are "convicts and liars" like Clinton?
>
>Clinton is not a convict.
He should be.
Why the partisan distinction?
>
>> - Madam Attorney General has her own set of FBI files on Senators?
>
>No evidence of that.
Lots of evidence of that. Where do you think Larry Flynt got his data?
>
>> - Bill Clinton promised he'd send Senators their own interns?
>
>They already have them.
>
>> - Money and power never get convicted for anything? (poor always get
>> convicted; irony: Democrats, party of the poor? Like hell!)
>
>Ask OJ about money and aquittals.
>
>> - Rich Democrat supporters bribed Senators?
>
>And rich Republicans too. Unfortunately, these parties
>have made it legal to do so.
>
>> - Vernon Jordon hit a hole in one?
I agree on that one. Jordan will never go to jail but he should have gone
back in the sixties for helping ML King with his communists
activities.
jvt
Gregory Gadow
> Gregory Gadow wrote in message <83oo4e$3c3$0...@199.201.191.2>...
> >Walt Horning wrote:
> >
> >> Why Senate did not convict:
> >
> >- Because standing as a court, they found no grounds on which to impeach?
>
> Klinton WAS impeached. The Senate simply chose not to remove him from
> office.
Stop the childish name calling and reread the US Constitution. The House does
NOT impeach; they draw up charges for which the Senate shall act as jury. To
draw parallels to the regular courts of law, the House acts as the District
Attorney's office, the Senate as the jury, and the Chief Justice as the judge.
If you do not like this, then try proposing an amendment that will allow the
House and the House alone to impeach.
Dr. Roger M. Firestone
>
>True. If it were not true, Reagan would have been hanged
>for treason and war crimes.
Treason has a very precise definition and standard of proof in the
Constitution of the United States of America. Can you provide the
necessary evidence (two witnesses to the same act or confession in open
court) of any act of Reagan's which would constitute "adhering to the
country's enemies and giving them aid and comfort?" Can you even name a
single act by President Reagan which could be called treasonable? (One
reason there hasn't been a treason trial in a long time is that the
United States currently has no official enemies--since the Congress has
not passed a declaration of war since 08 December 1941. Otherwise, it
might have been Jane Fonda and other visitors to Hanoi at the end of
that rope...) Which "enemy" of the US did Reagan adhere to and support?
Iran? There are some very fruity quotes by Sen. Ted Kennedy about the
Shah that could have been characterized as giving support to the
revolutionary regime in Iran. Can we hang Teddy, too?
As for war crimes, well, that term has a fairly solid definition. The
US wasn't at war with anyone that I recall during the Reagan
Administration. Who were these war crimes committed against? What were
they?
You are just consumed with hatred for Ronald Reagan because he was a
successful President of a political party you don't belong to. (And
probably also you are so embarrassed by your party's current President
that you have to tear down any standard to which Clinton might be
compared.)
I'm always amused by the Clintonistas who accuse Republicans of "hating"
Clinton. It was the Left's unadulterated and often-expressed hatred of
Ronald Reagan that introduced personal animadversion into the mainstream
political scene of the post-war years. (Although maybe we can date it
to hatred of LBJ and Nixon instead. But still the Left.) Here, above,
is an example of that hatred.
martin c kleczynski
and have it all on film and still the Senate could not generate the 67
votes. (my paraphrase)
Dan Moore <iron...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:385FA219...@earthlink.net...
> Walt Horning wrote:
> >
> > Why Senate did not convict:
> >
> > - Congress has no balls to stand up for justice?
>
> True. If it were not true, Reagan would have been hanged
> for treason and war crimes.
>
>
> No evidence of that.
>
> > - Carville and Flynt used more FBI data to blackmale Senate?
>
> No evidence of that.
>
>
> No evidence of that. Bizzare fantasy.
>
>
> Your use of the term "also" is noted. Some Senators
> have been accused of these things.
>
> > - They did not have time for a real trial before their winter break?
>
> They choose their own breaks. If this is correct, it
> demonstrates how little the Senate thought of the House's
> silly charges.
>
> > - Democrats are "convicts and liars" like Clinton?
>
>
> > - Madam Attorney General has her own set of FBI files on Senators?
>
> No evidence of that.
>
>
> They already have them.
>
> > - Money and power never get convicted for anything? (poor always get
> > convicted; irony: Democrats, party of the poor? Like hell!)
>
> Ask OJ about money and aquittals.
>
> > - Rich Democrat supporters bribed Senators?
>
> And rich Republicans too. Unfortunately, these parties
> have made it legal to do so.
>
> > - Vernon Jordon hit a hole in one?
>
>
DorrPoster
news:oFM74.625$B9.7...@feed.centuryinter.net...
> I bet you keep your walls lined with aluminum foil, don't ya????
That's a pretty sure bet! <g>
> Walt Horning <whor...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
> news:385ee628....@news.pipeline.com...
> > Why Senate did not convict:
> >
> > - Congress has no balls to stand up for justice?
You're right there - the Republicans have no balls.
> > - Clinton threatend Senator's lives?
Oh, yeah. You curl your hair with your fingers while watching the UFOs,
don't you?
> > - Carville and Flynt used more FBI data to blackmale Senate?
Of course - isn't it obvious? They had the goods on the Republicans, since
there was incriminating data on your glorious Senatorial Republicans to
blackmail them with.
> > - Chinese threatened Senator's lives?
You're kidding, right? It's the Pigmies of Australia, not the Chinese!
> > - xx Senators have also sexually harassed/raped women?
You're making quite a case against them ol' Republicans, aren't you? Like
the good gentleman from Oregon?
> > - They did not have time for a real trial before their winter break?
Right again. They have so little regard for the people they represent, that
they were willing to forgoe the trial for that. You have so little regard
for the Republican Majority. Shame on you!
> > - Democrats are "convicts and liars" like Clinton?
Uh, huh. You really should watch your mouth. All Republicans are whores for
Big Business, too, right?
> > - Madam Attorney General has her own set of FBI files on Senators?
Again, it's obvious - she had so much on the Republicans they just folded up
and went home.
> > - Bill Clinton promised he'd send Senators their own interns?
I'm sure that's what it is. That's all it takes for the Republicans.
> > - Money and power never get convicted for anything? (poor always get
convicted; irony: Democrats, party of the poor? Like hell!)
You're right. Republicans don't seem to get convicted.
> > - Rich Democrat supporters bribed Senators?
Those Republicans are so easy to bribe, I'm sure that's part of it.
> > - Vernon Jordon hit a hole in one?
Uh, yeah...
Fletch F. Fletch
"Gregory Gadow" <tech...@serv.net> wrote in message news:83ou42$j10$0...@199.201.191.2...
> Johann von Tebbes wrote:
>
> > Gregory Gadow wrote in message <83oo4e$3c3$0...@199.201.191.2>...
> > >Walt Horning wrote:
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Klinton WAS impeached. The Senate simply chose not to remove him from
> > office.
>
> Stop the childish name calling and reread the US Constitution. The House does
> NOT impeach; they draw up charges for which the Senate shall act as jury. To
> draw parallels to the regular courts of law, the House acts as the District
> Attorney's office, the Senate as the jury, and the Chief Justice as the judge.
> If you do not like this, then try proposing an amendment that will allow the
> House and the House alone to impeach.
Perhaps you misunderstand the term impeach. Many people think it means to convict and remove.
The House does impeach. It has the sole power of impeachment. The Senate tries all impeachments.
This is clearly spelled out in the Constitution. There is no ambiguity.
Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 5
"The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole
power of impeachment. "
Article 1, Section 3, Paragraph 6
"The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they
shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice
shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members
present."
Fletch
bre...@no-spam.com
being assassinated by Clinton. :-)
Cheers,
Bredon
---
On Tue, 21 Dec 1999 09:08:10 -0600, "Philip Bourgeois"
<Phi...@centurytel.net> wrote:
>I bet you keep your walls lined with aluminum foil, don't ya????
>Walt Horning <whor...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
>news:385ee628....@news.pipeline.com...
>> Why Senate did not convict:
>>
>> - Congress has no balls to stand up for justice?
>> - Clinton threatend Senator's lives?
>> - Carville and Flynt used more FBI data to blackmale Senate?
>> - Chinese threatened Senator's lives?
>> - xx Senators have also sexually harassed/raped women?
>> - They did not have time for a real trial before their winter break?
>> - Democrats are "convicts and liars" like Clinton?
>> - Madam Attorney General has her own set of FBI files on Senators?
>> - Bill Clinton promised he'd send Senators their own interns?
>> - Money and power never get convicted for anything? (poor always get
>> convicted; irony: Democrats, party of the poor? Like hell!)
>> - Rich Democrat supporters bribed Senators?
>> - Vernon Jordon hit a hole in one?
>>
>
OSCE reports Dec 6, 99:http://www.osce.org/kosovo/reports/hr/part1/p0cont.htm
USSD report Dec 99: http://www.state.gov/www/global/human_rights/kosovoii/homepage.html
---
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/4809
I. The Law of General Beneficence: (Golden Rule, help the community)
II. The Law of Special Beneficence (Put own family and friends first)
III. Duties to Parents, Elders, Ancestors (Respect and care for elders)
IV. Duties to Children and Posterity (Protect and care for children)
V. The Law of Justice (marriage, property, fair courts)
VI. The Law of Good Faith and Veracity (Tell truth, keep promises)
VII. The Law of Mercy (Be tender-hearted)
VIII. The Law of Magnanimity: (Soul should rule the body)
poppop
internet, would step into the presidency. Oh! brother,
what a choice.
Dan Moore wrote in message <385FA219...@earthlink.net>...
>Walt Horning wrote:
>>
Johann von Tebbes
Gregory Gadow wrote in message <83ou42$j10$0...@199.201.191.2>...
>Johann von Tebbes wrote:
>
>> Gregory Gadow wrote in message <83oo4e$3c3$0...@199.201.191.2>...
>> >Walt Horning wrote:
>> >
>> >> Why Senate did not convict:
>> >
impeach?
>>
>> Klinton WAS impeached. The Senate simply chose not to remove him from
>> office.
>
>Stop the childish name calling and reread the US Constitution. The House
does
>NOT impeach; they draw up charges for which the Senate shall act as jury.
To
>draw parallels to the regular courts of law, the House acts as the District
>Attorney's office, the Senate as the jury, and the Chief Justice as the
judge.
>If you do not like this, then try proposing an amendment that will allow
the
>House and the House alone to impeach.
The house impeaches, the senate either removes from office or not.
Impeachment is equal to indictment in a regular court. LOOK IT UP in
something real.
jvt
Gregory Gadow
> "Gregory Gadow" <tech...@serv.net> wrote in message news:83ou42$j10$0...@199.201.191.2...
> > Johann von Tebbes wrote:
> >
> > > Gregory Gadow wrote in message <83oo4e$3c3$0...@199.201.191.2>...
> > > >Walt Horning wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Why Senate did not convict:
> > > >
> > > >- Because standing as a court, they found no grounds on which to impeach?
> > >
> > > Klinton WAS impeached. The Senate simply chose not to remove him from
> > > office.
> >
> > Stop the childish name calling and reread the US Constitution. The House does
> > NOT impeach; they draw up charges for which the Senate shall act as jury. To
> > draw parallels to the regular courts of law, the House acts as the District
> > Attorney's office, the Senate as the jury, and the Chief Justice as the judge.
> > If you do not like this, then try proposing an amendment that will allow the
> > House and the House alone to impeach.
>
> Perhaps you misunderstand the term impeach. Many people think it means to convict and remove.
>
> The House does impeach. It has the sole power of impeachment. The Senate tries all impeachments.
> This is clearly spelled out in the Constitution. There is no ambiguity.
>
> Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 5
> "The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole
> power of impeachment. "
>
> Article 1, Section 3, Paragraph 6
> "The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they
> shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice
> shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members
> present."
I stand corrected on that point. But my main point remains: Charges brought by the House are tried by
the Senate. If the Senate does not find grounds for the charges with a 2/3 majority opinion, then the
charges are dismissed. President Clinton (for whom I have absolutely no liking, mistake me not) was duly
tried and NOT CONVICTED. People who have a problem with the process should work to change the process
instead of whining like spoiled children that they didn't get what they wanted for Christmas.
Thomas Mahoney
says...
>
>Philip Bourgeois <Phi...@centurytel.net> wrote in message
>news:oFM74.625$B9.7...@feed.centuryinter.net...
>
You shouldn't pick on poor Walt that way! Science has shown such obsessive
compulsive behavior, that he demonstrates daily, is the result of the
imbalance of neurotransmiters in the brain.
Some of the psychotropic drugs can control this imbalance but more specific
help is just on the horizon!
Given a little help, Walt can overcome his mental handicap and become a
productive member of society once again!
Tom Mahoney
>
>> Walt Horning <whor...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
>> news:385ee628....@news.pipeline.com...
>> > Why Senate did not convict:
>> >
>> > - Congress has no balls to stand up for justice?
>
>You're right there - the Republicans have no balls.
>
>> > - Clinton threatend Senator's lives?
>
>Oh, yeah. You curl your hair with your fingers while watching the UFOs,
>don't you?
>
>> > - Carville and Flynt used more FBI data to blackmale Senate?
>
>Of course - isn't it obvious? They had the goods on the Republicans, since
>there was incriminating data on your glorious Senatorial Republicans to
>blackmail them with.
>
>> > - Chinese threatened Senator's lives?
>
>You're kidding, right? It's the Pigmies of Australia, not the Chinese!
>
>> > - xx Senators have also sexually harassed/raped women?
>
>You're making quite a case against them ol' Republicans, aren't you? Like
>the good gentleman from Oregon?
>
>> > - They did not have time for a real trial before their winter break?
>
>Right again. They have so little regard for the people they represent, that
>they were willing to forgoe the trial for that. You have so little regard
>for the Republican Majority. Shame on you!
>
>> > - Democrats are "convicts and liars" like Clinton?
>
>Uh, huh. You really should watch your mouth. All Republicans are whores for
>Big Business, too, right?
>
>> > - Madam Attorney General has her own set of FBI files on Senators?
>
>Again, it's obvious - she had so much on the Republicans they just folded up
>and went home.
>
>> > - Bill Clinton promised he'd send Senators their own interns?
>
>I'm sure that's what it is. That's all it takes for the Republicans.
>
>> > - Money and power never get convicted for anything? (poor always get
>convicted; irony: Democrats, party of the poor? Like hell!)
>
>You're right. Republicans don't seem to get convicted.
>
>> > - Rich Democrat supporters bribed Senators?
>
>Those Republicans are so easy to bribe, I'm sure that's part of it.
>
>> > - Vernon Jordon hit a hole in one?
>
>Uh, yeah...
>
>
Fletch F. Fletch
"Gregory Gadow" <tech...@serv.net> wrote in message news:83qmm5$ngm$0...@199.201.191.2...
> "Fletch F. Fletch" wrote:
>
> > "Gregory Gadow" <tech...@serv.net> wrote in message news:83ou42$j10$0...@199.201.191.2...
> > > Johann von Tebbes wrote:
> > >
> > > > Gregory Gadow wrote in message <83oo4e$3c3$0...@199.201.191.2>...
> > > > >Walt Horning wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
Agreed. (And kudos to you for admitting a mistake. Everyone makes them, but no one ever seems to
own up to them in these news groups. What a nice place this could be.)
Fletch
Dr. Roger M. Firestone
Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> wrote:
[snip]
>I stand corrected on that point. But my main point remains: Charges
>brought by the House are tried by
>the Senate. If the Senate does not find grounds for the charges with a
>2/3 majority opinion, then the
>charges are dismissed. President Clinton (for whom I have absolutely no
>liking, mistake me not) was duly
>tried and NOT CONVICTED. People who have a problem with the process
>should work to change the process
>instead of whining like spoiled children that they didn't get what they
>wanted for Christmas.
I think that most of us have no problem with the process. It is sad,
however, that about half of the United States Senate could take the
position that Bill Clinton's conduct in office did not warrant his
removal therefrom. That is not a fault of the process but of the men
who carried it out and perhaps of the larger societal and political
climate.
Clinton's lies under oath were uttered with the intention of defrauding
a woman whom he had tortiously wronged from obtaining recovery of her
damages in court. That is conduct unbecoming a gentleman and certainly
unbecoming someone who has taken an oath to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed. It is utterly specious to make a distinction
between a President's private and official conduct with respect to the
law. No one could imagine excusing a President who donned a ski mask
and held up liquor stores (or maybe not; with Clinton's $5 million legal
bills, that may be next...), even though that were "private" conduct
unrelated to the duties of the Office of the President.
Sen. Moynihan (D-NY) once coined the phrase "defining deviancy down."
By that, he referred to a process of accepting progressively lower and
lower standards, until virtually nothing was viewed as unacceptable
behavior. By the standards of the Clinton Administration, what kind of
actions by future Presidents might be considered beyond the pale? We
have had so many kinds of corruption of procedures and institutions that
it is hard to think of much beyond outright treason and bribery that
would meet the "high crimes and misdemeanors" test any more. Clinton's
presidency has done incalculable damage to the American polity, damage
that I expect will take decades to mend.
Philip Bourgeois
the President did? If and I do mean If, he asked her for sex and she refused
is he liable to be sued. How was she wronged?
Dr. Roger M. Firestone <rf...@chele.cais.net> wrote in message
news:83qt5m$1h2s$1...@nnrp-corp.news.cais.net...
> In article <83qmm5$ngm$0...@199.201.191.2>,
> Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >I stand corrected on that point. But my main point remains: Charges
> >brought by the House are tried by
> >the Senate. If the Senate does not find grounds for the charges with a
> >2/3 majority opinion, then the
> >charges are dismissed. President Clinton (for whom I have absolutely no
> >liking, mistake me not) was duly
> >tried and NOT CONVICTED. People who have a problem with the process
> >should work to change the process
> >instead of whining like spoiled children that they didn't get what they
> >wanted for Christmas.
>
> I think that most of us have no problem with the process. It is sad,
> however, that about half of the United States Senate could take the
> position that Bill Clinton's conduct in office did not warrant his
> removal therefrom. That is not a fault of the process but of the men
> who carried it out and perhaps of the larger societal and political
> climate.
>
Fletch F. Fletch
> Clinton's lies under oath were uttered with the intention of defrauding
> > a woman whom he had tortiously wronged . Would you care to explain what
> the President did? If and I do mean If, he asked her for sex and she refused
> is he liable to be sued. How was she wronged?
My recollection of her account (probably faulty):
She worked for the state and was therefore an employee of the Gov. in some sense. In a hotel room,
he whipped his penis out and then asked for sex. She refused. Her career was subsequently harmed
by Clinton.
If all of that is true (I'm not saying it is.), I believe she was wronged.
I have heard Dershowitz make the case that just the purported behavior in the hotel room was a crime
irrespective of any career damage. He was not arguing that it happened. He was taking her facts as
true for the purposes of discussion.
Fletch
Philip Bourgeois
in her career.Maybe someone will clear this up for us. Hi ya doin Fletch?
Fletch F. Fletch <fletch_...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:83sdi9$5sh$1...@nntp8.atl.mindspring.net...
Fletch F. Fletch
Fletch
"Philip Bourgeois" <Phi...@centurytel.net> wrote in message
news:bwo84.733$B9.8...@feed.centuryinter.net...
two...@pop.dnvr.uswest.net
Very interesting information on Why the Senate did not convict. What was
your source for
these profound statements ??
Lovingly yours,
Monica
Walt Horning wrote:
> Why Senate did not convict:
>
> - Congress has no balls to stand up for justice?
> - Clinton threatend Senator's lives?
> - Carville and Flynt used more FBI data to blackmale Senate?
> - Chinese threatened Senator's lives?
> - xx Senators have also sexually harassed/raped women?
> - They did not have time for a real trial before their winter break?
> - Democrats are "convicts and liars" like Clinton?
> - Madam Attorney General has her own set of FBI files on Senators?
> - Bill Clinton promised he'd send Senators their own interns?
> - Money and power never get convicted for anything? (poor always get
> convicted; irony: Democrats, party of the poor? Like hell!)
> - Rich Democrat supporters bribed Senators?
Walt Horning
>Mr. Horning:
>
>Very interesting information on Why the Senate did not convict. What was
>your source for
>these profound statements ??
>
>Lovingly yours,
>
>Monica
Susie Satire.
bre...@no-spam.com
<Phi...@centurytel.net> wrote:
>I heard the part about the proposition. I also heard that she was not harmed
>in her career.Maybe someone will clear this up for us.
Well, try Judge Susan Webber Wright. :-) She issued a Summary Judgement in
favor of Clinton, saying that even if every fact Jones had claimed were
true, it would still not add up to what she was suing for.
Ie-- threw the case out as "worthless".
Cheers,
Bredon
---
>Hi ya doin Fletch?
bre...@no-spam.com
Cheers,
Bredon
---
>Hi ya doin Fletch?
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Message-ID: <cancel.38764...@news.sonic.net>
Control: cancel <387643db...@news.sonic.net>
Subject: cmsg cancel <387643db...@news.sonic.net>
From: cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Sender: bre...@no-spam.com
Approved: cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Newsgroups: at.test,de.test,uk.test,dk.test,alt.politics
Date: 26 Dec 1999 05:52:03 GMT
Organization: Chris Lewis' VSNL CensorBot
X-Cancelled-By: cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
X-Original-From: bre...@no-spam.com
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.243.193.204
X-Cancel-ID: 13:O#?6A|JI3)|BJJ8I4W99JK@48!"]Y21T2NH[H8+7@#\?TYJ+!|"D=
Reply-To: bre...@no-spam.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 193.243.162.41
X-Trace: 26 Dec 1999 06:50:27 +0100, 193.243.162.41
Lines: 2
Path: ...!skynet.be!news-lond.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news.global-one.at!intermedia!feeder.qis.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!news1.bellglobal.com!qcarh002.nortelnetworks.com!bcarh189.ca.nortel.com!zcarh46f.bnr.ca!despams.ocunix.on.ca
VSNL spam cancelled by Chris Lewis: <387643db...@news.sonic.net>
Fletch F. Fletch
> On Thu, 23 Dec 1999 06:29:00 -0600, "Philip Bourgeois"
> <Phi...@centurytel.net> wrote:
>
> >I heard the part about the proposition. I also heard that she was not harmed
> >in her career.Maybe someone will clear this up for us.
>
> Well, try Judge Susan Webber Wright. :-) She issued a Summary Judgement in
> favor of Clinton, saying that even if every fact Jones had claimed were
> true, it would still not add up to what she was suing for.
>
> Ie-- threw the case out as "worthless".
>
Now that you mention that, I think that was what got Dershowitz going. He thought the Judge was off
her rocker. I can't remember the exact argument he made, but it seemed convincing to me as an
admitted member of the laity. (I think he was on Geraldo at the time.) In any event, Dershowitz is
no slouch and can in no way be included in the 'vast right-wing conspiracy' out to get Clinton.
I guess we'll never know if the case was truly without merit or not. Experts seem to disagree.
Fletch
Dr. Roger M. Firestone
I seem to recall that the case was settled, with Clinton paying about
$800K in damages, all of which went to Jones's lawyers. If the case had
been dismissed on all issues, there would have been no settlement, would
there? Clinton settled because it was clear he was going to _lose_ in
court; if that weren't clear, he would have continued to fight, as his
lawyers had already done for years, bringing argument after argument all
the way to the Supreme Court and losing _every time_. Just as happened
with the OIC investigation.
The only question is whether Clinton will be indicted by the OIC's grand
jury the day after the election or the day after his successor is
inaugurated. (Be hard to run the Gore Administration from the Lincoln
Bedroom in either case--besides, there ain't gonna _be_ a Gore
Administration.)
Michael Zarlenga
:>> favor of Clinton, saying that even if every fact Jones had claimed were
:>> true, it would still not add up to what she was suing for.
:>>
:>> Ie-- threw the case out as "worthless".
So why did Clinton blow $700K settling the case a few months later?
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
Joe Krolikowski
> :>> Ie-- threw the case out as "worthless".
>
> So why did Clinton blow $700K settling the case a few months later?
Slight correction: $850K. (not counting the $90K for the contempt citation.)
Carry on.
Joe Krolikowski
bre...@no-spam.com
<jkroli...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>Michael Zarlenga wrote:
>
>> :>> Ie-- threw the case out as "worthless".
>>
>> So why did Clinton blow $700K settling the case a few months later?
>
>Slight correction: $850K.
850k is correct.
Because of the damage they had done using it so far. They could have
appealed the dismissal, giving them more time to manoever.
Drudge said the WP said Clinton could make $125,000 per speech in 2001. At
that rate, he could replace the $850,000 in about a week.
Clinton has said he is not going to bother asking for reimbursement of $5m
legal fees (or is it $10m?). Says his legal defense fund contributions will
take care of it.
Cheers,
Bredon
---
>(not counting the $90K for the contempt citation.)
****************************************************
John M. Cooper, 1931:
"The peoples of the world, however much they differ as to details of
morality, hold universally, or with practical universality, to at least
the following basic precepts. Respect the Supreme Being or the
benevolent being or beings who take his place. Do not 'blaspheme.' Care
for your children. Malicious murder or maiming, stealing, deliberate
slander or 'black' lying, when committed against friend or unoffending
fellow clansman or tribesman, are reprehensible. Adultery proper is
wrong, even though there be exceptional circumstances that permit or
enjoin it and even though sexual relations among the unmarried may be
viewed leniently. Incest is a heinous offense. This universal moral code
agrees rather closely with our own Decalogue taken in a strictly literal
sense."
Fletch F. Fletch
> legal fees (or is it $10m?). Says his legal defense fund contributions will
> take care of it.
From what I have read, the legal fees were $10 million of which $5 million have been paid
by the legal defense fund. However, I think those contributions have substantially dried
up since impeachment is out of the headlines.
In any event, I really doubt any modern ex-Prez will have too many financial problems. I
suspect Bill "Clinton will make his entire yearly Presidential salary each week after he
leaves office.
Fletch
Tom Abbott
Before predicting Clinton's future, we should wait until he is out
of office, and then we will be able to tell if he will be disbarred
and prosecuted for crimes as a private citizen. Clinton may not get
much money for giving speeches while in prison.
TA
Wayne Mann
<fletch_...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> Clinton has said he is not going to bother asking for reimbursement of $5m
>> legal fees (or is it $10m?). Says his legal defense fund contributions will
>> take care of it.
>
>From what I have read, the legal fees were $10 million of which $5 million have been paid
>by the legal defense fund. However, I think those contributions have substantially dried
>up since impeachment is out of the headlines.
>
>In any event, I really doubt any modern ex-Prez will have too many financial problems. I
>suspect Bill "Clinton will make his entire yearly Presidential salary each week after he
>leaves office.
>
>Fletch
>
He got something like $3 Million from two insurance companies.
However this looked VERY undeserving and was just a payoff.
kkramer
$5m
> > legal fees (or is it $10m?). Says his legal defense fund contributions
will
> > take care of it.
>
> From what I have read, the legal fees were $10 million of which $5 million
have been paid
> by the legal defense fund. However, I think those contributions have
substantially dried
> up since impeachment is out of the headlines.
>
> In any event, I really doubt any modern ex-Prez will have too many
financial problems. I
> suspect Bill "Clinton will make his entire yearly Presidential salary each
week after he
> leaves office.
>
> Fletch
I am dreaming outloud: Klinton leaves office early just for the money.
Darn, I just woke up.
Kramer
>
>
Fletch F. Fletch
> of office, and then we will be able to tell if he will be disbarred
> and prosecuted for crimes as a private citizen. Clinton may not get
> much money for giving speeches while in prison.
>
> TA
You may well be right. For some reason, I have a tough time imagining any prosecutor
wanting to delve back into that mess again. I'm going to be very surprised if Bill
Clinton is ever charged let alone convicted of anything. That feeling is not really based
on the facts of any particular case, but rather on my sense that everyone justs want to
forget about the scandals. I think Clinton has paid a stiff enough price for the majority
of Americans.
Fletch
Tom Abbott
Well, if we follow the "will of the American people" as defined by a
recent poll, then the House ought to be gearing up for another
impeachment of Clinton over the harm he has done to U.S. national
security. It ought to be assured since most of our politicians are
sheep, driven by polls. They need to listen to and follow one more
poll.
TA
Glenworthy@xteleport.com Henry Glenworthy
>> Before predicting Clinton's future, we should wait until he is out
>> of office, and then we will be able to tell if he will be disbarred
>> and prosecuted for crimes as a private citizen. Clinton may not get
>> much money for giving speeches while in prison.
>You may well be right. For some reason, I have a tough time imagining any
prosecutor
>wanting to delve back into that mess again. I'm going to be very surprised
if Bill
>Clinton is ever charged let alone convicted of anything. That feeling is
not really based
>on the facts of any particular case, but rather on my sense that everyone
justs want to
>forget about the scandals. I think Clinton has paid a stiff enough price
for the majority
>of Americans.
>>>>
Speak for yourself. Klintoon will be drawing a Federal pension for the rest
of his degenerate life - plus have round-the-clock Secret Service protection
for the rest of his useless existence...no, I don't think Swilly has paid a
"stiff"
enough price...
---------------------------------------------------
Johann von Tebbes
Fletch F. Fletch wrote in message <84hd4o$fbr$1...@nntp8.atl.mindspring.net>...
>> Before predicting Clinton's future, we should wait until he is out
>> of office, and then we will be able to tell if he will be disbarred
>> and prosecuted for crimes as a private citizen. Clinton may not get
>> much money for giving speeches while in prison.
>>
>
>You may well be right. For some reason, I have a tough time imagining any
prosecutor
>wanting to delve back into that mess again. I'm going to be very surprised
if Bill
>Clinton is ever charged let alone convicted of anything. That feeling is
not really based
>on the facts of any particular case, but rather on my sense that everyone
justs want to
>forget about the scandals. I think Clinton has paid a stiff enough price
for the majority
>of Americans.
>
Not me, Fletch, I think traitors should forever be punished.
>
>
>
Fletch F. Fletch
"Henry Glenworthy" <Henry Glenw...@xteleport.com> wrote in message
news:Mn%a4.8444$k7.2...@news1.teleport.com...
> Fletch F. Fletch wrote in message <84hd4o$fbr$1...@nntp8.atl.mindspring.net>...
>
> >> Before predicting Clinton's future, we should wait until he is out
> >> of office, and then we will be able to tell if he will be disbarred
> >> and prosecuted for crimes as a private citizen. Clinton may not get
> >> much money for giving speeches while in prison.
>
> prosecutor
> >wanting to delve back into that mess again. I'm going to be very surprised
> if Bill
> >Clinton is ever charged let alone convicted of anything. That feeling is
> not really based
> >on the facts of any particular case, but rather on my sense that everyone
> justs want to
> >forget about the scandals. I think Clinton has paid a stiff enough price
> for the majority
> >of Americans.
>
>
> >>>>
>
> of his degenerate life - plus have round-the-clock Secret Service protection
> "stiff"
> enough price...
I think it was pretty clear that I was speaking for myself. Anyway, he was elected
President of the United States. For me, that is enough to justify the pension and
especially the Secret Service protection. I'm not a Clinton fan, but I don't want him
assassinated.
Fletch
Fletch F. Fletch
"Tom Abbott" <tab...@intellex.com> wrote in message
news:=1psOEdjYv7d5y...@4ax.com...
> >> of office, and then we will be able to tell if he will be disbarred
> >> and prosecuted for crimes as a private citizen. Clinton may not get
> >> much money for giving speeches while in prison.
> >>
> >
> >You may well be right. For some reason, I have a tough time imagining any prosecutor
> >wanting to delve back into that mess again. I'm going to be very surprised if Bill
> >Clinton is ever charged let alone convicted of anything. That feeling is not really
based
> >on the facts of any particular case, but rather on my sense that everyone justs want to
> >forget about the scandals. I think Clinton has paid a stiff enough price for the
majority
> >of Americans.
> >
> >
>
> Well, if we follow the "will of the American people" as defined by a
> recent poll, then the House ought to be gearing up for another
> impeachment of Clinton over the harm he has done to U.S. national
> security. It ought to be assured since most of our politicians are
> sheep, driven by polls. They need to listen to and follow one more
> poll.
I'm not a big fan of the people getting their ephemeral desires fulfilled by the
government. And, I suspect the fickle public would immediately change its mind if
impeachment were a real possibility.
Fletch
Troy
"Fletch F. Fletch" wrote:
>
> "Henry Glenworthy" <Henry Glenw...@xteleport.com> wrote in message
> news:Mn%a4.8444$k7.2...@news1.teleport.com...
> > Fletch F. Fletch wrote in message <84hd4o$fbr$1...@nntp8.atl.mindspring.net>...
> >
> > >> Before predicting Clinton's future, we should wait until he is out
> > >> of office, and then we will be able to tell if he will be disbarred
> > >> and prosecuted for crimes as a private citizen. Clinton may not get
> > >> much money for giving speeches while in prison.
> >
> > >You may well be right. For some reason, I have a tough time imagining any
> > prosecutor
> > >wanting to delve back into that mess again. I'm going to be very surprised
> > if Bill
> > >Clinton is ever charged let alone convicted of anything. That feeling is
> > not really based
> > >on the facts of any particular case, but rather on my sense that everyone
> > justs want to
> > >forget about the scandals. I think Clinton has paid a stiff enough price
> > for the majority
> > >of Americans.
> >
> >
> > >>>>
> >
> > Speak for yourself. Klintoon will be drawing a Federal pension for the rest
> > of his degenerate life - plus have round-the-clock Secret Service protection
> > for the rest of his useless existence...no, I don't think Swilly has paid a
> > "stiff"
> > enough price...
>
> I think it was pretty clear that I was speaking for myself. Anyway, he was elected
> President of the United States. For me, that is enough to justify the pension and
> especially the Secret Service protection.
What crime could the president commit (in your opinion) that would not
justify the pension and SS protection?
Fletch F. Fletch
> > President of the United States. For me, that is enough to justify the pension and
> > especially the Secret Service protection.
>
> What crime could the president commit (in your opinion) that would not
> justify the pension and SS protection?
Please understand that I have not formed an unalterable opinion on this. But, as my
thinking stands now, the crime is irrelevant. Being President carries with it dangers
that persist beyond the term in office. I see only a downside (loss of prestige) for the
U.S. if one of its former leaders is assassinated or kidnapped. In my mind, this
justifies the Secret Service and to a far lesser degree, the pension (to afford a secure
residence, etc.).
Fletch
Johann von Tebbes
Fletch F. Fletch wrote in message <84isf1$o1q$1...@nntp8.atl.mindspring.net>...
He won't need them if he is in jail, Fletch.
jvt
>
>
>
Troy
Bill killing Hillary, and still have a pension and SS protection while
in prison. However, as you say the crime is irrelevant and most
Democrats agree, Clinton can commit murder.
NJWill
>I had hopes that you would not accept a president commit murder, say
>Bill killing Hillary, and still have a pension and SS protection while
>in prison. However, as you say the crime is irrelevant and most
>Democrats agree, Clinton can commit murder.
>
>"Fletch F. Fletch" wrote:
Actually if he did commit a murder the Liberals would then try to redefine the
term so they can PROVE him innocent. It all depends on what the definition of
"is" is.
Troy
Fletch F. Fletch
still believe that he should be protected from the dangers of his nearly unique situation.
Others may disagree.
In any event, I had hoped that your question was sincere. However, we are right back into
the Clinton/Democrat bashing. I'm a Republican and I'm sick of it already. I don't think
much of the man, but he is not the worst person that ever lived. And many Democrats who
defended him did so with as much honor as many of the Republican who attacked him. Of
course, many on both sides deserve to rot in Hell.
Is it really that hard to debate an issue without the ridiculousness?
Fletch
"Troy" <tha...@new.nut> wrote in message news:386D0962...@new.nut...
Mathew
Down below you it looks like Fletch is writing what you have written
scroll down
-
-
- -
On Fri, 31 Dec 1999, NJWill wrote:
> In article <386D0962...@new.nut>, Troy <tha...@new.nut> wrote:
> >I had hopes that you would not accept a president commit murder, say
> >Bill killing Hillary, and still have a pension and SS protection while
> >in prison. However, as you say the crime is irrelevant and most
> >Democrats agree, Clinton can commit murder.
> >
> >"Fletch F. Fletch" wrote:
>
> Actually if he did commit a murder the Liberals would then try to redefine the
> term so they can PROVE him innocent. It all depends on what the definition of
> "is" is.
But alot of wacky Conservatives are claiming Clinton has killed
several or many people.Don Linsenbach says it 70.
Now now how could he ge away with this?
Troy
thread is Clinton, I used him. Now that the bashing is not a factor, and
the justice system has dealt with him, why do you think a president
should still get the pension and SS protection while incarcerated?
"Fletch F. Fletch" wrote:
>
> If a President commits murder, it is my hope that the justice system deals with him. I
> still believe that he should be protected from the dangers of his nearly unique situation.
> Others may disagree.
>
> In any event, I had hoped that your question was sincere. However, we are right back into
> the Clinton/Democrat bashing. I'm a Republican and I'm sick of it already. I don't think
> much of the man, but he is not the worst person that ever lived. And many Democrats who
> defended him did so with as much honor as many of the Republican who attacked him. Of
> course, many on both sides deserve to rot in Hell.
>
> Is it really that hard to debate an issue without the ridiculousness?
>
> Fletch
>
> "Troy" <tha...@new.nut> wrote in message news:386D0962...@new.nut...
Dr Fuji Kamikaze
>If a President commits murder, it is my hope that the justice system deals
>with him.
If it is Reno's Injustice Dept it will be covered up and the Pres will get away
with it. Which is worse Treason or Murder?
>I
>still believe that he should be protected from the dangers of his nearly
>unique situation.
Of course, that is why we have a Secret Service staffed by brave men who are
willing to take a bullet to protect the President no matter what an ass he is.
You've got to give those guys an "A" for
dedication to the profession.
>Others may disagree.
>
>In any event, I had hoped that your question was sincere. However, we are
>right back into
>the Clinton/Democrat bashing.
Well you may see it as bashing, others may see it as revealing the unadorned
truth despite a very prejudiced media.
>I'm a Republican and I'm sick of it already.
My condolences!
>I don't think
>much of the man, but he is not the worst person that ever lived.
Yes he is! He corrupts all that is good and decent about America.
!And many
>Democrats who
>defended him did so with as much honor as many of the Republican who attacked
>him.
Democrat and honor are opposites. There
is no honor among thieves and Democrats.
Democrats work relentlessly to rob America of all that is good and honorable.
>Of
>course, many on both sides deserve to rot in Hell.
>
They all do. Democrats and Republcrats
alike!
>Is it really that hard to debate an issue without the ridiculousness?
Have you ever read rosell19 or Lucile?
God Bless America
Dr Fuji Kamikase
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." --
Aesop
"A liberal is a man who will give away everything he doesn't own." -- Frank
Dane
Mathew
On Sat, 1 Jan 2000, Troy wrote:
> Well, I could use Nixon in the example. Because the subject of this
> thread is Clinton, I used him. Now that the bashing is not a factor, and
> the justice system has dealt with him, why do you think a president
> should still get the pension and SS protection while incarcerated?
Because Reagan got it
>
> "Fletch F. Fletch" wrote:
> >
> > If a President commits murder, it is my hope that the justice system deals with him. I
> > still believe that he should be protected from the dangers of his nearly unique situation.
> > Others may disagree.
> >
> > In any event, I had hoped that your question was sincere. However, we are right back into
> > the Clinton/Democrat bashing. I'm a Republican and I'm sick of it already. I don't think
> > much of the man, but he is not the worst person that ever lived. And many Democrats who
> > defended him did so with as much honor as many of the Republican who attacked him. Of
> > course, many on both sides deserve to rot in Hell.
> >
> > Is it really that hard to debate an issue without the ridiculousness?
> >
horr...@aol.com
failed to prove the charges against him. I am talking about the
SPECIFIC charges contained in the TWO charges which passed (barely) in
the House of Representatives, NOT the two charges which did NOT pass,
and NOT any allegations which were not contained in the two article of
impeachment which passed the House.
It is worth mentioning that the House Managers did a lousy job of
prosecuting their case (which was rather flimsy in any event.) Their
presentation was boring and repetitive, and they refused to call one of
the key witness to the events in question (i.e., Betty Currie.) They
also failed to do a very good job of crossexamining the three key
witnesses they did call (Clinton, Lewinsky & Jordan)--- and they wasted
a large amount of the Senate's time on a witness who had no firsthand
knowledge of the case (i.e., Sydney Blumenthal.)
--Tim Horrigan <horr...@aol.com>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Lvis
to the Senate. The reason the Senate did not convict and throw that lying
bastard billclinton out of office is because they put party loyalty above
their loyalty to the country. They simply did NOT have the intestinal
fortitude to live up to their sworn oaths.
Not unlike the jury that refused to hear the evidence against O.J. Simpson
and subsequently acquited him, the Democratic Senators refused to hear the
evidence against billclinton and likewise refused to find him quilty. Their
decisions were made long before the House Managers were to be heard.
Lvis.
--
Make 7- UP YOURS!!!
<horr...@aol.com> wrote in message news:84r8ss$udk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Dr Fuji Kamikaze
>WRONG!!!!! The House Managers did an excellent job of presenting their case
>to the Senate. The reason the Senate did not convict and throw that lying
>bastard billclinton out of office is because they put party loyalty above
>their loyalty to the country. They simply did NOT have the intestinal
>fortitude to live up to their sworn oaths.
>Not unlike the jury that refused to hear the evidence against O.J. Simpson
>and subsequently acquited him, the Democratic Senators refused to hear the
>evidence against billclinton and likewise refused to find him quilty. Their
>decisions were made long before the House Managers were to be heard.
>
>Lvis.
Absolutely correct! Not only did all the Democrats vote lock-step, but some
left-
wing Marxist Republicans joined them.
Since we can't rely on the Democrats nor
the few renegade Republicans we have
to dump the lot of them and get some
honest Americans elected to those offices.
>--
>Make 7- UP YOURS!!!
><horr...@aol.com> wrote in message news:84r8ss$udk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> The Senate did not convict President Clinton because the House Managers
>> failed to prove the charges against him. I am talking about the
>> SPECIFIC charges contained in the TWO charges which passed (barely) in
>> the House of Representatives, NOT the two charges which did NOT pass,
>> and NOT any allegations which were not contained in the two article of
>> impeachment which passed the House.
>>
>> It is worth mentioning that the House Managers did a lousy job of
>> prosecuting their case (which was rather flimsy in any event.) Their
>> presentation was boring and repetitive, and they refused to call one of
>> the key witness to the events in question (i.e., Betty Currie.) They
>> also failed to do a very good job of crossexamining the three key
>> witnesses they did call (Clinton, Lewinsky & Jordan)--- and they wasted
>> a large amount of the Senate's time on a witness who had no firsthand
>> knowledge of the case (i.e., Sydney Blumenthal.)
>>
>>
>> --Tim Horrigan <horr...@aol.com>
>>
>>
>> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>> Before you buy.
>
God Bless America
Thomas Mahoney
>
>WRONG!!!!! The House Managers did an excellent job of presenting their case
>to the Senate. The reason the Senate did not convict and throw that lying
>bastard billclinton out of office is because they put party loyalty above
>their loyalty to the country. They simply did NOT have the intestinal
>fortitude to live up to their sworn oaths.
>Not unlike the jury that refused to hear the evidence against O.J. Simpson
>and subsequently acquited him, the Democratic Senators refused to hear the
>evidence against billclinton and likewise refused to find him quilty. Their
>decisions were made long before the House Managers were to be heard.
To put this simply so you will understand, the Charges did not rise the the
level required in the Constitution, to remove the President of the United
States from office.
That was the reading of almost every Constitutional scholar, when they looked
at what the framers were trying to do when they wrote these provisions, in
the Constitution.
The House prosecutors were well aware of this, before they proceeded but
hoped either that the Senate would ignore the Constitution and convict or
that some additional evidence of actions, beyond those charged, would emerge
to raise it to the Constitutionally required levels. Neither occurred and
the President was found to be Not Guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.
Tom Mahoney
>
>Lvis.
Steve Schulin
exce...@earthlink.net (Thomas Mahoney) wrote, in part:
> To put this simply so you will understand,
Your arrogance is showing, Tom.
> the Charges did not rise the the
> level required in the Constitution, to remove the President of the United
> States from office.
>
> That was the reading of almost every Constitutional scholar,
How many Constitutional scholars are there, Tom? It's a pity that you
probably believe your blather.
> when they looked
> at what the framers were trying to do when they wrote these provisions, in
> the Constitution.
>
> The House prosecutors were well aware of this, before they proceeded but
> hoped either that the Senate would ignore the Constitution and convict or
> that some additional evidence of actions, beyond those charged, would emerge
> to raise it to the Constitutionally required levels. Neither occurred and
> the President was found to be Not Guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.
The House managers were well aware that the stonewalling Dems in the
Senate would never vote to convict. The Democrat, Mr. Shippers, reported
that a Senator told the managers that Clinton could literally get away
with murder if this Senate were voting on the outcome.
The argument that Clinton's crimes were too low to be "high Crimes and
Misdemeanors" is probably the best sophistry that can be applied -- but
it's still pathetic. To say it's acceptable for the chief law enforcement
officer to commit the crimes of perjury and obstruction is ridiculous. Tie
for the Democrats to rename their party -- the Perjury Party.
- nuclear.com - home of "daily full text in a single file" editions of Congressional Record, Federal Register, and Commerce Business Daily
Billy Boyd
Lvis wrote:
>
> WRONG!!!!! The House Managers did an excellent job of presenting their case
> to the Senate. The reason the Senate did not convict and throw that lying
> bastard billclinton out of office is because they put party loyalty above
> their loyalty to the country. They simply did NOT have the intestinal
> fortitude to live up to their sworn oaths.
The problem was that we knew Al Gore was not capable of running the
country.
Vote Bradley
> Not unlike the jury that refused to hear the evidence against O.J. Simpson
> and subsequently acquited him, the Democratic Senators refused to hear the
> evidence against billclinton and likewise refused to find him quilty. Their
> decisions were made long before the House Managers were to be heard.
>
Billy Boyd
Vote Bradley.
Mathew wrote:
> If Clinton admitted to his relationship with Monica
> would there still be a call for his Impeachment,or public call for
> resignation?
Martin McPhillips
>
>
>Lvis wrote:
>>
>> WRONG!!!!! The House Managers did an excellent job of presenting their
case
>> to the Senate. The reason the Senate did not convict and throw that lying
>> bastard billclinton out of office is because they put party loyalty above
>> their loyalty to the country. They simply did NOT have the intestinal
>> fortitude to live up to their sworn oaths.
>
>The problem was that we knew Al Gore was not capable of running the
>country.
>
>Vote Bradley
Right, Moe can't do the job because Curley has made such a mess,
so give it to Larry this time around.
I would sooner see the presidency vacant than to see Bradley
in the Oval Office.
Cameron
Dr Fuji Kamikaze
>The problem was that we knew Al Gore was not capable of running the
>country.
>
>Vote Bradley
You cannot forgive the Democrat Senator's malfeasance by suggesting the
ludicrous notion that they had the best interests of the country in mind.
They only thing that motivated those Democrats was their reelection so that
they could continue to live high off the hog on the public's dime.
Why is it in politics the biggest turds always float to the top?
Dr Fuji Kamikaze
>If Clinton admitted to his relationship with Monica
>would there still be a call for his Impeachment,or public call for
>resignation?
If Clinton's admission had made it unnecessary for him to lie under oath,
obstruct justice, and suborn perjury he
would not have been impeached.
Martin McPhillips
>How about Trump? He has all the qualifications for a good Democrat.
Trump is actually an incredibly bright guy, though he keeps it
well-hidden behind his slob demeanor. But because he is
a real doer and fixer, my take on him is that, in addition to
not having a clue as to how to lead an administration, he'd
propose technocratic solutions for every problem, reflexively,
despite the fact that he's made millions as a free market
entrepreneur. In that sense, he would be a "good" Democratic
candidate.
The only guy in either party who would take the government
in the direction of downsizing, with the determination to go
after the entitlement dinosaurs (social security being number
one), is Forbes. Too bad he has a personality like a cinder
block.
Milton Friedman, by the way, had the best proposal for Social
Security (little noted when it appeared on the New York
Times op-ed page this past year). He thinks that because the
only way to pay for SS is to raise taxes or take on debt, that
the whole thing can simply be abolished with all current
obligations met through tax revenues or treasury debt.
Can the payroll tax. Can the system. Meet the existing obligations
straight through the treasury, as a simple obligation, and wherever
possible, I believe he also said, buy people out, i.e., purchase back
their contributions to the system (I might be adding that as a logical
alternative, but I think it was part of Friedman's proposal).
Social Security is a dead horse tied to the bumper of the American
economy, and Medicare is a dead mule. The former was brought
into our midst by people who had no idea, I'll assume, that they
were setting up a reprehensible pyramid/Ponzi scheme, and the
latter was set up by people who thought that the reprehensible
SS pyramid/Ponzi scheme was really the very heart of what it
meant to be an American.
>
>Martin McPhillips wrote:
>>
>> Billy Boyd wrote in message <3872226F...@set.es>...
>> >
>> >
>> >Lvis wrote:
>> >>
>> >> WRONG!!!!! The House Managers did an excellent job of presenting their
>> case
>> >> to the Senate. The reason the Senate did not convict and throw that
lying
>> >> bastard billclinton out of office is because they put party loyalty
above
>> >> their loyalty to the country. They simply did NOT have the intestinal
>> >> fortitude to live up to their sworn oaths.
>> >
>> >The problem was that we knew Al Gore was not capable of running the
>> >country.
>> >
>> >Vote Bradley
>>
Cameron
As I said, Trump will be the best bet we have for Democrats. Now I
realize he is an independent. He is a better choice that a basketball
played or a country boy from Tennessee. I am not worried about getting
Social Security so Milton Friedman is also out of my mind.
Wayne Mann
>
>
>Lvis wrote:
>>
>> WRONG!!!!! The House Managers did an excellent job of presenting their case
>> to the Senate. The reason the Senate did not convict and throw that lying
>> bastard billclinton out of office is because they put party loyalty above
>> their loyalty to the country. They simply did NOT have the intestinal
>> fortitude to live up to their sworn oaths.
>
>The problem was that we knew Al Gore was not capable of running the
>country.
>
>Vote Bradley
Why do you want a Socialist for president?
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: ...!torn!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!intgwpad.nntp.telstra.net!nsw.nnrp.telstra.net!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <dkBvDFS6bulWJL...@4ax.com>
Control: cancel <omByOBU8eqkULK...@4ax.com>
Subject: cmsg cancel <omByOBU8eqkULK...@4ax.com>
From: Wayne Mann <123456...@callamerica.net>
Newsgroups: kiel.test,schule.test,muc.test,ka.test,mn.test,sat.test,at.test,alt.rush-limbaugh
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1162
Reply-To: Wayne Mann <123456...@callamerica.net>
Lines: 1
Date: 4 Jan 2000 21:35:33 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 139.130.37.226
X-Complaints-To: ab...@telstra.net
X-Trace: nsw.nnrp.telstra.net 947021776 139.130.37.226 (Wed, 05 Jan 2000 08:36:16 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2000 08:36:16 EST
Organization: Customer of Telstra Big Pond Direct
<omByOBU8eqkULK...@4ax.com> cancelled by Wayne Mann <123456...@callamerica.net>
Mathew
If Clinton admitted to his relationship with Monica
would there still be a call for his Impeachment,or public call for
resignation?
>
Thomas Mahoney
123456...@callamerica.net says...
>>The problem was that we knew Al Gore was not capable of running the
>>country.
>>
>>Vote Bradley
>
>
> Why do you want a Socialist for president?
Well that socialist fellow, Clinton, has done a damn good job for our Country
and if Socialist Bradley can do the same, then let's do it;-)
Vote Bradley!
Tom Mahoney
Mathew
On Tue, 4 Jan 2000, Cameron wrote:
> How about Trump? He has all the qualifications for a good Democrat.
Hehehehehehe
>
> Martin McPhillips wrote:
> >
> > Billy Boyd wrote in message <3872226F...@set.es>...
> > >
> > >
> > >Lvis wrote:
> > >>
> > >> WRONG!!!!! The House Managers did an excellent job of presenting their
> > case
> > >> to the Senate. The reason the Senate did not convict and throw that lying
> > >> bastard billclinton out of office is because they put party loyalty above
> > >> their loyalty to the country. They simply did NOT have the intestinal
> > >> fortitude to live up to their sworn oaths.
> > >
> > >The problem was that we knew Al Gore was not capable of running the
> > >country.
> > >
> > >Vote Bradley
> >
Dr. Roger M. Firestone
Thomas Mahoney <exce...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>In article <84rit4$a5u$1...@news.imagin.net>, lv...@nospam.net says...
>>
>>to the Senate. The reason the Senate did not convict and throw that lying
>>bastard billclinton out of office is because they put party loyalty above
>>their loyalty to the country. They simply did NOT have the intestinal
>>fortitude to live up to their sworn oaths.
>>and subsequently acquited him, the Democratic Senators refused to hear the
>>evidence against billclinton and likewise refused to find him quilty. Their
>>decisions were made long before the House Managers were to be heard.
>
>States from office.
>
>the Constitution.
>
>The House prosecutors were well aware of this, before they proceeded but
>hoped either that the Senate would ignore the Constitution and convict or
>that some additional evidence of actions, beyond those charged, would emerge
>to raise it to the Constitutionally required levels. Neither occurred and
>the President was found to be Not Guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.
"[A]lmost every Constitutional scholar"? Surely not. This is an
exaggeration. Perhaps it would be correct to say "almost every
Constitutional scholar given wide publicity by the media," in view of
the media bias towards "liberalism."
Consider the new book by Judge and Professor Richard A. Posner, _An
Affair of State: The Investigation, Impeachment, and Trial of President
Clinton_. You can find a review of the book at
http://www.reason.com/0001/bk.kw.not.html
Here's an excerpt:
If Clinton were the president of a university or a corporation rather
than the president of the United States, Posner suggests, his conduct
would have earned him "a prison sentence of 30 to 37 months." (One
wonders how the impeachment would have progressed if this basic point
had been emphasized more.) Posner is precise and persuasive in
puncturing Clinton's lies and his defenders' obfuscations, and his
demonstration that perjuries such as the president's are both readily
proven and regularly punished in the criminal courts is an important
corrective to the legal confusions fostered by the impeachment
debates.
The notion that an outright felony (giving false testimony under oath)
does "not rise to the level required in the Constitution" is bizarre.
When the Constitution speaks of "treason, bribery, or other high crimes
and misdemeanors," it does not anywhere say that the offenses in
question can only be those arising out of official duties. Nor does it
say that there are some felonies which are "high" crimes and others
which are not. The suggestion that an offense which would earn the
perpetrator more than 2-1/2 years in a Federal prison is not a "high
crime" but something that can simply be passed off while the offender
continues to serve in office is insupportable.
If Bill Clinton held any other Federal office subject to impeachment
than President or maybe Vice-President, he would surely have been
removed from it by having his resignation demanded (if in the executive
branch) or, if necessary, by impeachment if in the judicial branch. The
legislative branch seems to operate by different rules, but that's how
the Constitution is written. _Many_ Federal judges have been impeached
over the past 211 years since the Constitution was ratified, some for
mere judicial misconduct (drunkenness and inattention on the bench).
No governor or other executive branch officer of a state government
would be allowed to continue serving if he were caught in the act of
defrauding a court of law as was Bill Clinton. Indeed, one of the
convictions obtained by the OIC under Ken Starr was that of Jim Guy
Tucker, the governor of Arkansas, who escaped prison only because of his
claim of "ill health." (Not too many people who aren't well-connected
politicians can get away with that.) Tucker was compelled to resign his
position immediately. And there have been other governors who have
likewise been removed from office upon conviction of a felony.
Conviction of a felony will cost a lawyer his license to practice law.
Indeed, a lawyer may be suspended for a lengthy period or disbarred
without even a conviction for kinds of misconduct that might not even be
actionable under the criminal code. The general concept is that no one
who can be characterized as having "moral turpitude" should be
practicing law.
So you are asking us to believe that men like George Washington, George
Mason, Gouverneur Morris, James Madison, Ben Franklin, and so many
others who worked on the writing of the Constitution believed that the
President of the United States could testify falsely under oath before a
court of law, so long as it was on some matter related to his personal
sex life, and in no way be called to account for his behavior during his
term of office, but should be allowed to continue to serve as the chief
of state and head of government of the American polity. That's really a
remarkable request, in light of so many comments by the Founding Fathers
in places like the Federalist Papers and many other essays on the need
for the republic to be governed by "men of virtue."
Is there _anyone_ who can, with a straight face, actually claim that
Bill Clinton would be recognized by the likes of Washington, Jefferson,
Madison, and so on as a "man of virtue?"
[newsgroups trimmed]
Thomas Mahoney
says...
No, I was referring to the witnesses who testified before the House who came
from every political persuasion. Their testimony was consistent and
persuasive that the crimes charged did not rise to the level called for in
the Constitution.
No demonstratable harm was done to the workings and functionings of the
Government. No organs of Government were used for illegal purposes and no
Governmental functions were impaired.
Private actions of the President, up to and including every allegation made
against him did, not meet the criteria for impeachment as foreseen by the
writers of the Constitution. That was their consensus testimony that the
House radicals chose to ignore. Fortunately the Senate decided to listen!
>Consider the new book by Judge and Professor Richard A. Posner, _An
>Affair of State: The Investigation, Impeachment, and Trial of President
>Clinton_. You can find a review of the book at
>
> http://www.reason.com/0001/bk.kw.not.html
>
>Here's an excerpt:
>
> If Clinton were the president of a university or a corporation rather
> than the president of the United States, Posner suggests, his conduct
> would have earned him "a prison sentence of 30 to 37 months." (One
> wonders how the impeachment would have progressed if this basic point
> had been emphasized more.) Posner is precise and persuasive in
> puncturing Clinton's lies and his defenders' obfuscations, and his
> demonstration that perjuries such as the president's are both readily
> proven and regularly punished in the criminal courts is an important
> corrective to the legal confusions fostered by the impeachment
> debates.
Not having read the book nor seen the reasoning he brings to his conclusions,
I cannot provide either an opinion nor a rebuttal. Absent the arguments to
support his conclusions I can merely say I strongly disagree with this
analysis.
>The notion that an outright felony (giving false testimony under oath)
>does "not rise to the level required in the Constitution" is bizarre.
Two things here. First there are numerous felonious behaviors that would not
give rise to an impeachment. If the act is not related to Governmental
functions, then it does not fall under this provision. Drunken driving being
a fair example. While such behavior can be felonious, it is not related to
Presidential duties or functions and would not be encompassed by the
impeachment clause of the Constitution.
Similarly all private actions, outside the scope of Presidential duties and
function, are not impeachable offenses.
More importantly, the President has not been shown to have committed any
crime at all, let alone those you suggest above.
>When the Constitution speaks of "treason, bribery, or other high crimes
>and misdemeanors," it does not anywhere say that the offenses in
>question can only be those arising out of official duties.
As with any law the Courts look to the history and debates leading to it's
enaction, to determine the intent of the law. The discussions regarding
impeachment by the framers of the Constitution were to LIMIT it's
application, so as not to be abused as it was in European Nations and State
legislatures.
In these other Nations and States, it was used as a means of restricting the
Authority of the Executive, often invoked for mere policy differences. The
framers wanted to avoid this and have it used ONLY for crimes against the
State or abuse of Presidential authority. That is what the Constitutional
experts testified to and how the term high crimes and misdemeanors should be
interpreted.
>Nor does it
>say that there are some felonies which are "high" crimes and others
>which are not. The suggestion that an offense which would earn the
>perpetrator more than 2-1/2 years in a Federal prison is not a "high
>crime" but something that can simply be passed off while the offender
>continues to serve in office is insupportable.
Your analysis is in conflict with the opinions of Madison, Jefferson,
Hamilton, and even Washington. But then, maybe you know better than them:-(
>If Bill Clinton held any other Federal office subject to impeachment
>than President or maybe Vice-President, he would surely have been
>removed from it by having his resignation demanded (if in the executive
>branch) or, if necessary, by impeachment if in the judicial branch.
Again, only if the charges could be proven, which has not happened. You make
presumptions not based on fact.
>The
>legislative branch seems to operate by different rules, but that's how
>the Constitution is written. _Many_ Federal judges have been impeached
>over the past 211 years since the Constitution was ratified, some for
>mere judicial misconduct (drunkenness and inattention on the bench).
Dereliction of duty, misfeasance and malfeasance of office, which include the
actions you describe, are grounds for dismissal or impeachment since they
involve official duties. Something not shown in the Charges made against
Clinton.
>No governor or other executive branch officer of a state government
>would be allowed to continue serving if he were caught in the act of
>defrauding a court of law as was Bill Clinton. Indeed, one of the
>convictions obtained by the OIC under Ken Starr was that of Jim Guy
>Tucker, the governor of Arkansas, who escaped prison only because of his
>claim of "ill health." (Not too many people who aren't well-connected
>politicians can get away with that.) Tucker was compelled to resign his
>position immediately. And there have been other governors who have
>likewise been removed from office upon conviction of a felony.
Still throwing around unproven charges and claiming the mere accusation makes
them so. Even the Contempt of Court citation against Clinton, cannot be
construed as "defrauding a court".
Let me make it clear for you. Charges have to be proven before any penalties
can be assessed. The proof of this statement is the fact that Clinton is
still your President and is in no danger of being removed.
Reality sometimes does interferes with right wing fantasies doesn't it:-)
>Conviction of a felony will cost a lawyer his license to practice law.
>Indeed, a lawyer may be suspended for a lengthy period or disbarred
>without even a conviction for kinds of misconduct that might not even be
>actionable under the criminal code. The general concept is that no one
>who can be characterized as having "moral turpitude" should be
>practicing law.
And the possibility of Clinton being disbarred from practicing law in
Arkansas still exists. Unlikely as it may be, the final decision on this has
not yet been made. Not because of any felony, mind you, but in regards to
the contempt citation.
>So you are asking us to believe that men like George Washington, George
>Mason, Gouverneur Morris, James Madison, Ben Franklin, and so many
>others who worked on the writing of the Constitution believed that the
>President of the United States could testify falsely under oath before a
>court of law, so long as it was on some matter related to his personal
>sex life, and in no way be called to account for his behavior during his
>term of office, but should be allowed to continue to serve as the chief
>of state and head of government of the American polity.
That is, in essence, what THEY said! Impeachment was to be used for
protection of the Government not for punishing the office holder. There are
criminal courts for punishment, impeachment is the peoples protection.
>That's really a
>remarkable request, in light of so many comments by the Founding Fathers
>in places like the Federalist Papers and many other essays on the need
>for the republic to be governed by "men of virtue."
Do look into the personal histories of these "men of virtue" Clinton would
look like a saint in comparison. You completely fail to recognize that they
were talking about 'official' behavior, not personal!
>Is there _anyone_ who can, with a straight face, actually claim that
>Bill Clinton would be recognized by the likes of Washington, Jefferson,
>Madison, and so on as a "man of virtue?"
>
>[newsgroups trimmed]
Without a doubt! His function as the Chief Executive of this Nation is above
reproof. His personal behavior may leave some room for improvement. But
even here, preserving his marriage and honoring his wedding vows is more
honorable than the serial marriages and numerous affairs, of many of his
accusers.
Tom Mahoney
Martin McPhillips
>>
>>"[A]lmost every Constitutional scholar"? Surely not. This is an
>>exaggeration. Perhaps it would be correct to say "almost every
>>Constitutional scholar given wide publicity by the media," in view of
>>the media bias towards "liberalism."
>
>No, I was referring to the witnesses who testified before the House who
came
>from every political persuasion. Their testimony was consistent and
>persuasive that the crimes charged did not rise to the level called for in
>the Constitution.
Half of those witnesses affirmed that the offenses were impeachable.
>No demonstratable harm was done to the workings and functionings of the
>Government. No organs of Government were used for illegal purposes and no
>Governmental functions were impaired.
That's not correct. The President had lied and obstructed justice in two
judicial proceedings--a civil suit in which he was the defendant and
a grand jury. That's a violation of his oath, in addition to a crime.
>Private actions of the President, up to and including every allegation made
>against him did, not meet the criteria for impeachment as foreseen by the
>writers of the Constitution.
That's nonsense. First of all, he was charged with lying in judicial
proceedings. That's not private. As for the blow jobs in the Oval Office,
with the Secret Service standing guard, that's not private either, because,
simply, the Oval Office is the Offfice of the President of the United
States, not the office of Bill Clinton.
>That was their consensus testimony that the
>House radicals chose to ignore. Fortunately the Senate decided to listen!
Nonsense. There was no consensus, save in the imagination of
the White House Mindfuck Machine.
>>Consider the new book by Judge and Professor Richard A. Posner, _An
>>Affair of State: The Investigation, Impeachment, and Trial of President
>>Clinton_. You can find a review of the book at
>>
>> http://www.reason.com/0001/bk.kw.not.html
So what. That can be trumped and trumped again.
Go get Griffin Bell's testimony. Or Forrest McDonalds. Or Jonathan
Turley's. Bell was Carter's Attorney General. Turley is a liberal
Democrat law professor. McDonald is a Constitutional scholar and
historian.
Earl Arevalo
Only the Constitutional "scholars" loyal to his defense stated that the
charges did not rise.
> Their testimony was consistent and
> persuasive that the crimes charged did not rise to the level called for in
> the Constitution.
>
> >Consider the new book by Judge and Professor Richard A. Posner, _An
> >Affair of State: The Investigation, Impeachment, and Trial of President
> >Clinton_. You can find a review of the book at
> >
> > http://www.reason.com/0001/bk.kw.not.html
> >
> >Here's an excerpt:
> >
> > If Clinton were the president of a university or a corporation rather
> > than the president of the United States, Posner suggests, his conduct
> > would have earned him "a prison sentence of 30 to 37 months." (One
> > wonders how the impeachment would have progressed if this basic point
> > had been emphasized more.) Posner is precise and persuasive in
> > puncturing Clinton's lies and his defenders' obfuscations, and his
> > demonstration that perjuries such as the president's are both readily
> > proven and regularly punished in the criminal courts is an important
> > corrective to the legal confusions fostered by the impeachment
> > debates.
>
> Not having read the book nor seen the reasoning he brings to his conclusions,
> I cannot provide either an opinion nor a rebuttal. Absent the arguments to
> support his conclusions I can merely say I strongly disagree with this
> analysis.
You are as stubborn and narrow minded as the Democrats who were told
about the evidence and refused to see it.
>
> >The notion that an outright felony (giving false testimony under oath)
> >does "not rise to the level required in the Constitution" is bizarre.
> >
> Similarly all private actions, outside the scope of Presidential duties and
> function, are not impeachable offenses.
> >
> More importantly, the President has not been shown to have committed any
> crime at all, let alone those you suggest above.
> >
> >When the Constitution speaks of "treason, bribery, or other high crimes
> >and misdemeanors," it does not anywhere say that the offenses in
> >question can only be those arising out of official duties.
> >Nor does it
> >say that there are some felonies which are "high" crimes and others
> >which are not. The suggestion that an offense which would earn the
> >perpetrator more than 2-1/2 years in a Federal prison is not a "high
> >crime" but something that can simply be passed off while the offender
> >continues to serve in office is insupportable.
> >If Bill Clinton held any other Federal office subject to impeachment
> >than President or maybe Vice-President, he would surely have been
> >removed from it by having his resignation demanded (if in the executive
> >branch) or, if necessary, by impeachment if in the judicial branch.
> >The
> >legislative branch seems to operate by different rules, but that's how
> >the Constitution is written. _Many_ Federal judges have been impeached
> >over the past 211 years since the Constitution was ratified, some for
> >mere judicial misconduct (drunkenness and inattention on the bench).
> >No governor or other executive branch officer of a state government
> >would be allowed to continue serving if he were caught in the act of
> >defrauding a court of law as was Bill Clinton. Indeed, one of the
> >convictions obtained by the OIC under Ken Starr was that of Jim Guy
> >Tucker, the governor of Arkansas, who escaped prison only because of his
> >claim of "ill health." (Not too many people who aren't well-connected
> >politicians can get away with that.) Tucker was compelled to resign his
> >position immediately. And there have been other governors who have
> >likewise been removed from office upon conviction of a felony.
> >Conviction of a felony will cost a lawyer his license to practice law.
> >Indeed, a lawyer may be suspended for a lengthy period or disbarred
> >without even a conviction for kinds of misconduct that might not even be
> >actionable under the criminal code. The general concept is that no one
> >who can be characterized as having "moral turpitude" should be
> >practicing law.
>
> And the possibility of Clinton being disbarred from practicing law in
> Arkansas still exists. Unlikely as it may be, the final decision on this has
> not yet been made. Not because of any felony, mind you, but in regards to
> the contempt citation.
TAKE NOTE - Clinton has given up any possibility of practicing law in
Arkansas. He has given up his residence in Arkansas. You could say he
has disbarred himself. HEHEHEHEHE
>
> >So you are asking us to believe that men like George Washington, George
> >Mason, Gouverneur Morris, James Madison, Ben Franklin, and so many
> >others who worked on the writing of the Constitution believed that the
> >President of the United States could testify falsely under oath before a
> >court of law, so long as it was on some matter related to his personal
> >sex life, and in no way be called to account for his behavior during his
> >term of office, but should be allowed to continue to serve as the chief
> >of state and head of government of the American polity.
> >That's really a
> >remarkable request, in light of so many comments by the Founding Fathers
> >in places like the Federalist Papers and many other essays on the need
> >for the republic to be governed by "men of virtue."
> >Is there _anyone_ who can, with a straight face, actually claim that
> >Bill Clinton would be recognized by the likes of Washington, Jefferson,
> >Madison, and so on as a "man of virtue?"
> >
> >[newsgroups trimmed]
>
> Tom Mahoney
The American People
Your Tax dollars paid for their lies.
>
> > Their testimony was consistent and
> > persuasive that the crimes charged did not rise to the level called for in
> > the Constitution.
> >
> > >Consider the new book by Judge and Professor Richard A. Posner, _An
> > >Affair of State: The Investigation, Impeachment, and Trial of President
> > >Clinton_. You can find a review of the book at
> > >
> > > http://www.reason.com/0001/bk.kw.not.html
> > >
> > >Here's an excerpt:
> > >
> > > If Clinton were the president of a university or a corporation rather
> > > than the president of the United States, Posner suggests, his conduct
> > > would have earned him "a prison sentence of 30 to 37 months." (One
> > > wonders how the impeachment would have progressed if this basic point
> > > had been emphasized more.) Posner is precise and persuasive in
> > > puncturing Clinton's lies and his defenders' obfuscations, and his
> > > demonstration that perjuries such as the president's are both readily
> > > proven and regularly punished in the criminal courts is an important
> > > corrective to the legal confusions fostered by the impeachment
> > > debates.
> >
> > Not having read the book nor seen the reasoning he brings to his conclusions,
> > I cannot provide either an opinion nor a rebuttal. Absent the arguments to
> > support his conclusions I can merely say I strongly disagree with this
> > analysis.
>
> You are as stubborn and narrow minded as the Democrats who were told
> about the evidence and refused to see it.
Wouldn't you love to have him as a juror. Don't need evidence.
His silence condemns him;-)
Joe Krolikowski
bre...@no-spam.com wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Dec 1999 07:25:43 GMT, Joe Krolikowski
> <jkroli...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >Michael Zarlenga wrote:
> >
> >> :>> Ie-- threw the case out as "worthless".
> >>
> >> So why did Clinton blow $700K settling the case a few months later?
> >
> >Slight correction: $850K.
>
> 850k is correct.
Well, it's heart-warming to know that you can confirm the facts for me, Mary.
<sarcasm>
I can now sleep better at night armed with this knowledge.
</sarcasm>
> Because of the damage they had done using it so far. They could have
> appealed the dismissal, giving them more time to manoever.
The correct term is, I believe, "weasel." But it is nothing more than mere
speculation to say that it might have succeeded.
> Drudge said the WP said Clinton could make $125,000 per speech in 2001.
This makes Drudge the bearer of hearsay. This doesn't necessarily mean that
Clinton will in fact actually *make* $125K per speech. If his poll numbers are
any indication, it seems likely that no rational personal would *pay* to listen
to the Lying Bastard.
Please note that under the umbrella term "rational," I'm by no means including
*you.*
> At that rate, he could replace the $850,000 in about a week.
With *could* being the operative word upon which the entire premise depends.
Will it actaully *happen?* Only time will tell, at this point.
> Clinton has said he is not going to bother asking for reimbursement of $5m
> legal fees (or is it $10m?). Says his legal defense fund contributions will
> take care of it.
He says that *now,* but I'm not (nor should you) operating under the assumption
that this dynamic is a static one.
Joe Krolikowski
horr...@aol.com
Clinton being disbarred from practicing law in
> > > Arkansas still exists. Unlikely as it may be, the final decision
on this has
> > > not yet been made. Not because of any felony, mind you, but in
regards to
> > > the contempt citation.
> >
> > TAKE NOTE - Clinton has given up any possibility of practicing law
in
> > Arkansas. He has given up his residence in Arkansas. You could say
he
> > has disbarred himself. HEHEHEHEHE
>
> His silence condemns him;-)
>
>
Not true: you don't have to live in a state to practice law there. In
any case, Bill Clinton could always practice law in New York, where he
now lives.
As for all the stuff about governors having to resign when convicted of
a felony and lawyers being disbarred and after being convicted of
felonies--- we should bear in mind that Clinton has not been convicted
of any felony. He was accused of committing felonies but he has not
been committed. As a sitting President he can't be tried for a felony,
BUT he can be impeached (which he was) and removed from office (which
he wasn't.) (If he had been removed from office he could have been
tried for felonies, however...) Also, there are cases where lawyers
have NOT been disbarred, or where governors have NOT been forced to
resign, and where corporate executives have NOT been fired after being
accused (or even convicted) of felonies....
Frank Logullo
Ethics is also an important part of this.
Frank
In article <85cs7u$6kb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, horr...@aol.com wrote:
>In article <387771FF...@aul.cum>,> > > And the possibility of
>Clinton being disbarred from practicing law in
>> > > Arkansas still exists. Unlikely as it may be, the final decision
>on this has
>> > > not yet been made. Not because of any felony, mind you, but in
>regards to
>> > > the contempt citation.
>> >
>> > TAKE NOTE - Clinton has given up any possibility of practicing law
>in
>> > Arkansas. He has given up his residence in Arkansas. You could say
>he
>> > has disbarred himself. HEHEHEHEHE
>>
>> His silence condemns him;-)
>>
>>
>
TERESA
horr...@aol.com wrote:
>
> In article <387771FF...@aul.cum>,> > > And the possibility of
> Clinton being disbarred from practicing law in
> > > > Arkansas still exists. Unlikely as it may be, the final decision
> on this has
> > > > not yet been made. Not because of any felony, mind you, but in
> regards to
> > > > the contempt citation.
> > >
> > > TAKE NOTE - Clinton has given up any possibility of practicing law
> in
> > > Arkansas. He has given up his residence in Arkansas. You could say
> he
> > > has disbarred himself. HEHEHEHEHE
> >
> > His silence condemns him;-)
> >
> >
>
> Not true: you don't have to live in a state to practice law there. In
> any case, Bill Clinton could always practice law in New York, where he
> now lives.
>
> As for all the stuff about governors having to resign when convicted of
> a felony and lawyers being disbarred and after being convicted of
> felonies--- we should bear in mind that Clinton has not been convicted
> of any felony. He was accused of committing felonies but he has not
> been committed. As a sitting President he can't be tried for a felony,
> BUT he can be impeached (which he was) and removed from office (which
> he wasn't.)
> (If he had been removed from office he could have been
> tried for felonies, however...)
Do you mean that because he was impeached but not removed from office he
can not be tried for a felony?
This is what I think you mean. Is that the same immunity that Boris
Yeltsin has?
R. Wiley
His supporters held more than 1/3 of the Senate.
A 2/3 supermajority is required to convict.
rw
horr...@aol.com
TERESA <twi...@nemy.com> wrote:
>
> Do you mean that because he was impeached but not removed from office
he
> can not be tried for a felony?
> This is what I think you mean. Is that the same immunity that Boris
> Yeltsin has?
>
Yeltsin was pardoned by his successor, Putin (if I remember
correctly.) In our country, Ford did the same for Nixon.
No prosecutor has ever tried to test this, but the consensus is that it
is unconstitutional to prosecute a sitting President. You have to wait
till the President is no longer President to try him. Even if it is
constitutional, it would be pointless to prosecute him for federal
charges, since he has the power to pardon himself or herself (and
because he or she can also fire the prosecutor.)
The Senate refused to remove Clinton from office, so he (evidently)
cannot be prosecuted.
TERESA
MSLU123
>A 2/3 supermajority is required to convict.
>
>
>rw
That is why our government is set up the way it is. It works.
Martin McPhillips
>
came
>from every political persuasion. Their testimony was consistent and
>persuasive that the crimes charged did not rise to the level called for in
>the Constitution.
That's wrong. I can name three witnesses who said that the crimes
very much rose to the level of impeachment: Forrest McDonald, Griffin
Bell, and Jonathan Turley. Those are the three that come immediately
to mind. The panel of Constitutional scholars was *divided* on the
issue.
>No demonstratable harm was done to the workings and functionings of the
>Government. No organs of Government were used for illegal purposes and no
>Governmental functions were impaired.
Wrong again. Clinton obstructed justice in a federal judicial proceeding.
He also used the full weight of the executive office of the President
to defend himself and his lies.
>Private actions of the President, up to and including every allegation made
>against him did, not meet the criteria for impeachment as foreseen by the
>writers of the Constitution. That was their consensus testimony that the
>House radicals chose to ignore. Fortunately the Senate decided to listen!
You can say it another *thousand* times and it still will not be true.
Clinton was not impeached for private behavior. None of the charges
against him were for private behavior. But that is not to say that he
could not have been impeached for private behavior. He could have.
horr...@aol.com
TERESA <twi...@nemy.com> wrote:
> Do you mean that because he was impeached but not removed from office
he
> can not be tried for a felony?
>
Yes, that's what I mean. President Clinton theoretically COULD be
tried AFTER he leaves office. It's highly unlikely that he WOULD be.
President Nixon was pardoned for Watergate. President Andrew Johnson
was never tried for violating the Tenure in Office act (or whatever it
was called.) VP Aaron Burr was never tried for murdering Alexander
Hamilton (though he was tried for various crimes committed after he was
no longer the VP.) VP Spiro Agnew took a plea bargain.
Most likely, Clinton would be pardoned by the next President if there
seemed to be a chance of him being prosecuted.
TERESA
horr...@aol.com wrote:
>
> In article <387A53C7...@nemy.com>,
> TERESA <twi...@nemy.com> wrote:
> >
> > Do you mean that because he was impeached but not removed from office
> he
> > can not be tried for a felony?
> > This is what I think you mean. Is that the same immunity that Boris
> > Yeltsin has?
> >
>
> Yeltsin was pardoned by his successor, Putin (if I remember
> correctly.) In our country, Ford did the same for Nixon.
>
> No prosecutor has ever tried to test this, but the consensus is that it
> is unconstitutional to prosecute a sitting President. You have to wait
> till the President is no longer President to try him. Even if it is
> constitutional, it would be pointless to prosecute him for federal
> charges, since he has the power to pardon himself or herself (and
> because he or she can also fire the prosecutor.)
>
> The Senate refused to remove Clinton from office, so he (evidently)
> cannot be prosecuted.
Do you mean that because he was impeached, but not removed from office,
he can NOT be tried for a felony?
Wayne Mann
How in hell would you know Lulu, you claimed the Senate had to
convict before Clinton was Impeached, you claimed Kosova was on the
Ocean and so had a beach for landing troops and on and on. You have
posted ignorant statements and mostly LIES over 5 or 6 years now.
Anyone that has been around here any length of time knows what you
are. Why don;t you just go hang out in front of the White House with
a sign saying, "Clinton Blow Jobs here!" You're just a pain in the
ass around here!
Martin McPhillips
>In article <387B7AB7...@nemy.com>,
> TERESA <twi...@nemy.com> wrote:
>
>> Do you mean that because he was impeached but not removed from office
>>he
>> can not be tried for a felony?
>
>
>Yes, that's what I mean.
It doesn't appear to be what you mean at all. She asked you if you meant
that he could not be tried for a felony. You say "yes, that's what I mean."
But you immediately contradict yourself--
>President Clinton theoretically COULD be
>tried AFTER he leaves office. It's highly unlikely that he WOULD be.
It is unlikely, but these examples you give, except possibly for
Nixon, have no real application--
>President Nixon was pardoned for Watergate.
Do you think that Clinton will try to pardon himself if Bush is
elected? My guess would be that the President is legitimately
the one person who the President cannot pardon, and that it
would have to be challenged.
> President Andrew Johnson
>was never tried for violating the Tenure in Office act (or whatever it
>was called.)
It wasn't even a criminal statute, and carried no penalty. It was simply
a prohibition (unconstitutional) on the President, forbidding him
to remove cabinet officers without the approval of Congress.
So, there was no crime involved, and nothing to adjudicate.
> VP Aaron Burr was never tried for murdering Alexander
>Hamilton (though he was tried for various crimes committed after he was
>no longer the VP.)
Burr didn't murder Hamilton. He shot him in a duel.
>VP Spiro Agnew took a plea bargain.
You think Clinton might take a plea bargain?
>Most likely, Clinton would be pardoned by the next President if there
>seemed to be a chance of him being prosecuted.
Maybe. But the correct answer is that he won't be indicted, unless
justice suddenly becomes trendy again.
TERESA
horr...@aol.com wrote:
>
> In article <387B7AB7...@nemy.com>,
> TERESA <twi...@nemy.com> wrote:
> > Do you mean that because he was impeached but not removed from office
> he
> > can not be tried for a felony?
> >
>
> Yes, that's what I mean.
Yes, can not be?
> President Clinton theoretically COULD be
> tried AFTER he leaves office. It's highly unlikely that he WOULD be.
Yes, can be?
>
> President Nixon was pardoned for Watergate. President Andrew Johnson
> was never tried for violating the Tenure in Office act (or whatever it
> was called.) VP Aaron Burr was never tried for murdering Alexander
> Hamilton (though he was tried for various crimes committed after he was
> no longer the VP.) VP Spiro Agnew took a plea bargain.
>
> Most likely, Clinton would be pardoned by the next President if there
> seemed to be a chance of him being prosecuted.
>
Billy Boyd
for lies that he told. The same lies for which he was found in contempt
of court. Good for at least a year and a half.
He will most likely never qualify for a barr exam. in any state.
However, there are 50 states and he might find one corrupt enough.
Corruption;
http://my.netscape.com/news/Politics/01_11_2000.roptz0009-story-bcpoliticspoliticslouisiana.html
Potential corruption; Democratic Fund-raisers' cases sent by the chief
district judge in Washington directly to judges appointed by Clinton,
bypassing the normal system of randomly assigning cases. U.S. District
Judge Norma Holloway Johnson, who is already under scrutiny for
specially assigning cases against Clinton friend Webster Hubbell, as
well as fund-raisers Charlie Trie, Maria Hsia and Pauline Kanchanalak.
TERESA wrote:
>
> horr...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <387771FF...@aul.cum>,> > > And the possibility of
> > Clinton being disbarred from practicing law in
> > > > > Arkansas still exists. Unlikely as it may be, the final decision
> > on this has
> > > > > not yet been made. Not because of any felony, mind you, but in
> > regards to
> > > > > the contempt citation.
> > > >
> > > > TAKE NOTE - Clinton has given up any possibility of practicing law
> > in
> > > > Arkansas. He has given up his residence in Arkansas. You could say
> > he
> > > > has disbarred himself. HEHEHEHEHE
> > >
> > > His silence condemns him;-)
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Not true: you don't have to live in a state to practice law there. In
> > any case, Bill Clinton could always practice law in New York, where he
> > now lives.
> >
> > As for all the stuff about governors having to resign when convicted of
> > a felony and lawyers being disbarred and after being convicted of
> > felonies--- we should bear in mind that Clinton has not been convicted
> > of any felony. He was accused of committing felonies but he has not
> > been committed. As a sitting President he can't be tried for a felony,
> > BUT he can be impeached (which he was) and removed from office (which
> > he wasn't.)
>
> > (If he had been removed from office he could have been
> > tried for felonies, however...)
>
> Do you mean that because he was impeached but not removed from office he
> can not be tried for a felony?
> This is what I think you mean. Is that the same immunity that Boris
> Yeltsin has?
>
> > Also, there are cases where lawyers
> > have NOT been disbarred, or where governors have NOT been forced to
> > resign, and where corporate executives have NOT been fired after being
> > accused (or even convicted) of felonies....
> >
Thomas Mahoney
says...
>
>Thomas Mahoney wrote in message ...
>>
>came
>>from every political persuasion. Their testimony was consistent and
>>persuasive that the crimes charged did not rise to the level called for in
>>the Constitution.
>
>very much rose to the level of impeachment: Forrest McDonald, Griffin
>Bell, and Jonathan Turley. Those are the three that come immediately
>to mind. The panel of Constitutional scholars was *divided* on the
>issue.
While these and several others suggested that the charges themselves were of
such import, that was an argument about whether the actions harmed the
Nation, not that this wasn't The criteria imposed by the Constitution.
This was not the consensus opinion and NOT the argument supported by the
Republican controlled Congress.
>>No demonstratable harm was done to the workings and functionings of the
>>Government. No organs of Government were used for illegal purposes and no
>>Governmental functions were impaired.
>
>Wrong again. Clinton obstructed justice in a federal judicial proceeding.
No, that was the charge that was never proven.
>He also used the full weight of the executive office of the President
>to defend himself and his lies.
Again, there was no evidence to that effect that would support such a charge.
>>Private actions of the President, up to and including every allegation made
>>against him did, not meet the criteria for impeachment as foreseen by the
>>writers of the Constitution. That was their consensus testimony that the
>>House radicals chose to ignore. Fortunately the Senate decided to listen!
>
>You can say it another *thousand* times and it still will not be true.
Without some rational argument against it, there is no reason not to accept
it as the truth. If you care to believe something without proof or evidence
you should, perhaps, go to a Church.
>Clinton was not impeached for private behavior. None of the charges
>against him were for private behavior. But that is not to say that he
>could not have been impeached for private behavior. He could have.
Testimony to a Grand Jury in regards to Civil litigation, is indeed private.
Charges about obstruction of Justice were never proven because they only
existed in the minds of the right wing detractors.
Your blinders to the truth are obvious. Take a step back and look at the
facts in an objective manner. You will find that my portrayal of these
events is accurate and consistent with reality. After all, Clinton is still
your President and has not been charged with any crime, If you were right,
that wouldn't be the case, now would it?
Tom Mahoney
horr...@aol.com
Billy Boyd <bbp...@set.es> wrote:
> Do not let your self be hoaxed by the double talk. Clinton can be
tried
> for lies that he told. The same lies for which he was found in
contempt
> of court. Good for at least a year and a half.
>
Right now, he cannot be tried, because he is still in office. It is
true that he COULD be tried after Jan 20, 2001. He probably won't be,
but it is a possibility.
> He will most likely never qualify for a barr exam. in any state.
The bar exam is a non-issue: Clinton passed it a long time ago. I am
not a lawyer, but I think I am not wrong when I state that you only
have to pass the bar exam in ONE state to be admitted to the bar in
another state. (The exceptions are LA, IN, and WA which have their own
bar exams. LA--- and I mean Louisiana, NOT Los Angeles--- is a special
case because its law is based on French law rather than British. I
don't know what the deal is with the other two states.)
He COULD theoretically be disbarred and/or denied a law license. Some
of his detractors have already tried to do this. They were
unsuccessful. If he actually got convicted of a felony, the odds of him
ebing disbarred would be much higher. He has not been convicted of a
felony yet, however.
martin c kleczynski
by your neighborhood library or bookstore and pick up "High Crimes and
Misdemeanors" by Ann Coulter. She also refers to many important resources
which one needs to view if a person really wants a clear understanding of
"hig Crimes and Misdemeanors."
Ann points out several things(my paraphrasing):
1)The phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" is a direct import from
England and can be best understood from the study of English parliamentary
history.
2)In criminal law there are such things as "crimes" and "misdemeanors"
but the attachment of the word *high* to crimes and misdemeanors points to a
*political* offense and NOT a criminal offense especially in light of the
fact that there is no such thing as a *high* crime or misdemeanor in
criminal law.
3)A person's "demeanor" is the person's CHARACTER. If a person is guilty
of a Misdemeanor then the person has BAD character.
I would go on but if this posting is just blown off my time and effort
of writing any more would be wasted.
Chapters 1 and 20 clearly sets forth why President Clinton should be
removed from office.
The Chinagate=Treason issue should have the President and vice president
in impeached and removed from their offices!!!!
Dr. Roger M. Firestone <rf...@chele.cais.net> wrote in message
news:854t35$dgf$1...@nnrp-corp.news.cais.net...
Thomas Mahoney
mar...@northlink.net says...
>
> While the source you quote is good I would like to suggest that you run
>by your neighborhood library or bookstore and pick up "High Crimes and
>Misdemeanors" by Ann Coulter. She also refers to many important resources
>which one needs to view if a person really wants a clear understanding of
>"hig Crimes and Misdemeanors."
> Ann points out several things(my paraphrasing):
> 1)The phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" is a direct import from
>England and can be best understood from the study of English parliamentary
>history.
Agreed that the term was derivative of that usage but it was specifically
distinguished from it, in that it was not to used for "political" purposes,
as was common in Europe. England's own Parliamentary system, where the Prime
Minister serves at the whim of the majority, or coalition thereof, is based
on this concept.
> 2)In criminal law there are such things as "crimes" and "misdemeanors"
>but the attachment of the word *high* to crimes and misdemeanors points to a
>*political* offense and NOT a criminal offense especially in light of the
>fact that there is no such thing as a *high* crime or misdemeanor in
>criminal law.
Yes, the damage that a "sovereign" might do to the Nation need not be a
crime, as commonly referenced in English common law. The English thought
that mere policy differences were sufficient for impeachment and codified
such, by implementing the Parliamentary system of Government.
Madison and Hamilton both argued that mere policy disputes should not be
sufficient for impeachment but only those actions harmful to the Nation.
> 3)A person's "demeanor" is the person's CHARACTER. If a person is guilty
>of a Misdemeanor then the person has BAD character.
> I would go on but if this posting is just blown off my time and effort
>of writing any more would be wasted.
You are making sense and providing useful information. Always welcome to
hear:-)
But I digress. The demeanor, you refer to above, is in regards to their
official capacity. Given the morals of the times and the enthusiasm shown by
many of our founders, for the "wild" side of life, they did not mean to
include personal excesses, in this definition.
> Chapters 1 and 20 clearly sets forth why President Clinton should be
>removed from office.
I have read some excerpts but do not know from which chapters. While it
appears to be informative, the analysis and conclusions do not appear to be
adequately supported. Unfounded assumptions and personal interpretations
abound and reasonable people, reading the same material, arrive at very
different conclusions.
> The Chinagate=Treason issue should have the President and vice president
>in impeached and removed from their offices!!!!
This just begs the question. Not having sufficient grounds for the
impeachment that was passed by the House, to then go looking for other
reasons for impeachment, is just throwing up a red herring.
Tom Mahoney
martin c kleczynski
Misdemeanors" in impeachment. To further set forth my case about the
non-criminal act side of impeachment I set before you the following
following examples:
*"In 1666 Viscount John Mordaunt was charged with impeachment for the
high crime and misdemeanor of MAKING UNCIVIL ADDRESSES TO A WOMAN."
*"In 1680 Sir William Scroggs, lord chief justice of the court of the
King's Bench, was impeached on account of 'HIS FREQUENT AND NOTORIOUS
EXCESSES AND DEBAUCHERIES' bringing 'the highest scandal on the public
justice of the kingdom'"
*"In 1701 Edward, Earl of Oxford, a member of the king's council, was
impeached for procuring an office for someone 'known to be a person of ill
fame and reputation'"
(from "High Crimes and Misdemeanors", Ann Coulter, page
4--emphasis mine)
As I understand it, the king was above impeachment but his underlings
were not. In our Constitutional system the President is to be under the law
as well which opens him up to accountability as well (Article
2,sec.4 -Constitution).
For me what this all boils down to is this. There is historical precedent
for impeaching President Clinton (which he was) and I believe to remove him.
Putting aside honest differences of opinion I have to believe that most
people do not care about the political process or the Rule of Law.
Ultimately, directly or indirectly, we the people are responsible for the
president remaining in office.
Regarding Chinagate, I have reason to believe that Congress knew all
about it at the time and they walked away from it. They still continue not
to persue the matter. I want to be wrong on this subject and have whole
Chinagate issue go away, but too much evidence is piling up.
I'll leave with Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 68:
"Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone
suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will
require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in
the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a
portion of it as would be necessary to make him a sucessful candidate for
the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be
too strong to say that there will be a constant probability of seeing the
station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue".
From where have we fallen.....God help us.
Thomas Mahoney <exce...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:omUf4.320$%Y3.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> In article <MrRf4.10296$0l4.1...@tw12.nn.bcandid.com>,
> mar...@northlink.net says...
> >
> > While the source you quote is good I would like to suggest that you
run
> >by your neighborhood library or bookstore and pick up "High Crimes and
> >Misdemeanors" by Ann Coulter. She also refers to many important resources
> >which one needs to view if a person really wants a clear understanding of
> >"hig Crimes and Misdemeanors."
> > Ann points out several things(my paraphrasing):
> > 1)The phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" is a direct import from
> >England and can be best understood from the study of English
parliamentary
> >history.
>
> Agreed that the term was derivative of that usage but it was specifically
> distinguished from it, in that it was not to used for "political"
purposes,
> as was common in Europe. England's own Parliamentary system, where the
Prime
> Minister serves at the whim of the majority, or coalition thereof, is
based
> on this concept.
>
> > 2)In criminal law there are such things as "crimes" and
"misdemeanors"
> >but the attachment of the word *high* to crimes and misdemeanors points
to a
> >*political* offense and NOT a criminal offense especially in light of the
> >fact that there is no such thing as a *high* crime or misdemeanor in
> >criminal law.
>
> Yes, the damage that a "sovereign" might do to the Nation need not be a
> crime, as commonly referenced in English common law. The English thought
> that mere policy differences were sufficient for impeachment and codified
> such, by implementing the Parliamentary system of Government.
>
> Madison and Hamilton both argued that mere policy disputes should not be
> sufficient for impeachment but only those actions harmful to the Nation.
>
> > 3)A person's "demeanor" is the person's CHARACTER. If a person is
guilty
> >of a Misdemeanor then the person has BAD character.
> > I would go on but if this posting is just blown off my time and
effort
> >of writing any more would be wasted.
>
> You are making sense and providing useful information. Always welcome to
> hear:-)
>
> But I digress. The demeanor, you refer to above, is in regards to their
> official capacity. Given the morals of the times and the enthusiasm shown
by
> many of our founders, for the "wild" side of life, they did not mean to
> include personal excesses, in this definition.
>
> > Chapters 1 and 20 clearly sets forth why President Clinton should be
> >removed from office.
>
> I have read some excerpts but do not know from which chapters. While it
> appears to be informative, the analysis and conclusions do not appear to
be
> adequately supported. Unfounded assumptions and personal interpretations
> abound and reasonable people, reading the same material, arrive at very
> different conclusions.
>
> > The Chinagate=Treason issue should have the President and vice
president
> >in impeached and removed from their offices!!!!
>
Thomas Mahoney
says...
>
> Going back to the England's use of the phrase "high Crimes and
>Misdemeanors" in impeachment. To further set forth my case about the
>non-criminal act side of impeachment I set before you the following
>following examples:
> *"In 1666 Viscount John Mordaunt was charged with impeachment for the
>high crime and misdemeanor of MAKING UNCIVIL ADDRESSES TO A WOMAN."
> *"In 1680 Sir William Scroggs, lord chief justice of the court of the
>King's Bench, was impeached on account of 'HIS FREQUENT AND NOTORIOUS
>EXCESSES AND DEBAUCHERIES' bringing 'the highest scandal on the public
>justice of the kingdom'"
> *"In 1701 Edward, Earl of Oxford, a member of the king's council, was
>impeached for procuring an office for someone 'known to be a person of ill
>fame and reputation'"
> (from "High Crimes and Misdemeanors", Ann Coulter, page
>4--emphasis mine)
You actually make my point. The framers of the Constitution were aware that
impeachment was being used for just such purposes, not only in Europe but in
several of the State Legislatures as well. They argued against using
impeachment for such purposes but would rather, limit it to dangers or
actions against the State.
Do remember that these official served at the whim of the Sovereign and that
any just cause was reason for removal. This was the basis for the
Parliamentary style of Government, where the Prime Minister serves only so
long as he can maintain a majority vote. A vote of no-confidence, by the
majority of the legislature, was sufficient for his removal.
Our Constitution was designed to avoid just this situation and specified that
the President was to serve for a fixed period of time, ie; a four year term.
Policy differences and actions not affecting the State were NOT to be
sufficient for the Presidents removal.
> As I understand it, the king was above impeachment but his underlings
>were not. In our Constitutional system the President is to be under the law
>as well which opens him up to accountability as well (Article
>2,sec.4 -Constitution).
That is the impeachment clause, which makes this a circular argument
unsupportive of your position.
The debates surrounding the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors", are the
factors which should be looked at, in interpreting this phrase and not the
usage of those not involved, in the formation of this document.
> For me what this all boils down to is this. There is historical precedent
>for impeaching President Clinton (which he was) and I believe to remove him.
Again, the differences between serving at the whim of the Sovereign and
serving for a fixed term of office, would suggest that you are incorrect in
this analysis.
>Putting aside honest differences of opinion I have to believe that most
>people do not care about the political process or the Rule of Law.
While many a person is uninformed about the details involved, those who are
interested in preserving our Constitutional form of Government, would take
umbrage at such a suggestion.
>Ultimately, directly or indirectly, we the people are responsible for the
>president remaining in office.
Here, however we are in complete agreement. 'We the People' are the ultimate
arbitrators of how our Government should function. As a nation of laws, this
control is exercised by our elected Representatives, passing such laws, as we
would agree with and risk removal in the next election, if they broke faith
with the people.
The 2000 elections will demonstrate this quite clearly:-)
Tom Mahoney
(snip)
Wm. J. Beck, Jr.
Re: WHY SENATE DID NOT CONVICT (l)
Thomas Mahoney
wrote in message ...
No, I was referring to the
witnesses who testified
before the House who came
from every political persuasion.
Their testimony was consistent
and persuasive that the crimes
charged did not rise to the level
called for in the Constitution.
Martin McPhillips responds;
That's wrong. I can name
three witnesses who said that
the crimes very much rose to
the level of impeachment:
Forrest McDonald, Griffin Bell,
and Jonathan Turley. Those are
the three that come immediately
to mind.
Another one comes to mind, what's the name of that shriveled up little
hypocrite in W. Va.? Said Yes the President DID commit perjury;
Yes the President DID obstruct justice; Yes the President DOES deserve
to be impeached; and Yes the President should be removed from office.
So how did he vote? Now there's Senatorial integrity!
The panel of Constitutional
scholars was *divided* on
the issue.
No demonstratable harm
was done to the workings
and functionings of the
Government.
A President of the U.S., in an effort to gain personal advantage in a
Federal lawsuit pending against him, commits perjury, subornes
perjury, and obstructs justice. And you don't believe any demonstrable
harm has been done to the workings and functionings of government?
You don't believe that a president should abide by the government laws
which forbid this? And if he flouts and disobeys such laws, (thus
undermining the "workings and functionings" of this particular branch
of government), you don't believe he has done demonstrable harm to
the justice system?
If other miscreants commit strikingly similar crimes (e.g. Dr. Barbara
Batalino), should they be granted equal immunity from the law? If not,
WHY not? Because unlike the President, they are not above the law?
No organs
of Government
were used....
Well perhaps argueably, Monica Lewinsky used one -- with Clinton's
help. But that's another story.
....for illegal purposes and
no Governmental functions
were impaired.
You don't believe that perjury and subornation of perjury impairs the
Governmental function of justice?
Wrong again. Clinton
obstructed justice in a
federal judicial proceeding.
He also used the full weight
of the executive office of the
President to defend himself
and his lies.
Yeah but the economy was good. Everybody was getting their food stamps.
Too bad for Nixon that he didn't hire Alan Greenspan.
Private actions of the
President, up to and including
every allegation made against
him did, not meet the criteria
for impeachment as foreseen
by the writers of the Constitution.
The writers of the Constitution never wrote any specific criteria for
impeachment. They wrote "high crimes and misdemeanors", quite
implicitly
leaving that judgement to the House.
That was their
consensus testimony....
Who's? The writers? I didn't know they testified. Where was I? I
wouldn't have wanted to miss that.
...that the House radicals
chose to ignore. Fortunately
the Senate decided to listen!
Yeah they were really cute weren't they? Didja like that novel little
diddy by Spectre? BTW does that set a precedent for the use of Scottish
Law in the U.S.?
And how about that proposed Senate Censure? His conduct was deemed by
them to be "UNACCEPTABLE" -- which they chose to accept.
You can say it another
*thousand* times and it
still will not be true.
Clinton was not impeached
for private behavior. None of
the charges against him were
for private behavior.
Nice try. But that statement will forever be ignored, in the desperate
hope that you'll stop saying it. No Clinton partisan wants to be
reminded of it.
But that is not to say
that he could not have been
impeached for private behavior.
He could have.
High crimes and misdemeanors are what the House SAYS they are. Nothing
in the Constitution, NOTHING rules that out.
Bill Beck
Wayne Mann
Beck, Jr.) wrote:
>Tue, Jan 11, 2000, 3:07pm From: cay...@nyct.net (Martin McPhillips)
>Re: WHY SENATE DID NOT CONVICT (l)
>
> Thomas Mahoney
> wrote in message ...
>
> No, I was referring to the
> witnesses who testified
> before the House who came
> from every political persuasion.
> Their testimony was consistent
> and persuasive that the crimes
> charged did not rise to the level
> called for in the Constitution.
>
> Martin McPhillips responds;
>
> That's wrong. I can name
> three witnesses who said that
> the crimes very much rose to
> the level of impeachment:
> Forrest McDonald, Griffin Bell,
> and Jonathan Turley. Those are
> the three that come immediately
> to mind.
>
>Another one comes to mind, what's the name of that shriveled up little
>hypocrite in W. ?Va.? Said Yes the President DID commit perjury;
Mr Beck, as the author of the study done during the Watergate
hearings advocated, the standard for Impeachment was all you needed
was 218 votes. that was the criteria. Period. And as you know, the
author of the study was Hillary Rodham.
martin c kleczynski
not to settle policy disputes (as you pointed out and I now admit). That is
what elections are for. What is impeachment for or what behavior justifies
impeachment?
Let's look at Federalist 65:
"A well -constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not
more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly
elective. The subjects of it's jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed
from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or
violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar
propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done
immediately to the society itself" (emphasis is Alexander Hamilton's).
What kind of conduct has been considered "offenses which proceed from
the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or
violation of some public trust" in American impeachment convictions? I shall
list the following seven:
1) Drunkenness and Senility
2)Incitement to Revolt and Rebellion against the Nation.
3)Bribery
4)Kickbacks and Tax Evasion
5)Tax Evasion
6)Conspiracy to Solicit a Bribe
7)False Statements to a Grand Jury
All of the above were Federal judges. It makes little or no sense to
me if the judges, who have judgment and authority over regions of a State,
are held to a higher standard than is the Chief Executive of the *entire*
United States!!!!!
For discussion's sake let us suppose that the President was impeached
for "willfully provid[ing] perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the
[Federal] grand jury" in the President's previous perjury in the Paula Jones
civil suit? (Adopted 228-206, Dec.19,1998)
Ought the President to be convicted and removed from office if he did in
fact commit perjury? Does this meet the requirement that Alexander Hamilton
set forth in Federalist 65? Namely "They are of a nature which may with
peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to
injuries done immediately to the society itself."
To both I must answer a resounding YES!!!! Here's why I believe it
immediately injures society itself. We live under the a Constitutional
Republic wherein all people, including government officials are to be under
the law. If it is illegal for me a mere machinist to commit perjury, if it
is illegal for a Federal judge to commit perjury it is illegal for the
President of the United States to commit perjury. If he has in fact
committed perjury and is not held accountable to the law then he (as well as
We The People)are no longer under the Rule of Law (Constitutional Republic).
We are under a Monarchy .Which is just what our founding fathers fought the
Revolutionary War for and designed the Constitution to prevent.
Thomas Mahoney <exce...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:cdsg4.340$4R4....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> In article <Ikmg4.3681$NU6.1...@tw12.nn.bcandid.com>,
mar...@northlink.net
> says...
> >
> > Going back to the England's use of the phrase "high Crimes and
> >Misdemeanors" in impeachment. To further set forth my case about the
> >non-criminal act side of impeachment I set before you the following
> >following examples:
> > *"In 1666 Viscount John Mordaunt was charged with impeachment for the
> >high crime and misdemeanor of MAKING UNCIVIL ADDRESSES TO A WOMAN."
> > *"In 1680 Sir William Scroggs, lord chief justice of the court of the
> >King's Bench, was impeached on account of 'HIS FREQUENT AND NOTORIOUS
> >EXCESSES AND DEBAUCHERIES' bringing 'the highest scandal on the public
> >justice of the kingdom'"
> > *"In 1701 Edward, Earl of Oxford, a member of the king's council, was
> >impeached for procuring an office for someone 'known to be a person of
ill
> >fame and reputation'"
> > (from "High Crimes and Misdemeanors", Ann Coulter, page
> >4--emphasis mine)
>
> You actually make my point. The framers of the Constitution were aware
that
> impeachment was being used for just such purposes, not only in Europe but
in
> several of the State Legislatures as well. They argued against using
> impeachment for such purposes but would rather, limit it to dangers or
> actions against the State.
>
> Do remember that these official served at the whim of the Sovereign and
that
> any just cause was reason for removal. This was the basis for the
> Parliamentary style of Government, where the Prime Minister serves only so
> long as he can maintain a majority vote. A vote of no-confidence, by the
> majority of the legislature, was sufficient for his removal.
>
> Our Constitution was designed to avoid just this situation and specified
that
> the President was to serve for a fixed period of time, ie; a four year
term.
> Policy differences and actions not affecting the State were NOT to be
> sufficient for the Presidents removal.
>
> > As I understand it, the king was above impeachment but his underlings
> >were not. In our Constitutional system the President is to be under the
law
> >as well which opens him up to accountability as well (Article
> >2,sec.4 -Constitution).
>
> That is the impeachment clause, which makes this a circular argument
> unsupportive of your position.
>
> The debates surrounding the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors", are the
> factors which should be looked at, in interpreting this phrase and not the
> usage of those not involved, in the formation of this document.
>
> > For me what this all boils down to is this. There is historical
precedent
> >for impeaching President Clinton (which he was) and I believe to remove
him.
>
> Again, the differences between serving at the whim of the Sovereign and
> serving for a fixed term of office, would suggest that you are incorrect
in
> this analysis.
>
> >Putting aside honest differences of opinion I have to believe that most
> >people do not care about the political process or the Rule of Law.
>
> While many a person is uninformed about the details involved, those who
are
> interested in preserving our Constitutional form of Government, would take
> umbrage at such a suggestion.
>
> >Ultimately, directly or indirectly, we the people are responsible for the
> >president remaining in office.
>
Thomas Mahoney
says...
>
> I believe you and I can agree on some things. Impeachment's purpose is
>not to settle policy disputes (as you pointed out and I now admit). That is
>what elections are for. What is impeachment for or what behavior justifies
>impeachment?
Thank you for this concession and verifying it in the quotation below.
> Let's look at Federalist 65:
>"A well -constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not
>more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly
>elective. The subjects of it's jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed
>from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or
>violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar
>propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done
>immediately to the society itself" (emphasis is Alexander Hamilton's).
This emphasis has been taken to mean a distinction between official public
conduct that directly affects the Nation, as opposed to private individual
behavior, unrelated to their official, or "political" functions.
> What kind of conduct has been considered "offenses which proceed from
>the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or
>violation of some public trust" in American impeachment convictions? I shall
>list the following seven:
> 1) Drunkenness and Senility
> 2)Incitement to Revolt and Rebellion against the Nation.
> 3)Bribery
> 4)Kickbacks and Tax Evasion
> 5)Tax Evasion
> 6)Conspiracy to Solicit a Bribe
> 7)False Statements to a Grand Jury
This is the truncated version of these charges.
To be more specific, item 1 would have to include wording related to the
effects on official duties or functions. Mere drunken carousal may be
unseeingly but is not sufficient for impeachment, lest it somehow interfere
with their duties on the bench.
Items 2 thru 6 are pretty self explanatory in their effect on public
performance but even so the intentional performance of these acts would seem
to also to be required. A dispute regarding interpretation of the Internal
Revenue Code, resulting in an additional audit assessment, would not seem to
be sufficient grounds for impeachment. Unless it could also be shown to be a
willful disregard for the laws and not just an honest mis-interpretation.
And item 7 would also require the insertion of the term 'material' modifying
the words "false statements". A mere falsehood, that has no impact or nexus
to the case being litigated, is not a crime and would not be sufficient for
impeachment.
> All of the above were Federal judges. It makes little or no sense to
>me if the judges, who have judgment and authority over regions of a State,
>are held to a higher standard than is the Chief Executive of the *entire*
>United States!!!!!
That is not necessarily so. Most Federal Judges are appointed to their
office and any reasonable showing of misconduct on their part, would be
sufficient cause for their removal, through the impeachment process. This
would be a mere reversal of judgement, on the part of those who appointed
them or voted for their confirmation.
Elected officials would seem to be in an entirely different class. They are
not just employees subject to Civil Service protection, but rather
representatives of the people who elected them. As such, it is not only the
official who is endangered by removal but also their constituents voice in
the Government. A higher burden of proof of misconduct would appear to be
reasonable, to protect the peoples interests and their expressed will.
> For discussion's sake let us suppose that the President was impeached
>for "willfully provide[ing] perjurious, false and misleading testimony to
the
>[Federal] grand jury" in the President's previous perjury in the Paula Jones
>civil suit? (Adopted 228-206, Dec.19,1998)
Since this was one of the actual charges made, I would not dispute this
wording.
> Ought the President to be convicted and removed from office if he did in
>fact commit perjury? Does this meet the requirement that Alexander Hamilton
>set forth in Federalist 65? Namely "They are of a nature which may with
>peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to
>injuries done immediately to the society itself."
You raise two questions here. The first is if Perjury were actually
committed. The lack of evidence supporting each and every element of that
supposed crime, suggests that no perjury was committed at all.
The second is; if Perjury was committed, would it rise to the level suggested
by Hamilton in the above quote. My answer to that would have to be no, it
doesn't rise to that level. My reasoning is to look at the offended party.
Was the Government itself, the Office of the Presidency, or the functioning
of Government offices impacted negatively by this testimony?
The closest we can come to answering this question in the affirmative, and
thus meeting Hamilton's definition, would be that this testimony interfered
with the due process and equal justice clauses of the Constitution and
undermined faith in the Judicial system.
Were the testimony material to the case, (and for Perjury to be sustained, it
would have to be), and of such a nature as to offend the sensibilities of a
'reasonable man', then I would have to answer yes to this second question.
Fortunately for the Nation and the President, the real answer to both of
these questions was no. There was no actual Perjury committed, and what
violations did occur, did not offend the sensibilities of a 'reasonable man'.
This latter is a reflection of the legal precept, that the punishment should
fit the crime.
> To both I must answer a resounding YES!!!! Here's why I believe it
>immediately injures society itself. We live under the a Constitutional
>Republic wherein all people, including government officials are to be under
>the law. If it is illegal for me a mere machinist to commit perjury, if it
>is illegal for a Federal judge to commit perjury it is illegal for the
>President of the United States to commit perjury. If he has in fact
>committed perjury and is not held accountable to the law then he (as well as
>We The People)are no longer under the Rule of Law (Constitutional Republic).
>We are under a Monarchy .Which is just what our founding fathers fought the
>Revolutionary War for and designed the Constitution to prevent.
As I mentioned to another poster, you presume facts not in evidence! Perjury
by the President has never been proven, nor have all it's elements even been
addressed. In the one venue, the Senate, where these charges were heard, the
consensus opinion was that no perjury occurred, thus the vote for acquittal.
The rule of law, that our Forefathers wrote into the Constitution, has been
upheld in every particular. The one infringement on those Constitutional
requirements, was in the House of Representatives, where they blatantly and
erroneously, re-interpreted the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors".
Tom Mahoney
(snip)
Dr. Roger M. Firestone
work for two reasons: First, because it was written considerably later
than Coulter's work; hers was complete before the OIC submitted its
findings to the House of Representatives for consideration of
impeachment. Second, because Posner is a Federal judge and is even more
acutely familiar with the law than is Coulter. If Posner says that
Clinton would be doing 2-1/2 years in the pokey, it is because he has
the experience on the bench to recognize what evidence is competent in
the case, what the likely verdict would be, and what sentence would be
applicable.
Yeah, yeah, I know. Everyone who says anything bad about Bill or
Hillary is a member of the vast right-wing conspiracy, brainwashed
zombies of Richard Mellon Scaife. Only Democrats can think for
themselves; that's why the all say the same things...