39% of Americans believe Bush should be impeached.
Sparrow
George Graves
(in article <1183860212....@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com>):
> Read all about it, here: http://Muvy.org
>
OK, I'm all for it. What are the charges? Remember, these have to be
legitimate charges, instances where he broke US law. You can't impeach a
president because you disagree with his policies. What we need in this
country is a recall procedure where the people can vote "no confidence" to a
sitting administration like they do in Great Britain. Then, the president
doesn't need to be guilty of a crime, he just needs to not please the
citizenry with his policies.
James Davis
> What we need in this
> country is a recall procedure where the people can vote "no confidence" to a
> sitting administration like they do in Great Britain.
Right now about 30% of Americans are very happy with President Bush,
who was elected by a 51% majority. While I personally believe he's a
moron, there is no rule that says it's undemocratic for a president to
only please 30% of the population. There could be some time in the
future where angering 70% of the population is the right thing to do.
If you had to please the majority of people, then we wouldn't even
elect presidents. We would just vote on issues and the majority vote
would decide what to do.
It would be unfair to the 30% of Americans who like Bush to impeach
him unless he has done something illegal. He won the vote, so he is
the president. Besides, he doesn't have any power to do anything that
70% of Congress disagrees with. If his actions are so bad, they can
be democratically overridden by others.
You can't just do away with the rules of democracy because they are
giving you the results you want.
Matthew L. Martin
> On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 19:03:32 -0700, Sparrow wrote (in article
> <1183860212....@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com>):
>
>> Read all about it, here: http://Muvy.org
>>
>
> OK, I'm all for it. What are the charges? Remember, these have to be
> legitimate charges, instances where he broke US law.
That is not what the US Constitution says. It says:
> the President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United
> States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and
> conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and
> misdemeanors.”
"high crimes and misdemeanors" means whatever a majority of the House of
Representatives says it means (See: impeachment of Bill Clinton).
Conviction of said offense is up to a two thirds majority of the Senate.
Being unable to secure a simple majority in the Senate in the case of
Bill Clinton it is clear that simple perjury is insufficient cause to
impeach, much less convict, a sitting president.
This is just as well as any prosecutor worth the name can get an
indictment of a ham sandwich. A partisan majority in the House may
impeach for jaywalking, but the Senate must agree that jaywalking is a
"high crime or misdemeanor".
Matthew
--
I'm a consultant. If you want an opinion I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Snit
0001HW.C2B59B42...@news.comcast.net on 7/7/07 7:34 PM:
> On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 19:03:32 -0700, Sparrow wrote
> (in article <1183860212....@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com>):
>
>> Read all about it, here: http://Muvy.org
>>
>
> OK, I'm all for it. What are the charges? Remember, these have to be
> legitimate charges, instances where he broke US law.
How about
* illegal wire taps and other monitoring
* illegally overthrowing another sovereign nation
(even if that nation is not one that was a good one)?
* illegal confinement of US citizens
* illegally using "covert propaganda"
* illegally producing bio-weapons
And on and on... there are many areas where, at the least, Bush is allegedly
breaking the law. Heck, at least one case has been decided against Bush.
<http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0131-29.htm>
-----
Last Aug. 17, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the United States
District Court in Detroit issued her ruling in the A.C.L.U.
case. The president, she wrote, had ³undisputedly violated²
not only the First and Fourth Amendments of the
Constitution, but also statutory law, the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act. Enacted by a bipartisan
Congress in 1978, the FISA statute was a response to
revelations that the National Security Agency had conducted
warrantless eavesdropping on Americans. To deter future
administrations from similar actions, the law made a
violation a felony punishable by a $10,000 fine and five
years in prison.
Yet despite this ruling, the Bush Justice Department never
opened an F.B.I. investigation, no special prosecutor was
named, and there was no talk of impeachment in the
Republican-controlled Congress.
-----
> You can't impeach a president because you disagree with his policies. What we
> need in this country is a recall procedure where the people can vote "no
> confidence" to a sitting administration like they do in Great Britain. Then,
> the president doesn't need to be guilty of a crime, he just needs to not
> please the citizenry with his policies.
I would support that... and with Bush's record setting lows it would be
likely he would be voted out.
--
€ Different viruses are still different even if in the same "family"
€ Dreamweaver and GoLive are professional web development applications
€ Dreamweaver, being the #1 pro web design tool, is used by many pros
Snit
1183863824.9...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com on 7/7/07 8:03 PM:
> On Jul 7, 9:34 pm, George Graves <gmgrav...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> What we need in this
>> country is a recall procedure where the people can vote "no confidence" to a
>> sitting administration like they do in Great Britain.
>
> Right now about 30% of Americans are very happy with President Bush,
Source?
> who was elected by a 51% majority.
Perhaps.
> While I personally believe he's a moron, there is no rule that says it's
> undemocratic for a president to only please 30% of the population. There
> could be some time in the future where angering 70% of the population is the
> right thing to do. If you had to please the majority of people, then we
> wouldn't even elect presidents. We would just vote on issues and the majority
> vote would decide what to do.
>
> It would be unfair to the 30% of Americans who like Bush to impeach him unless
> he has done something illegal. He won the vote, so he is the president.
> Besides, he doesn't have any power to do anything that 70% of Congress
> disagrees with. If his actions are so bad, they can be democratically
> overridden by others.
>
> You can't just do away with the rules of democracy because they are
> giving you the results you want.
If the rules were set up to democratically remove a president then it would
not be against the rules of democracy to do so!
--
€ Deleting from a *Save* dialog is not a sign of well done design
€ A personal computer without an OS is crippled by that lacking
€ Web image alt-text shouldn't generally be "space", "left" or "right"
none
> Right now about 30% of Americans are very happy with President Bush,
> who was elected by a 51% majority.
incorrect, Gore won the election by the "majority" of the american
public, only in how the electoral college is setup did, bush sneak in.
> While I personally believe he's a
> moron, there is no rule that says it's undemocratic for a president to
> only please 30% of the population.
duh! but it's unprecedented to have such a poor performing president in
american history.
James
> 39% of Americans believe Bush should be impeached.
> Read all about it, here:http://Muvy.org
The linked article says, "Americans under 30 are far more supportive
of impeachment than their elders. Among those youngest adults, 56%
believe the President should be impeached and removed from office."
America has a bright future. Our youth is smarter and wiser than the
older generation.
G-squared
Perhaps you remember the 2004 election where he did indeed get 51% of
the popular vote.
GG
none
> > > You can't just do away with the rules of democracy because they are
> > > giving you the results you want.
>
> Perhaps you remember the 2004 election where he did indeed get 51% of
> the popular vote.
but we'll never know that for sure....
Snit
1183867782.9...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com on 7/7/07 9:09 PM:
And even a higher percentage wherever Diebold machines were used! :)
--
€ Nuclear arms are arms
€ OS X's Command+Scroll wheel function does not exist in default XP
€ Technical competence and intelligence are not the same thing
George Graves
(in article <1183863824.9...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>):
> On Jul 7, 9:34 pm, George Graves <gmgrav...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> What we need in this
>> country is a recall procedure where the people can vote "no confidence" to a
>> sitting administration like they do in Great Britain.
>
> Right now about 30% of Americans are very happy with President Bush,
> who was elected by a 51% majority. While I personally believe he's a
> moron, there is no rule that says it's undemocratic for a president to
> only please 30% of the population. There could be some time in the
> future where angering 70% of the population is the right thing to do.
> If you had to please the majority of people, then we wouldn't even
> elect presidents. We would just vote on issues and the majority vote
> would decide what to do.
I understand that and its sorta my point.
>
> It would be unfair to the 30% of Americans who like Bush to impeach
> him unless he has done something illegal.
As I said. I think he's a lousy president who has done ABSOLUTELY nothing in
his second term except to defend his flawed policy in Iraq. Not one piece of
legislation has he introduced! But until he actually breaks the law, he is,
AFAIK, unimpeachable.
> He won the vote, so he is
> the president. Besides, he doesn't have any power to do anything that
> 70% of Congress disagrees with. If his actions are so bad, they can
> be democratically overridden by others.
Also true.
> You can't just do away with the rules of democracy because they are
> giving you the results you want.
Again, that's pretty much my point.
George Graves
(in article <a-FE7AC1.21...@mpls-nnrp-02.inet.qwest.net>):
> James Davis <mcle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Right now about 30% of Americans are very happy with President Bush,
>> who was elected by a 51% majority.
>
> incorrect, Gore won the election by the "majority" of the american
> public, only in how the electoral college is setup did, bush sneak in.
>
>> While I personally believe he's a
>> moron, there is no rule that says it's undemocratic for a president to
>> only please 30% of the population.
>
> duh! but it's unprecedented to have such a poor performing president in
> american history.
Unprecedented, it might be. Illegal, it is not. Robert Bolt once wrote a play
called "A man for all Seasons" in which Sir Thomas Moore, Chancelor of
England was having a philosophical argument with his daughter's fiance, a
young lawyer named Roper about an unwanted house guest who had just left:
*Roper: Sir Thomas, arrest that man, he is bad.
Sir Thomas: On what charge?
Roper: Charge? He's evil.
Sir Thomas: There's no law against that.
Daughter: While you two argue, he's gone.
Sir Thomas: And go he should, until he's broken the law.
Roper: I suppose now that you would give the Devil the benefit of the law?
Sir Thomas: Wouldn't you?
Roper: NO. I'd cut down every law in England to get after the Devil.
Sir Thomas: And with the laws all cut down, and the Devil turned 'round upon
you, Where would you hide then, young Roper; the laws all being flat? This
country is planted thick with laws, God's laws and man's and if we cut them
down to go after ANY Devil, who could stand in the wind that would then
blow?Yes, I'd give the Devil the benefit of the law, FOR MY OWN SAFETY'S
SAKE!
*This is paraphrased from memory, I don't have the text handy, but this is
the gist of the conversation
Sage words, and worth remembering. Bush is the worst president in US history,
yet go he should until he breaks the law, and we cannot circumvent the law
just to rid ourselves of a terrible leader. If we do, we'll have more serious
problems that simply a bad president.
Also, we need to be careful that we don't elect a worse one simply because
the candidate isn't George Bush. I'm very afraid that we might just do that.
George Graves
(in article <PBYji.598$ir4...@newsfe03.lga>):
> George Graves wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 19:03:32 -0700, Sparrow wrote (in article
>> <1183860212....@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>> Read all about it, here: http://Muvy.org
>>>
>>
>> OK, I'm all for it. What are the charges? Remember, these have to be
>> legitimate charges, instances where he broke US law.
>
> That is not what the US Constitution says. It says:
>
>> the President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United
>> States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and
>> conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and
>> misdemeanors.
>
> "high crimes and misdemeanors" means whatever a majority of the House of
> Representatives says it means (See: impeachment of Bill Clinton).
I'm not going to get sucked-in to this argument again, but Clinton was
impeached because he committed perjury before a grand jury - a felony in
every court in the country. The part that shows that this system works is
that the impeachment failed because of the extenuating circumstances.
George Graves
(in article <1183867776.8...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>):
They just don't know (or seem to care about) the law. I wouldn't gloat about
that were I you.
Snit
> On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 20:03:44 -0700, James Davis wrote
> (in article <1183863824.9...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>):
>
>> On Jul 7, 9:34 pm, George Graves <gmgrav...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> What we need in this
>>> country is a recall procedure where the people can vote "no confidence" to a
>>> sitting administration like they do in Great Britain.
>>
>> Right now about 30% of Americans are very happy with President Bush,
>> who was elected by a 51% majority. While I personally believe he's a
>> moron, there is no rule that says it's undemocratic for a president to
>> only please 30% of the population. There could be some time in the
>> future where angering 70% of the population is the right thing to do.
>> If you had to please the majority of people, then we wouldn't even
>> elect presidents. We would just vote on issues and the majority vote
>> would decide what to do.
>
> I understand that and its sorta my point.
>>
>> It would be unfair to the 30% of Americans who like Bush to impeach
>> him unless he has done something illegal.
>
>
> As I said. I think he's a lousy president who has done ABSOLUTELY nothing in
> his second term except to defend his flawed policy in Iraq. Not one piece of
> legislation has he introduced! But until he actually breaks the law, he is,
> AFAIK, unimpeachable.
Until? You assume he has not?
sharx35
"George Graves" <gmgr...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C2B5D18B...@news.comcast.net...
Agreed. On average, the YOUNGER, the stupider and more ignorant and NAIVE a
person is. Minimum age to vote should be 35.
ZnU
George Graves <gmgr...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 19:03:32 -0700, Sparrow wrote
> (in article <1183860212....@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com>):
>
> > Read all about it, here: http://Muvy.org
> >
>
> OK, I'm all for it. What are the charges? Remember, these have to be
> legitimate charges, instances where he broke US law.
Wikipedia has a nice list of potential charges:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush#Rationale
s_for_impeachment
The ones that potentially involve explicit violations of US law:
1) Warrantless surveillance (violates FISA).
2) Violations of the UN Charter (remember, treaties are US law).
3) Violations of the Geneva Convention (ditto).
4) Commuting Libby's sentence (if done to prevent Libby from turning
state's evidence, it represents obstruction of justice).
5) Politicization of the United States attorney offices, in a scheme
possibly involving voter suppression and a subsequent coverup.
6) Signing statements (the executive is not allowed to rewrite laws).
As of this week, you'll almost certainly be able to add to that
willfully ignoring subpoenas lawfully issued by the US Congress.
If the political will was there to impeach, any of the above could serve
as a constitutionally valid justification. Remember, impeachment doesn't
function according to a "reasonable doubt" standard; it functions
according to whatever standard Congress wants.
[snip]
--
"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing
about him is that I read three--three or four books about him last year. Isn't
that interesting?"
- George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006
Wes Newell
> Agreed. On average, the YOUNGER, the stupider and more ignorant and NAIVE a
> person is. Minimum age to vote should be 35.
Add to that an IQ over 130. And to run, over 140. Disallow all but
individual contributions. A line item veto fro both the pres and the
house. I would say shoot all crooked officials but then there would be no
one to run the country. Yeah, it's gotten almost that bad.
--
Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org
http://mysettopbox.tv/knoppmyth.html Usenet alt.video.ptv.mythtv
My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
HD Tivo S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm
Matthew L. Martin
> On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 20:11:00 -0700, Matthew L. Martin wrote
> (in article <PBYji.598$ir4...@newsfe03.lga>):
>
>> George Graves wrote:
>>> On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 19:03:32 -0700, Sparrow wrote (in article
>>> <1183860212....@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com>):
>>>
>>>> Read all about it, here: http://Muvy.org
>>>>
>>> OK, I'm all for it. What are the charges? Remember, these have to be
>>> legitimate charges, instances where he broke US law.
>> That is not what the US Constitution says. It says:
>>
>>> the President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United
>>> States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and
>>> conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and
>>> misdemeanors.�
>> "high crimes and misdemeanors" means whatever a majority of the House of
>> Representatives says it means (See: impeachment of Bill Clinton).
>
> I'm not going to get sucked-in to this argument again, but Clinton was
> impeached because he committed perjury before a grand jury - a felony in
> every court in the country.
The only offenses specifically called out in the Constitution are, as
stated above:
Treason -- Clearly defined in the Constitution
Bribery -- Selling the power of the president
Note: Getting caught in a perjury trap is not specified.
All other High Crimes and Misdemeanors are not defined. They are,
indeed, whatever a majority of the House of Representatives say they
are. In Bill Clinton's case, the House said that perjury is an
impeachable offense and impeached him. The Republican Senate declined to
convict. The fact that they couldn't muster a bare majority was a
message to the House: Get Real.
> The part that shows that this system works is
> that the impeachment failed because of the extenuating circumstances.
Yes. I find it amazing that so many "law and order" conservative thing
that Scooter Libby was persecuted and that the millions spent trying to
find something, anything, to impeach Bill Clinton was money and time
well spent.
Matthew L. Martin
Tim Adams
The problem with that is every other month there would be an election since no
president seem to last any longer then that before some vocal group disagree
with their policies.
--
regarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm
Thumper
<gmgr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 20:11:00 -0700, Matthew L. Martin wrote
>(in article <PBYji.598$ir4...@newsfe03.lga>):
>
>> George Graves wrote:
>>> On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 19:03:32 -0700, Sparrow wrote (in article
>>> <1183860212....@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com>):
>>>
>>>> Read all about it, here: http://Muvy.org
>>>>
>>>
>>> OK, I'm all for it. What are the charges? Remember, these have to be
>>> legitimate charges, instances where he broke US law.
>>
>> That is not what the US Constitution says. It says:
>>
>>> the President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United
>>> States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and
>>> conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and
>>> misdemeanors.”
>>
>> "high crimes and misdemeanors" means whatever a majority of the House of
>> Representatives says it means (See: impeachment of Bill Clinton).
>
>I'm not going to get sucked-in to this argument again, but Clinton was
>impeached because he committed perjury before a grand jury -
No he didn't.
> a felony in
>every court in the country. The part that shows that this system works is
>that the impeachment failed because of the extenuating circumstances.
He was found NOT GUILTY!
Thumper
Thumper
<Omeg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>x-no-archive:yes
>On Jul 8, 11:35 am, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <0001HW.C2B59B420071F3F4F0182...@news.comcast.net>,
>> George Graves <gmgrav...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> > > Read all about it, here:http://Muvy.org
>>
>> > OK, I'm all for it. What are the charges? Remember, these have to be
>> > legitimate charges, instances where he broke US law.
>>
>> Wikipedia has a nice list of potential charges:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush#Ratio...
>> s_for_impeachment
>>
>> The ones that potentially involve explicit violations of US law:
>>
>> 1) Warrantless surveillance (violates FISA).
>
>Legal, under the law.
Not True.
>We can gather intelligence without a warrant.
>Remember intelligence gathering can not be used as evidence. It is
>merely gathering data on people. Corporations gather intelligence on
>you all the time (market research). Politicians do as well (political
>polling for example).
>
>> 2) Violations of the UN Charter (remember, treaties are US law).
>
>Seems like we were enforcing UN bans against Iraq.
>
And are breaking dozens of others
>> 3) Violations of the Geneva Convention (ditto).
>
>How? Ever read the Geneva Convention? Especially Article 3 that
>deals with unlawful combatants? What the Insurregents are doing
>violates every International Law of War. You can not use civilians as
>human shields. You can not commit human sacrifice (the Qutbists bind
>a man up like a sheep then cut his throat the offer the blood up to
>Allah, the press calls this "beheading"). It is illegal to not fight
>under a country's flag or not wear a uniform. Under Article 3 those
>who do such things do not have to be tried but can be executed as
>outlaws.
>
Stop making up this stuff
>> 4) Commuting Libby's sentence (if done to prevent Libby from turning
>> state's evidence, it represents obstruction of justice).
>
>Like Clinton pardoning terrorists for political gain for his wife?
>
That's a lie.
>> 5) Politicization of the United States attorney offices, in a scheme
>> possibly involving voter suppression and a subsequent coverup.
>
>The Clintons are far more divisive, more political. Hell the typical
>democrat is constantly finding something to bitch about. Gun Control,
>banning of smoking, banning of SUVs, attacking McDonalds - all of
>that is divisive and destructive to the unity of the US.
>
>> 6) Signing statements (the executive is not allowed to rewrite laws).
>
>Your mean executive orders which FDR, LBJ and Clinton were famous for
>issuing?
>
>>
>> As of this week, you'll almost certainly be able to add to that
>> willfully ignoring subpoenas lawfully issued by the US Congress.
>>
>> If the political will was there to impeach, any of the above could serve
>> as a constitutionally valid justification. Remember, impeachment doesn't
>> function according to a "reasonable doubt" standard; it functions
>> according to whatever standard Congress wants.
>>
>
>If the House pushed impeachment then you will see civil war in the
>US. Too many Bush supporters are fed up with the cry babies of the
>left. All the left understands is violence, look at the way that they
>are scared to death of the Muslims....
Dr zara
"James Davis" <mcle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1183863824.9...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
Bush is hoping that History will "exonerate" him. Unfortunately, he's going
to have to live out the rest of his life with the knowledge that he was the
Worst, Fucking Asshole President, this country ever had.
Dr zara
sechumlib
> OK, I'm all for it. What are the charges? Remember, these have to be
> legitimate charges, instances where he broke US law.
Anyone who consider's Clinton's impeachment to have been based on
"legitimate charges" is living out in the never-never land of the far
right.
Snit
znu-013BD1.0...@individual.net on 7/8/07 12:35 AM:
Good link. Thanks.
And even with the "reasonable doubt" as a standard many would likely rise to
that level... really, is there any reasonable doubt that he did not break
laws in regards to at least some of the above? To be clear: he *should* be
given a chance in court to defend himself *and* the system should presume
innocence and not adjudicate unless it can be shown beyond a reasonable
doubt in a court of law that he is guilty, but frankly it seems unlikely his
defense would be successful in many of those cases.
Of particular interest to me is this bit:
By Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, Senate-ratified
treaties such as the U.N. Charter are "the supreme Law of
the Land." John Conyers, Robert Parry and Marjorie Cohn
professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, executive vice
president of the National Lawyers Guild, and the U.S.
representative to the executive committee of the American
Association of Jurists assert that this was not a war in
self-defense but a war of aggression contrary to the U.N.
Charter (a crime against peace) and therefore a war
crime.[96][118][108][130] Also, Kofi Annan called the war in
Iraq a violation of the UN Charter and therefore "illegal."
A war of aggression refers to any war not initiated out of
self-defence or sanctioned by the UN. Such a violation of
international law would constitute an impeachable offense
according to Francis Boyle, John W. Dean, from FindLaw,
Marcus Raskin and Joseph A. Vuckovich, from the Institute
for Policy Studies.
This is quite similar to an argument I have been making for some time. It
is noted that that there is a response:
In response to this, the administration, and its supporters,
claim that the firing on US and UK airplanes in the no-fly
zones alone constitutes an Act of War.
This was not, of course, one of the stated reasons for the war initially.
Perhaps those who support Bush are hoping to feed as a bit of retcon
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retcon>. :)
--
€ Different version numbers refer to different versions
€ Macs are Macs and Apple is still making and selling Macs
€ The early IBM PCs and Commodores shipped with an OS in ROM
Snit
1183889934....@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com on 7/8/07 3:18 AM:
> x-no-archive:yes
> On Jul 8, 11:35 am, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <0001HW.C2B59B420071F3F4F0182...@news.comcast.net>,
>> George Graves <gmgrav...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> Read all about it, here:http://Muvy.org
>>
>>> OK, I'm all for it. What are the charges? Remember, these have to be
>>> legitimate charges, instances where he broke US law.
>>
>> Wikipedia has a nice list of potential
>> charges:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush#Ratio
>> ...
>> s_for_impeachment
>>
>> The ones that potentially involve explicit violations of US law:
>>
>> 1) Warrantless surveillance (violates FISA).
>
> Legal, under the law. We can gather intelligence without a warrant.
But not wiretap US citizens. I look forward to seeing how Wendell Belew's
case ends up.
> Remember intelligence gathering can not be used as evidence. It is
> merely gathering data on people. Corporations gather intelligence on
> you all the time (market research). Politicians do as well (political
> polling for example).
>
>> 2) Violations of the UN Charter (remember, treaties are US law).
>
> Seems like we were enforcing UN bans against Iraq.
Seems to who?
>> 3) Violations of the Geneva Convention (ditto).
>
> How? Ever read the Geneva Convention? Especially Article 3 that
> deals with unlawful combatants? What the Insurregents are doing
> violates every International Law of War. You can not use civilians as
> human shields. You can not commit human sacrifice (the Qutbists bind
> a man up like a sheep then cut his throat the offer the blood up to
> Allah, the press calls this "beheading"). It is illegal to not fight
> under a country's flag or not wear a uniform. Under Article 3 those
> who do such things do not have to be tried but can be executed as
> outlaws.
You are pointing to the law breaking of others as a justification of what
the US is doing *and* you are equating those who broke those laws with the
other people in which whom the US has gone against the Geneva Convention.
>> 4) Commuting Libby's sentence (if done to prevent Libby from turning
>> state's evidence, it represents obstruction of justice).
>
> Like Clinton pardoning terrorists for political gain for his wife?
Irrelevant - you do not even try to offer a defense for Bush here.
>> 5) Politicization of the United States attorney offices, in a scheme
>> possibly involving voter suppression and a subsequent coverup.
>
> The Clintons are far more divisive, more political. Hell the typical
> democrat is constantly finding something to bitch about. Gun Control,
> banning of smoking, banning of SUVs, attacking McDonalds - all of
> that is divisive and destructive to the unity of the US.
What? Again you offer not a shred of defense for Bush... and make bizarre
allegations against irrelevant people.
>> 6) Signing statements (the executive is not allowed to rewrite laws).
>
> Your mean executive orders which FDR, LBJ and Clinton were famous for
> issuing?
Signing statements and executive orders are not synonymous. Nor are other
presidents relevant to the conversation.
>> As of this week, you'll almost certainly be able to add to that
>> willfully ignoring subpoenas lawfully issued by the US Congress.
>>
>> If the political will was there to impeach, any of the above could serve
>> as a constitutionally valid justification. Remember, impeachment doesn't
>> function according to a "reasonable doubt" standard; it functions
>> according to whatever standard Congress wants.
>>
>
> If the House pushed impeachment then you will see civil war in the
> US. Too many Bush supporters are fed up with the cry babies of the
> left. All the left understands is violence, look at the way that they
> are scared to death of the Muslims....
Er? You are going completely off topic here and making bizarre and
unsupported accusations.
--
€ It is OK to email yourself files and store them there for a few weeks
€ No legislation supercedes the Constitution (unless it amends it)
€ Apple's video format is not far from NTSC DVD and good enough for most
Snit
yx5ki.17245$09.1...@bignews8.bellsouth.net on 7/8/07 6:22 AM:
Maybe he figures it is his only chance to be #1 at anything? :)
--
€ Teaching is a "real job"
€ The path "~/users/username/library/widget" is not common on any OS
€ The term "all widgets" does not specify a specific subgroup of widgets
ZnU
Soldier in a Combat Zone <Omeg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> x-no-archive:yes
> On Jul 8, 11:35 am, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <0001HW.C2B59B420071F3F4F0182...@news.comcast.net>,
> > George Graves <gmgrav...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > Read all about it, here:http://Muvy.org
> >
> > > OK, I'm all for it. What are the charges? Remember, these have to be
> > > legitimate charges, instances where he broke US law.
> >
> > Wikipedia has a nice list of potential
> > charges:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush#Rati
> > o...
> > s_for_impeachment
> >
> > The ones that potentially involve explicit violations of US law:
> >
> > 1) Warrantless surveillance (violates FISA).
>
> Legal, under the law.
My intention was not to argue every one of these points individually,
which would be extremely tedious, but merely to point out that Bush is
accused of actually violating the law (which is impeachable), not simply
of incompetence (which, as George pointed out, isn't).
As I noted at the end of the previous post, any of the issues I listed
would serve just fine if the political will was there. Impeachment
doesn't have to meet a "reasonable doubt" standard, there are no
appeals, and Bush is wildly unpopular.
[snip]
> If the House pushed impeachment then you will see civil war in the
> US. Too many Bush supporters are fed up with the cry babies of the
> left. All the left understands is violence, look at the way that they
> are scared to death of the Muslims....
Seriously, don't be absurd. You really think anyone is going to commit
violence on behalf of this buffoon? He's increasingly seen as a
liability even by his own party.
Joseph Crowe
> As I said. I think he's a lousy president who has done ABSOLUTELY nothing in
> his second term except to defend his flawed policy in Iraq. Not one piece of
> legislation has he introduced! But until he actually breaks the law, he is,
> AFAIK, unimpeachable.
Certainly the Bush administration has commited a lot more impeachable
offenses than lying about getting a blowjob. The entire basis of the
Iraq war being drummed up on lies and fabrications is one impeachable
offense. One could also point to power over reach, which certainly
violates limits clearly spelled out in the U.S.C., not that that
document holds a whole lot of sway these days. Real and valid cases
would be easy to make to impeach Cheney first, Bush second and Pelosi
third. The former two could well be charged with treason. For any of
this to happen, though, would take a less devious Democratic party.
Now, I'm having a difficult time understanding what this has to do
with Mac advocacy.
>
>> He won the vote, so he is
>> the president. Besides, he doesn't have any power to do anything that
>> 70% of Congress disagrees with. If his actions are so bad, they can
>> be democratically overridden by others.
>
> Also true.
>
>> You can't just do away with the rules of democracy because they are
>> giving you the results you want.
>
> Again, that's pretty much my point.
Here's something to consider. The U.S. government was not founded
as a democracy for the very reason that the FFs, at least some of them,
realized that a pure democracy will always have a majority voting to
oppress minorities.
>
sechumlib
> In article <1183889934....@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> Soldier in a Combat Zone <Omeg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> x-no-archive:yes
>> On Jul 8, 11:35 am, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>>> In article <0001HW.C2B59B420071F3F4F0182...@news.comcast.net>,
>>> George Graves <gmgrav...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> Read all about it, here:http://Muvy.org
>>>
>>>> OK, I'm all for it. What are the charges? Remember, these have to be
>>>> legitimate charges, instances where he broke US law.
>>>
>>> Wikipedia has a nice list of potential
>>> charges:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush#Rati
>>> o...
>>> s_for_impeachment
>>>
>>> The ones that potentially involve explicit violations of US law:
>>>
>>> 1) Warrantless surveillance (violates FISA).
>>
>> Legal, under the law.
>
> My intention was not to argue every one of these points individually,
> which would be extremely tedious, but merely to point out that Bush is
> accused of actually violating the law (which is impeachable), not simply
> of incompetence (which, as George pointed out, isn't).
Oh, bullshit. Nothing done by either president who was impeached was a
violation of any significance. And Bush's total incompetence is its own
justification for impeachment, if only Congress were willing. But it
isn't.
George Graves
(in article <Lr8ki.1267$m%.612@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>):
> George Graves wrote:
>> As I said. I think he's a lousy president who has done ABSOLUTELY nothing
>> in
>> his second term except to defend his flawed policy in Iraq. Not one piece
>> of
>> legislation has he introduced! But until he actually breaks the law, he
>> is,
>> AFAIK, unimpeachable.
>
> Certainly the Bush administration has commited a lot more impeachable
> offenses than lying about getting a blowjob.
Obviously not or the Democrats would be progressing with impeachment
proceedings even now, and that doesn't seem to to be the case.
> The entire basis of the
> Iraq war being drummed up on lies and fabrications is one impeachable
> offense.
Is it? Are you sure? If we impeached every US president who lied to the
American people while in office, we'd have to impeach every president back to
George Washington. Also a lie is defined as a falsehood propagated when the
teller of the lie KNOWS he's telling a falsehood. Can you prove, in a court a
law that Bush KNEW that the entire premise for the War in Iraq was a lie? Can
you prove that he KNEW there were no weapons of mass destruction? If you can,
then that MiGHT be grounds for impeachment, if, indeed, telling such a lie is
against the law.
> One could also point to power over reach, which certainly
> violates limits clearly spelled out in the U.S.C., not that that
> document holds a whole lot of sway these days. Real and valid cases
> would be easy to make to impeach Cheney first, Bush second and Pelosi
> third. The former two could well be charged with treason. For any of
> this to happen, though, would take a less devious Democratic party.
> Now, I'm having a difficult time understanding what this has to do
> with Mac advocacy.
Power overreach is difficult to prove and it would require that the case be
tried in Federal court first and eventually by the Supreme Court. By that
time, We'll have had a couple of more presidents sitting in the White House,
and Bush would be a bad memory - like Jimmy Carter,
>
>>
>>> He won the vote, so he is
>>> the president. Besides, he doesn't have any power to do anything that
>>> 70% of Congress disagrees with. If his actions are so bad, they can
>>> be democratically overridden by others.
>>
>> Also true.
>>
>>> You can't just do away with the rules of democracy because they are
>>> giving you the results you want.
>>
>> Again, that's pretty much my point.
>
> Here's something to consider. The U.S. government was not founded
> as a democracy for the very reason that the FFs, at least some of them,
> realized that a pure democracy will always have a majority voting to
> oppress minorities.
The fact that there was LEGAL slavery in the US at the time the Constitution
was written gives lie to that myth. The idea of "minorities" didn't even
exist then.
George Graves
(in article <kZ1ki.534$zA2...@newsfe06.lga>):
> George Graves wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 20:11:00 -0700, Matthew L. Martin wrote
>> (in article <PBYji.598$ir4...@newsfe03.lga>):
>>
>>> George Graves wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 19:03:32 -0700, Sparrow wrote (in article
>>>> <1183860212....@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com>):
>>>>
>>>>> Read all about it, here: http://Muvy.org
>>>>>
>>>> OK, I'm all for it. What are the charges? Remember, these have to be
>>>> legitimate charges, instances where he broke US law.
>>> That is not what the US Constitution says. It says:
>>>
>>>> the President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United
>>>> States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and
>>>> conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and
>>>> misdemeanors.ￜ
>>> "high crimes and misdemeanors" means whatever a majority of the House of
>>> Representatives says it means (See: impeachment of Bill Clinton).
>>
>> I'm not going to get sucked-in to this argument again, but Clinton was
>> impeached because he committed perjury before a grand jury - a felony in
>> every court in the country.
>
> The only offenses specifically called out in the Constitution are, as
> stated above:
>
> Treason -- Clearly defined in the Constitution
> Bribery -- Selling the power of the president
>
> Note: Getting caught in a perjury trap is not specified.
>
> All other High Crimes and Misdemeanors are not defined.
Irrelevant. The law of the land defines those. If a president commits a
felony, he CAN be impeached for it, and whether or not he is actually
impeached is, of course, up to Congress. You are right in that its not an
automatic thing.
ZnU
"Matthew L. Martin" <not...@notnow.never> wrote:
> Sparrow wrote:
> > Read all about it, here: http://Muvy.org
> >
>
> One reason not to do this: Dick Cheney.
He's almost certainly get to go along for the ride. He's in this stuff
deeper than Bush is.
George Graves
(in article <znu-013BD1.0...@individual.net>):
Then why aren't the Democrats instituting impeachment proceedings? Could it
be that they feel that having Chaney as Pres would be out of the frying pan
and into the fire?
George Graves
(in article <teadams$2$0$0$3-EDC9F8.06...@news.west.earthlink.net>):
> In article <0001HW.C2B59B42...@news.comcast.net>,
> George Graves <gmgr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 19:03:32 -0700, Sparrow wrote
>> (in article <1183860212....@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>> Read all about it, here: http://Muvy.org
>>>
>>
>> OK, I'm all for it. What are the charges? Remember, these have to be
>> legitimate charges, instances where he broke US law. You can't impeach a
>> president because you disagree with his policies. What we need in this
>> country is a recall procedure where the people can vote "no confidence" to
>> a
>> sitting administration like they do in Great Britain. Then, the president
>> doesn't need to be guilty of a crime, he just needs to not please the
>> citizenry with his policies.
>
> The problem with that is every other month there would be an election since
> no
> president seem to last any longer then that before some vocal group disagree
> with their policies.
>
>
It seems to work in Great Britain. In England (I don't pretend to understand
the particulars) it seems that there must be a set of particulars that must
occur before a recall is issued. It would have to be similar here. IOW, some
safeguards would need to be in place to avoid the type of capricious recalls
that you suggest.
George Graves
(in article <4690eb61$0$3135$4c36...@roadrunner.com>):
Anyone who condones perjury in a court of law, by anyone, high or low, has no
right to live under a Democratic Republic. That means you, buddy.
George Graves
(in article <up0ki.29707$xk5.29224@edtnps82>):
That's especially true today where most of our youth are as ignorant as dirt.
They were never taught history, they don't know how their own government
works, most of them couldn't tell you where either Rhode Island or Russia are
located. Our school systems have been so systematically dumbing-down the
populace that I have to wonder what they actually do with our kids for the 12
or so years that they have them. The certainly don't seem to teach them
anything.
George Graves
(in article <%D1ki.25319$BT3.12526@trnddc06>):
> On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 07:31:38 +0000, sharx35 wrote:
>
>> Agreed. On average, the YOUNGER, the stupider and more ignorant and NAIVE a
>> person is. Minimum age to vote should be 35.
>
> Add to that an IQ over 130. And to run, over 140. Disallow all but
> individual contributions. A line item veto fro both the pres and the
> house. I would say shoot all crooked officials but then there would be no
> one to run the country. Yeah, it's gotten almost that bad.
>
>
I can't find a thing in this post to argue with. I'm with you 100% on this.
Snit
0001HW.C2B67234...@news.comcast.net on 7/8/07 10:51 AM:
For one thing: it would take more than just "some vocal group", it would
take a majority (at the very least). Even if some small vocal group or
groups got the ball rolling by the time the election could be held others
would be able to jump in and let their views be known.
Of course, if it worked like the regular elections in the US then most (or
at least many) people would not vote or even pay attention. That hurts the
US as much as the incompetence of Bush and other "leaders".
--
€ Nuclear arms are arms
€ OS X's Command+Scroll wheel function does not exist in default XP
€ Technical competence and intelligence are not the same thing
Snit
Several possible reasons:
* They do not, likely, have the numbers to impeach.
* The US recently went through a silly impeachment process... a legitimate
one would be associated with that
* Not wanting to disrupt things in the midst of a war
* A realization that such things take time - and Bush has limited time left
* Outright cowardly behavior on their part
* Back room deals
* Blackmail and other threats
And, just for fun:
<http://www.impeachbush.org/images/content/pagebuilder/10197.jpg>
:)
--
€ Deleting from a *Save* dialog is not a sign of well done design
€ A personal computer without an OS is crippled by that lacking
€ Web image alt-text shouldn't generally be "space", "left" or "right"
Snit
Lr8ki.1267$m%.612@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net on 7/8/07 9:40 AM:
> George Graves wrote:
>> As I said. I think he's a lousy president who has done ABSOLUTELY nothing in
>> his second term except to defend his flawed policy in Iraq. Not one piece of
>> legislation has he introduced! But until he actually breaks the law, he is,
>> AFAIK, unimpeachable.
>>
> Certainly the Bush administration has commited a lot more impeachable offenses
> than lying about getting a blowjob. The entire basis of the Iraq war being
> drummed up on lies and fabrications is one impeachable offense. One could also
> point to power over reach, which certainly violates limits clearly spelled out
> in the U.S.C., not that that document holds a whole lot of sway these days.
> Real and valid cases would be easy to make to impeach Cheney first, Bush
> second and Pelosi third. The former two could well be charged with treason.
> For any of this to happen, though, would take a less devious Democratic party.
Sadly the whole process is far more about politics than it is about
legalities and what is right.
> Now, I'm having a difficult time understanding what this has to do with Mac
> advocacy.
True of much in CSMA. :)
>>> He won the vote, so he is the president. Besides, he doesn't have any power
>>> to do anything that 70% of Congress disagrees with. If his actions are so
>>> bad, they can be democratically overridden by others.
>>>
>> Also true.
>>
>>> You can't just do away with the rules of democracy because they are giving
>>> you the results you want.
>>>
>> Again, that's pretty much my point.
>>
> Here's something to consider. The U.S. government was not founded as a
> democracy for the very reason that the FFs, at least some of them, realized
> that a pure democracy will always have a majority voting to oppress
> minorities.
Well that and the technology did not exist to even make it a hint of a dream
at the time. :)
--
€ If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
€ Incest and sex are not identical (only a pervert would disagree)
€ One can be actually guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
Snit
1183918697.9...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com on 7/8/07 11:18 AM:
>>> If the House pushed impeachment then you will see civil war in the
>>> US. Too many Bush supporters are fed up with the cry babies of the
>>> left. All the left understands is violence, look at the way that they
>>> are scared to death of the Muslims....
>>
>> Seriously, don't be absurd. You really think anyone is going to commit
>> violence on behalf of this buffoon? He's increasingly seen as a
>> liability even by his own party.
>
> It is not about Bush, it is about how the left is constantly dividing
> people against each other with their constant attacks on American
> traditions, rights and civil liberties. Everything that Bush is
> accused the left has done far worst.
I look forward to seeing support for this one! Do not get me wrong - I am
not saying the Left does not do some amazingly whacky and bizarre things...
but to say they are, as a whole, worse than the Right is something that
seems impossible to support.
> Frankly the left will push us into a civil war. I am surprised that someone
> has not shot Congressman John Murtha, for example. He is hated by the rank
> and file within the US military as are most democrats.
>
> The left constantly has to demonize someone or something.
As you are demonizing them right now? :)
> They constantly must have an enemy to use as a rallying point.
OH! Like attacking and overthrowing other sovereign nations! Oh... wait...
> Guns,
Almost all people believe there should be a limit on what arms general
citizens should be able to bear. The question is where to draw the line.
Few have a good answer that is not based on what they like to use.
> SUVs, McDonalds, Wal-Mart, anyone who is religious (Jews are now being
> demonized by the left due to Israel). The Leftists will be shocked when
> people strike back. It is only a matter of time...
You seem to be grouping all people on the left, taking the "worst" of their
arguments and then creating straw men which are barely related to anyone's
actual comments.
It would be like someone on the left saying the right wants to force
Christianity on all people in the US, push the US into multiple offensive
wars, allow for government surveillance on all citizens with no checks and
balances, allow unfettered ownership of all weapons, remove all
responsibilities from corporations, allow people to pollute in any way they
wish, etc. Utter rubbish in both cases.
Matthew L. Martin
In what way do you think you are disagreeing with me?
Matthew
--
I'm a consultant. If you want an opinion I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Joseph Crowe
> On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 09:40:03 -0700, Joseph Crowe wrote
> (in article <Lr8ki.1267$m%.612@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>):
>> Certainly the Bush administration has commited a lot more impeachable
>> offenses than lying about getting a blowjob.
>
> Obviously not or the Democrats would be progressing with impeachment
> proceedings even now, and that doesn't seem to to be the case.
Non-sequitur. The Democrats are not impeaching because they are
largely implicated by support of the war and support of unconstitutional
laws like the USA PATRIOT Act and Real ID. I also think that they want
Bush to remain in office so he can continue to take the entire GOP down
with him such that whoever the Dems nominate in 2008, he or she will be
a shoe-in for Pres.
>
>
>
>
>> The entire basis of the
>> Iraq war being drummed up on lies and fabrications is one impeachable
>> offense.
>
> Is it? Are you sure? If we impeached every US president who lied to the
> American people while in office, we'd have to impeach every president back to
> George Washington. Also a lie is defined as a falsehood propagated when the
> teller of the lie KNOWS he's telling a falsehood. Can you prove, in a court a
> law that Bush KNEW that the entire premise for the War in Iraq was a lie? Can
> you prove that he KNEW there were no weapons of mass destruction? If you can,
> then that MiGHT be grounds for impeachment, if, indeed, telling such a lie is
> against the law.
First of all, you don't seem to understand the impeachment process.
It does not involve a court of law. Impeachment proceedings come out of
the House of Reprehensibles and are voted on. If the articles of
impeachment pass, the Senate conducts the trial. Presidents can be
impeached but not convicted, like Clinton. As far as lies go, Bush's
lies have been so egregious and so well documented and so transparent
to anybody other than syncophants that he must have set a record for
new lows. Further, the results of his behaviour have cost thousands
of lives of Americans, tens if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqis
and Afghanis and will probably cost us our economy. You may not have
a problem with that. Some other people do.
>
>
>
>> One could also point to power over reach, which certainly
>> violates limits clearly spelled out in the U.S.C., not that that
>> document holds a whole lot of sway these days. Real and valid cases
>> would be easy to make to impeach Cheney first, Bush second and Pelosi
>> third. The former two could well be charged with treason. For any of
>> this to happen, though, would take a less devious Democratic party.
>> Now, I'm having a difficult time understanding what this has to do
>> with Mac advocacy.
>
> Power overreach is difficult to prove and it would require that the case be
> tried in Federal court first and eventually by the Supreme Court. By that
> time, We'll have had a couple of more presidents sitting in the White House,
> and Bush would be a bad memory - like Jimmy Carter,
Actually, over reach is not hard to prove. Bush's suspension of
habeas corpus for individuals is in direct contradiction of the Bill
of Rights. Just because Lincoln got away with it does not justify it
now.
>> Here's something to consider. The U.S. government was not founded
>> as a democracy for the very reason that the FFs, at least some of them,
>> realized that a pure democracy will always have a majority voting to
>> oppress minorities.
>
> The fact that there was LEGAL slavery in the US at the time the Constitution
> was written gives lie to that myth.
Truly a non-sequitur.....I can't even process whatever led you to
respond like that....
The idea of "minorities" didn't even
> exist then.
You might want to read some history, George. This country was
populated by minorities fleeing religious persecution in England,
among others. Sheesh
>
>
sechumlib
> The left constantly has to demonize someone or something.
Which your posting also does unbelievably well.
sechumlib
Is that a threat, or just the empty bluster it looks like?
Are you planning to search me out, locate me and personally throw me
out of the country or do me serious harm? Or are you just the big
blowhard you seem to be?
Matthew L. Martin
Who said anything about condoning perjury, other than GWB vis Scooter Libby?
Clinton was caught lying about a blow job. Even a Republican controlled
Senate knew better than to convict in an impeachment trial for that offense.
If, on the other hand, he lied to obstruct justice and impede an
investigation into the matter of endangering national security in the
attempt to discredit a political opponent, then I suspect he would have
been convicted.
> That means you, buddy.
Who died and left you in charge of citizenship?
Matthew L. Martin
> In article <a%1ki.535$zA2...@newsfe06.lga>, "Matthew L. Martin"
> <not...@notnow.never> wrote:
>
>> Sparrow wrote:
>>> Read all about it, here: http://Muvy.org
>>>
>> One reason not to do this: Dick Cheney.
>
> He's almost certainly get to go along for the ride. He's in this
> stuff deeper than Bush is.
>
I guess you're right:
<http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/06/poll-54-percent-favor-cheney-impeachment/>
> Poll: 54 percent favor Cheney impeachment.
>
> According to a recent poll taken by the American Research Group, “54%
> of American adults want the US House of Representatives to begin
> impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney, including
> 76% of Democrats, 17% of Republicans, and 51% of Independents. The
> same poll found 46% of voters in favor of the same thing for
> President George W. Bush, including 69% of Democrats, 13% of
> Republicans, and 50% of independents.”
When you have half or less of independents with you, you are in big trouble.
sechumlib
Well, you said it all and a lot better than I would have. Thank you.
I was considering an extended reply to that Graves dodo, but gave it up
when I realized that I was not doing a very good job of drafting the
reply. Thank you for standing in for me, and clearly pointing out that
Bush and Cheney deserve impeachment much more than Clinton did - but
the present Congress won't do it.
George Graves
(in article <mWaki.1812$eY....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net>):
I understand it perfectly. I'm pointing out that if there is no crime that
WOULD BE tried in a court of law, then there really is no grounds for
impeachment.
> Impeachment proceedings come out of
> the House of Reprehensibles and are voted on.
How 'bout that?
If the articles of
> impeachment pass, the Senate conducts the trial. Presidents can be
> impeached but not convicted, like Clinton. As far as lies go, Bush's
> lies have been so egregious and so well documented and so transparent
> to anybody other than syncophants that he must have set a record for
> new lows. Further, the results of his behaviour have cost thousands
> of lives of Americans, tens if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqis
> and Afghanis and will probably cost us our economy. You may not have
> a problem with that. Some other people do.
I most assuredly do have a problem with it, I'm just not sure it falls under
the rules for impeachment.
>>> One could also point to power over reach, which certainly
>>> violates limits clearly spelled out in the U.S.C., not that that
>>> document holds a whole lot of sway these days. Real and valid cases
>>> would be easy to make to impeach Cheney first, Bush second and Pelosi
>>> third. The former two could well be charged with treason. For any of
>>> this to happen, though, would take a less devious Democratic party.
>>> Now, I'm having a difficult time understanding what this has to do
>>> with Mac advocacy.
>>
>> Power overreach is difficult to prove and it would require that the case be
>> tried in Federal court first and eventually by the Supreme Court. By that
>> time, We'll have had a couple of more presidents sitting in the White
>> House,
>> and Bush would be a bad memory - like Jimmy Carter,
>
> Actually, over reach is not hard to prove. Bush's suspension of
> habeas corpus for individuals is in direct contradiction of the Bill
> of Rights. Just because Lincoln got away with it does not justify it
> now.
No, it certainly does not. But my understanding is that the Supreme Court
decides matters of Constitutionality and a case has to be brought before
them, formally, before they can consider whether or not to hear it.
>
>>> Here's something to consider. The U.S. government was not founded
>>> as a democracy for the very reason that the FFs, at least some of them,
>>> realized that a pure democracy will always have a majority voting to
>>> oppress minorities.
>>
>> The fact that there was LEGAL slavery in the US at the time the
>> Constitution
>> was written gives lie to that myth.
>
> Truly a non-sequitur.....I can't even process whatever led you to
> respond like that....
Try thinking about it.
> The idea of "minorities" didn't even
>> exist then.
>
> You might want to read some history, George. This country was
> populated by minorities fleeing religious persecution in England,
> among others. Sheesh!
I'm sure that I know more history than most people have ever thought about.
And as for American Colonists being a "minority", I'd love to see some
reference that they were ever contemporarily called that by either themselves
or others. Somehow I don't think so.
>>
>>
George Graves
(in article <469140a0$0$24726$4c36...@roadrunner.com>):
> On 2007-07-08 13:53:32 -0400, George Graves <gmgr...@comcast.net> said:
>
>> On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 06:49:25 -0700, sechumlib wrote
>> (in article <4690eb61$0$3135$4c36...@roadrunner.com>):
>>
>>> On 2007-07-07 22:34:26 -0400, George Graves <gmgr...@comcast.net> said:
>>>
>>>> OK, I'm all for it. What are the charges? Remember, these have to be
>>>> legitimate charges, instances where he broke US law.
>>>
>>> Anyone who consider's Clinton's impeachment to have been based on
>>> "legitimate charges" is living out in the never-never land of the far
>>> right.
>>>
>>
>> Anyone who condones perjury in a court of law, by anyone, high or low, has
>> no
>> right to live under a Democratic Republic. That means you, buddy.
>
> Is that a threat, or just the empty bluster it looks like?
Not a threat, not bluster. Just a statement of rebuttal against that
obviously equally empty, liberally biased comment of yours. Perjury IS a
legitimate charge. I'm no Republican, but had I been the Judge, Clinton would
have done time. It undermines our entire court system if ONE perjurer is
allowed to get away with lying under oath, much less the sitting President of
the United States.
> Are you planning to search me out, locate me and personally throw me
> out of the country or do me serious harm? Or are you just the big
> blowhard you seem to be?
Not even worth a comment.
George Graves
(in article <rAbki.21$m_...@newsfe06.lga>):
> George Graves wrote:
>> On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 06:49:25 -0700, sechumlib wrote
>> (in article <4690eb61$0$3135$4c36...@roadrunner.com>):
>>
>>> On 2007-07-07 22:34:26 -0400, George Graves <gmgr...@comcast.net> said:
>>>
>>>> OK, I'm all for it. What are the charges? Remember, these have to be
>>>> legitimate charges, instances where he broke US law.
>>> Anyone who consider's Clinton's impeachment to have been based on
>>> "legitimate charges" is living out in the never-never land of the far
>>> right.
>>>
>>
>> Anyone who condones perjury in a court of law, by anyone, high or low, has
>> no
>> right to live under a Democratic Republic.
>
> Who said anything about condoning perjury, other than GWB vis Scooter Libby?
>
> Clinton was caught lying about a blow job. Even a Republican controlled
> Senate knew better than to convict in an impeachment trial for that offense.
Please show me where, in any code of jurisprudence in the country where it
gives a witness the right to lie under oath about anything? I'm prepared to
wait until hell freezes over for you find such a loophole, if you wish. But
failing that, you'll find that a witness has two choices and only two
choices: 1) Answer the question truthfully and to the best of one's ability
or 2) stand behind the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution and refuse to
answer on the grounds of self incrimination. Clinton COULD have taken the
Fifth and been on firm ground while doing so (given the private nature of the
question). That he preferred to lie, is not only indicative of his lifelong
penchant toward making poor choices, but is blatantly and willfully ILLEGAL.
Had I been the judge, as I've said before, the man would have done time -
starting the minute his presidency was up.
> If, on the other hand, he lied to obstruct justice and impede an
> investigation into the matter of endangering national security in the
> attempt to discredit a political opponent, then I suspect he would have
> been convicted.
Unfortunately, the law makes no such distinction about perjury.
>
>> That means you, buddy.
>
> Who died and left you in charge of citizenship?
Nobody. I was merely reacting to the previous poster's arrogance, by posting
a bit of my own. Pay it no mind.
sechumlib
> Perjury IS a
> legitimate charge. I'm no Republican, but had I been the Judge, Clinton would
> have done time.
Perhaps you didn't notice that Clinton was never on trial in a criminal
court. Even if his impeachment had been successful, he woudn't have
been.
Any more bright ideas?
Thumper
Clinton was found NOT GUILTY!
Thumper
Thumper
>x-no-archive:yes
>On Jul 8, 8:19 pm, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <1183889934.967543.77...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>> Soldier in a Combat Zone <Omega....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>
>> > > The ones that potentially involve explicit violations of US law:
>>
>> > > 1) Warrantless surveillance (violates FISA).
>>
>> > Legal, under the law.
>>
>> My intention was not to argue every one of these points individually,
>> which would be extremely tedious, but merely to point out that Bush is
>> accused of actually violating the law (which is impeachable), not simply
>> of incompetence (which, as George pointed out, isn't).
>>
>> As I noted at the end of the previous post, any of the issues I listed
>> would serve just fine if the political will was there. Impeachment
>> doesn't have to meet a "reasonable doubt" standard, there are no
>> appeals, and Bush is wildly unpopular.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > If the House pushed impeachment then you will see civil war in the
>> > US. Too many Bush supporters are fed up with the cry babies of the
>> > left. All the left understands is violence, look at the way that they
>> > are scared to death of the Muslims....
>>
>> Seriously, don't be absurd. You really think anyone is going to commit
>> violence on behalf of this buffoon? He's increasingly seen as a
>> liability even by his own party.
>>
>
>It is not about Bush, it is about how the left is constantly dividing
>people against each other with their constant attacks on American
>traditions, rights and civil liberties. Everything that Bush is
>accused the left has done far worst.
>
>Frankly the left will push us into a civil war. I am surprised that
>someone has not shot Congressman John Murtha, for example. He is
>hated by the rank and file within the US military as are most
>democrats.
>
It sure bothers you that Democrats want the civil rights that
Republicans seek to deny them.
>The left constantly has to demonize someone or something. They
>constantly must have an enemy to use as a rallying point. Guns, SUVs,
>McDonalds, Wal-Mart, anyone who is religious (Jews are now being
>demonized by the left due to Israel). The Leftists will be shocked
>when people strike back. It is only a matter of time...
Yeah you fascists don't like the Constitution much.
Thumper
Thumper
<gmgr...@comcast.net> wrote:
They don't have the votes.
Republicans can block it.
Thumper
sharx35
"Omega" <Omeg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1183918697.9...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> x-no-archive:yes
> On Jul 8, 8:19 pm, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <1183889934.967543.77...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>> Soldier in a Combat Zone <Omega....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> > > 1) Warrantless surveillance (violates FISA).
>>
> constantly must have an enemy to use as a rallying point. Guns, SUVs,
> McDonalds, Wal-Mart, anyone who is religious (Jews are now being
> demonized by the left due to Israel). The Leftists will be shocked
> when people strike back. It is only a matter of time...
>
Agreed. Same thing in Canada. If I was a leftie, I'd start watching the
shadows REAL closely, especially down in the D.C. area. If a leftie can't
afford 24/7 security on themself and ALL family members they should be VERY
worried...at least IMHO.
Snit
ckr293lmqh7md0r6u...@4ax.com on 7/8/07 4:09 PM:
While he was not found guilty most people believe he was *actually* guilty
of the charges placed against him. Granted, the charges would likely have
never been an issue for most people - he had an affair... none of my
business nor yours. As far as some of the other claims against him, such as
rape and coercion, *those* are a much bigger deal... as are the other things
in his public like such as the FBI files, etc.
sechumlib
> Please show me where, in any code of jurisprudence in the country where it
> gives a witness the right to lie under oath about anything?
Please show me where, in any sensible political system, a politician
will put the chief executive in a position where he might lie under
oath about anything as trivial as a blow job? And use that as a reason
to try to get rid of a chief executive who is doing a perfectly fine
job?
No politician with scruples would have done such a thing. Which types
the Republican Congress perfectly.
sechumlib
> Had I been the judge, as I've said before, the man would have done time -
> starting the minute his presidency was up.
There you go again! Have you NO decency, sir? More particularly, have
you NO concept of the difference between an impeachment trial in
Congress and a criminal trial in court?
Snit
7/8/07 4:13 PM:
> On 2007-07-08 16:09:19 -0700, Thumper <jayl...@comcast.net> said:
>> Clinton was found NOT GUILTY
>
> Clinton was found guilty of perjury, paid a fine of over $800,000, lost his
> law license for five years, and is permanently banned from arguing any case
> before the SCOTUS.
>
> But he skated on his impeachment.
>
Your claims are simply incorrect. Clinton was *not* found guilty of
perjury. He did pay a fine of $25,000 and lose his Arkansas law license for
5 years - but this was in return for not even having perjury charges brought
against him. Clinton also resigned from the Supreme Court bar - no public
deal was tied to that as far as I know.
--
€ It is OK to email yourself files and store them there for a few weeks
€ No legislation supercedes the Constitution (unless it amends it)
€ Apple's video format is not far from NTSC DVD and good enough for most
Snit
469173d9$0$8011$4c36...@roadrunner.com on 7/8/07 4:31 PM:
How many who go after Clinton for his lying condone Libby's actions and want
him pardoned?
sechumlib
> Agreed. Same thing in Canada. If I was a leftie, I'd start watching the
> shadows REAL closely, especially down in the D.C. area. If a leftie can't
> afford 24/7 security on themself and ALL family members they should be VERY
> worried...at least IMHO.
Gee, I guess I should be scared stiff. All the neanderthals are out to
kill me, as painfully as possible.
You've given me insight into the working of the average right-wing
mind. I thought you & they were just blowhards, but apparenly I'm
physically threatened.
But then, your drug habit would probably make it impossible for you to
cross the border.
Snit
7/8/07 4:34 PM:
> On 2007-07-08 16:33:15 -0700, Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> said:
>
>> "witfal" <nos...@all4.me> stated in post f6rr25$kmq$1...@news.albasani.net on
>> 7/8/07 4:13 PM:
>>
>>> On 2007-07-08 16:09:19 -0700, Thumper <jayl...@comcast.net> said:
>>>> Clinton was found NOT GUILTY
>>>
>>> Clinton was found guilty of perjury, paid a fine of over $800,000, lost his
>>> law license for five years, and is permanently banned from arguing any case
>>> before the SCOTUS.
>>>
>>> But he skated on his impeachment.
>>>
>> Your claims are simply incorrect. Clinton was *not* found guilty of
>> perjury. He did pay a fine of $25,000 and lose his Arkansas law license for
>> 5 years - but this was in return for not even having perjury charges brought
>> against him. Clinton also resigned from the Supreme Court bar - no public
>> deal was tied to that as far as I know.
>
> You are incorrect. He paid a fine of over $800,000.
>
Not in relation to his disbarment in Arkansas / the dropping of the perjury
charges:
<http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02E7D9103EF93BA35757C0A967
9C8B63>
-----
Clinton Pays $25,000 Fine in Arkansas Case
Former President Bill Clinton has paid a $25,000 fine that
was part of a sanction in which his Arkansas law license was
suspended for five years.
... Mr. Clinton reached an agreement on the fine and
suspension with Robert W. Ray, the independent counsel. Mr.
Ray had been investigating whether to charge Mr. Clinton
with crimes like perjury and obstruction of justice ...
-----
If you have contrary info I would like to see it.
--
€ A partial subset is not synonymous with the whole
€ A person's actions speak more about him than what others say
€ Apple doesn't provide as many options as the rest of the PC industry
Yellowbeard
pardon in Washington.
I will wait to see who else and how many more get pardonded. Like in
Jan 2001--- see link
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pardonchartlst.htm
Clinton claimed executive privilege for a subpoena of records back
then too.
my 2¢
YB
On Jul 8, 4:12 pm, Thumper <jaylsm...@comcast.net> wrote:
Richard C.
news:a-FE7AC1.21...@mpls-nnrp-02.inet.qwest.net...
> James Davis <mcle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Right now about 30% of Americans are very happy with President Bush,
>> who was elected by a 51% majority.
>
> incorrect, Gore won the election by the "majority" of the american
> public, only in how the electoral college is setup did, bush sneak in.
>
==============================
Bullshit!
Bush got 51% of the popular vote in 2004.
Spreading and repeating a lie does not make it true.....
Richard C.
And,if your name is correct,
thanks for your work in the Armed Forces!
=========================================
"Soldier in a Combat Zone" <Omeg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1183889934....@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> x-no-archive:yes
> On Jul 8, 11:35 am, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <0001HW.C2B59B420071F3F4F0182...@news.comcast.net>,
>> George Graves <gmgrav...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> > > Read all about it, here:http://Muvy.org
>>
>> > OK, I'm all for it. What are the charges? Remember, these have to be
>> > legitimate charges, instances where he broke US law.
>>
>> Wikipedia has a nice list of potential
>> charges:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush#Ratio...
>> s_for_impeachment
>>
>> The ones that potentially involve explicit violations of US law:
>>
>> 1) Warrantless surveillance (violates FISA).
>
> Legal, under the law. We can gather intelligence without a warrant.
> Remember intelligence gathering can not be used as evidence. It is
> merely gathering data on people. Corporations gather intelligence on
> you all the time (market research). Politicians do as well (political
> polling for example).
>
>> 2) Violations of the UN Charter (remember, treaties are US law).
>
> Seems like we were enforcing UN bans against Iraq.
>
>> 3) Violations of the Geneva Convention (ditto).
>
> How? Ever read the Geneva Convention? Especially Article 3 that
> deals with unlawful combatants? What the Insurregents are doing
> violates every International Law of War. You can not use civilians as
> human shields. You can not commit human sacrifice (the Qutbists bind
> a man up like a sheep then cut his throat the offer the blood up to
> Allah, the press calls this "beheading"). It is illegal to not fight
> under a country's flag or not wear a uniform. Under Article 3 those
> who do such things do not have to be tried but can be executed as
> outlaws.
>
>> 4) Commuting Libby's sentence (if done to prevent Libby from turning
>> state's evidence, it represents obstruction of justice).
>
> Like Clinton pardoning terrorists for political gain for his wife?
>
>> 5) Politicization of the United States attorney offices, in a scheme
>> possibly involving voter suppression and a subsequent coverup.
>
> The Clintons are far more divisive, more political. Hell the typical
> democrat is constantly finding something to bitch about. Gun Control,
> banning of smoking, banning of SUVs, attacking McDonalds - all of
> that is divisive and destructive to the unity of the US.
>
>> 6) Signing statements (the executive is not allowed to rewrite laws).
>
> Your mean executive orders which FDR, LBJ and Clinton were famous for
> issuing?
>
>>
>> As of this week, you'll almost certainly be able to add to that
>> willfully ignoring subpoenas lawfully issued by the US Congress.
>>
>> If the political will was there to impeach, any of the above could serve
>> as a constitutionally valid justification. Remember, impeachment doesn't
>> function according to a "reasonable doubt" standard; it functions
>> according to whatever standard Congress wants.
>>
>
George Graves
(in article <46916b5d$0$16554$4c36...@roadrunner.com>):
That the Government didn't press the charge doesn't make Clinton any less
guilty of perjury. Like I've said a number of times, had I been the Judge,
George Graves
(in article <469173d9$0$8011$4c36...@roadrunner.com>):
> On 2007-07-08 18:54:04 -0400, George Graves <gmgr...@comcast.net> said:
>
>> Please show me where, in any code of jurisprudence in the country where it
>> gives a witness the right to lie under oath about anything?
>
> Please show me where, in any sensible political system, a politician
> will put the chief executive in a position where he might lie under
> oath about anything as trivial as a blow job? And use that as a reason
> to try to get rid of a chief executive who is doing a perfectly fine
> job?
There is simply no way around this. Clinton LIED under oath. End of story.
All side issues are irrelevant.
>
> No politician with scruples would have done such a thing. Which types
> the Republican Congress perfectly.
That's simply neither here nor there.
Snit
0001HW.C2B6F5EB...@news.comcast.net on 7/8/07 8:13 PM:
Clinton was never found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law,
but there are few who doubt he was *actually* guilty of perjury. Still,
with the case being dropped the judge did not have control.
--
€ Nuclear arms are arms
€ OS X's Command+Scroll wheel function does not exist in default XP
€ Technical competence and intelligence are not the same thing
George Graves
(in article <4691741d$0$8011$4c36...@roadrunner.com>):
Who said anything about impeachment, above?
Sir, in this country, if YOU or I were to lie under oath, in court, YOU or I
would go to jail. Why should the President of the United States be held to a
lesser standard than a normal citizen? If anything, he should be held to a
HIGHER standard, I.E. he should be setting the example for the conduct of the
people, not using his position of power to scoff at the laws the rest of us
are held to. There is no extenuation here, It's THAT cut-and-dry. If you
can't see that, then all I can say is that I hope your point of view is a
minority point of view, because if it is the majority opinion in this matter,
then may the fates help us as a nation, and especially may the fates help our
system of jurisprudence, because such a precedent undermines it to the point
of uselessness.
George Graves
(in article <ckr293lmqh7md0r6u...@4ax.com>):
He was? That's news to me (and to a lot of other people as well). His
impeachment failed, if that's what you mean, but the record shows that he
clearly DID perjure himself.
George Graves
(in article <f6rr25$kmq$1...@news.albasani.net>):
> On 2007-07-08 16:09:19 -0700, Thumper <jayl...@comcast.net> said:
>> Clinton was found NOT GUILTY
>
> Clinton was found guilty of perjury, paid a fine of over $800,000, lost
> his law license for five years,
> and is permanently banned from arguing any case before the SCOTUS.
>
> But he skated on his impeachment.
>
Yep.
Snit
> On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 16:31:37 -0700, sechumlib wrote
> (in article <469173d9$0$8011$4c36...@roadrunner.com>):
>
>> On 2007-07-08 18:54:04 -0400, George Graves <gmgr...@comcast.net> said:
>>
>>> Please show me where, in any code of jurisprudence in the country where it
>>> gives a witness the right to lie under oath about anything?
>>
>> Please show me where, in any sensible political system, a politician
>> will put the chief executive in a position where he might lie under
>> oath about anything as trivial as a blow job? And use that as a reason
>> to try to get rid of a chief executive who is doing a perfectly fine
>> job?
>
> There is simply no way around this. Clinton LIED under oath. End of story.
> All side issues are irrelevant.
Even though there are some who doubt Clinton's guilt I would agree that he
committed perjury, even though he was never found guilty in a court of law.
<http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-clintonperjury.html>
>> No politician with scruples would have done such a thing. Which types
>> the Republican Congress perfectly.
>
> That's simply neither here nor there.
Incorrect: why go after a President for having an affair? Has any other US
President ever been subjected to such a mockery?
Snit
> On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 16:32:45 -0700, sechumlib wrote
> (in article <4691741d$0$8011$4c36...@roadrunner.com>):
>
>> On 2007-07-08 18:54:04 -0400, George Graves <gmgr...@comcast.net> said:
>>
>>> Had I been the judge, as I've said before, the man would have done time -
>>> starting the minute his presidency was up.
>>
>> There you go again! Have you NO decency, sir? More particularly, have
>> you NO concept of the difference between an impeachment trial in
>> Congress and a criminal trial in court?
>>
>
> Who said anything about impeachment, above?
>
> Sir, in this country, if YOU or I were to lie under oath, in court, YOU or I
> would go to jail.
Incorrect. You *might*, but to say you "would go to jail" is incorrect.
> Why should the President of the United States be held to a lesser standard
> than a normal citizen?
Show that he was.
> If anything, he should be held to a HIGHER standard, I.E. he should be setting
> the example for the conduct of the people, not using his position of power to
> scoff at the laws the rest of us are held to.
Agreed.
> There is no extenuation here, It's THAT cut-and-dry.
Incorrect: your first premise was flawed.
> If you can't see that, then all I can say is that I hope your point of view is
> a minority point of view, because if it is the majority opinion in this
> matter, then may the fates help us as a nation, and especially may the fates
> help our system of jurisprudence, because such a precedent undermines it to
> the point of uselessness.
Do you think not being jailed for lying about an affair in a legal
proceeding is unique to Clinton? Do you have a single example of anyone
having been jailed for such a thing?
--
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
€ Things which are not the same are not "identical"
€ The word "ouch" is not a sure sign of agreement.
sharx35
"sechumlib" <sech...@liberal.net> wrote in message
news:46917c4a$0$30691$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
Who said anything about YOU? You egotists always think that everyone is
talking about YOU.
Wes Newell
No need to reply. I've removed the group I got this in and won't see the
reply. Now go find a damn political newsgroup.
--
Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org
http://mysettopbox.tv/knoppmyth.html Usenet alt.video.ptv.mythtv
My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
HD Tivo S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm
NRen2k5
> On Jul 7, 8:42 pm, none <a...@b.com> wrote:
>> James Davis <mclean...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Right now about 30% of Americans are very happy with President
>>> Bush, who was elected by a 51% majority.
>> incorrect, Gore won the election by the "majority" of the american
>> public, only in how the electoral college is setup did, bush sneak
>> in.
>>
>>> says it's undemocratic for a president to only please 30% of the
>>> population.
>> duh! but it's unprecedented to have such a poor performing
>> president in american history.
>>
>>> There could be some time in the future where angering 70% of the
>>> population is the right thing to do. If you had to please the
>>> majority of people, then we wouldn't even elect presidents. We
>>> would just vote on issues and the majority vote would decide what
>>> to do. It would be unfair to the 30% of Americans who like Bush
>>> to impeach him unless he has done something illegal. He won the
>>> vote, so he is the president. Besides, he doesn't have any power
>>> to do anything that 70% of Congress disagrees with. If his
>>> actions are so bad, they can be democratically overridden by
>>> others. You can't just do away with the rules of democracy
>>> because they are giving you the results you want.
>
> Perhaps you remember the 2004 election where he did indeed get 51% of
> the popular vote.
And that’s why *I* don’t argue that his 2000 election was illegitimate
anymore. All it could possibly do now is allow him to serve a “second”
“legitimate” term.
Matthew L. Martin
> On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 16:31:37 -0700, sechumlib wrote
> (in article <469173d9$0$8011$4c36...@roadrunner.com>):
>
>> On 2007-07-08 18:54:04 -0400, George Graves <gmgr...@comcast.net> said:
>>
>>> Please show me where, in any code of jurisprudence in the country where it
>>> gives a witness the right to lie under oath about anything?
>> Please show me where, in any sensible political system, a politician
>> will put the chief executive in a position where he might lie under
>> oath about anything as trivial as a blow job? And use that as a reason
>> to try to get rid of a chief executive who is doing a perfectly fine
>> job?
>
> There is simply no way around this. Clinton LIED under oath. End of story.
> All side issues are irrelevant.
You live in an interesting world of black and white. Were you GWB's
roommate? The Republican Senate was smarter than you.
>> No politician with scruples would have done such a thing. Which types
>> the Republican Congress perfectly.
That is the point. Clinton was impeached for what the founders would
have considered a trivial matter. It came no where near treason or
bribery in the impact on the nation. If he had done what Scooter Libby
did he should have been convicted.
Matthew
--
I'm a consultant. If you want an opinion I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Matthew L. Martin
He has also never heard of the constitutional protection from double
jeopardy. That doesn't surprise me.
sechumlib
Well, I fit your warped definition of a "leftie" (that is, I almost
always disagree with you and your nutty attitudes), so doesn't that put
me in danger (that is, I should be "VERY worried" and need "24/7
security")? If I lived in Canada, that is.
sechumlib
> That the Government didn't press the charge doesn't make Clinton any less
> guilty of perjury. Like I've said a number of times, had I been the Judge,
> Clinton would have done time.
Explain what you mean by "judge", white man.
sechumlib
> Sir, in this country, if YOU or I were to lie under oath, in court, YOU or I
> would go to jail.
Why don't you just dispense with your fake courtesy and call me
"asshole"? That's the name I apply to you - privately, anyway.
Richard
Congress then failed in the vote to remove him from office.
Richard
sechumlib
> Clinton was Impeached (a Constitutional term equal to indited Congress).
> Congress then failed in the vote to remove him from office.
Rabbits hop.
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Thumper" <jayl...@comcast.net> stated in post
> ckr293lmqh7md0r6u...@4ax.com on 7/8/07 4:09 PM:
>
> > On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 10:53:32 -0700, George Graves
> > <gmgr...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 06:49:25 -0700, sechumlib wrote
> >> (in article <4690eb61$0$3135$4c36...@roadrunner.com>):
> >>
> >>> On 2007-07-07 22:34:26 -0400, George Graves <gmgr...@comcast.net> said:
> >>>
> >>>> OK, I'm all for it. What are the charges? Remember, these have to be
> >>>> legitimate charges, instances where he broke US law.
> >>>
> >>> Anyone who consider's Clinton's impeachment to have been based on
> >>> "legitimate charges" is living out in the never-never land of the far
> >>> right.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Anyone who condones perjury in a court of law, by anyone, high or low, has
> >> no
> >> right to live under a Democratic Republic. That means you, buddy.
> >
> > Clinton was found NOT GUILTY!
>
> While he was not found guilty most people believe he was *actually* guilty
> of the charges placed against him.
As Clinton himself admitted he did lie under oath there is no real reason to
believe otherwise.
As far as lying under oath... every single U.S. politician in the last 100 years
has done it from day one of their service. It's nothing but pure politicizing to
single out a Clinton or a Bush.
> Granted, the charges would likely have
> never been an issue for most people - he had an affair... none of my
> business nor yours.
You're clearly confused... this was a criminal matter not a civil one. Clinton
was never charged with having an affair... had this run its course Clinton never
would have faced a charge of marital infidelity. An affair is only used for the
grounds in a civil case for something like a divorce.
> As far as some of the other claims against him, such as
> rape and coercion, *those* are a much bigger deal... as are the other things
> in his public like such as the FBI files, etc.
Those were the charges for which Clinton and his lawyers saw they had virtually
no effective defense... hence the deal they cut.
--
"None of you can be honest... you are all pathetic." - Snit
"I do not KF people" - Snit
"Not only do I lie about what others are claiming,
I show evidence from the records".-Snit
"You should take one of my IT classes some day." - Snit
Snit
noone-41B0B8....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 7/9/07 8:19 AM:
> In article <C2B6BFEC.87174%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> "Thumper" <jayl...@comcast.net> stated in post
>> ckr293lmqh7md0r6u...@4ax.com on 7/8/07 4:09 PM:
>>
>>> On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 10:53:32 -0700, George Graves
>>> <gmgr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 06:49:25 -0700, sechumlib wrote
>>>> (in article <4690eb61$0$3135$4c36...@roadrunner.com>):
>>>>
>>>>> On 2007-07-07 22:34:26 -0400, George Graves <gmgr...@comcast.net> said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> OK, I'm all for it. What are the charges? Remember, these have to be
>>>>>> legitimate charges, instances where he broke US law.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone who consider's Clinton's impeachment to have been based on
>>>>> "legitimate charges" is living out in the never-never land of the far
>>>>> right.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Anyone who condones perjury in a court of law, by anyone, high or low, has
>>>> no
>>>> right to live under a Democratic Republic. That means you, buddy.
>>>
>>> Clinton was found NOT GUILTY!
>>
>> While he was not found guilty most people believe he was *actually* guilty of
>> the charges placed against him.
>>
> As Clinton himself admitted he did lie under oath there is no real reason to
> believe otherwise.
A case can be made in his defense:
<http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-clintonperjury.html>.
And since he was never found guilty in a court of law, some people would say
that means he is not guilty. Haven't you, Steve, tried that line of
"reasoning" in regards to Bush and his guilt?
> As far as lying under oath... every single U.S. politician in the last 100
> years has done it from day one of their service. It's nothing but pure
> politicizing to single out a Clinton or a Bush.
And yet Clinton was impeached for his...
>> Granted, the charges would likely have never been an issue for most people -
>> he had an affair... none of my business nor yours.
>>
> You're clearly confused...
No, Steve. I am not. It really is none of my business who Clinton sleeps
with or shares any other form of intimacy with - even when he was president
it only was my business if there was reason to think it put the US at risk
in some way.
> this was a criminal matter not a civil one. Clinton was never charged with
> having an affair...
He lied about having extramarital sexually intimacy... that, Steve, is an
affair.
> had this run its course Clinton never would have faced a charge of marital
> infidelity. An affair is only used for the grounds in a civil case for
> something like a divorce.
The topic of divorce is irrelevant.
>> As far as some of the other claims against him, such as rape and coercion,
>> *those* are a much bigger deal... as are the other things in his public like
>> such as the FBI files, etc.
>>
> Those were the charges for which Clinton and his lawyers saw they had
> virtually no effective defense... hence the deal they cut.
Or, perhaps, those were the charges in which the prosecution figured it had
no chance - hence the reason *they* cut a deal.
--
€ If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
€ Incest and sex are not identical (only a pervert would disagree)
€ One can be actually guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
George Graves
(in article <5opki.107$id4...@newsfe03.lga>):
> George Graves wrote:
>> On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 16:31:37 -0700, sechumlib wrote
>> (in article <469173d9$0$8011$4c36...@roadrunner.com>):
>>
>>> On 2007-07-08 18:54:04 -0400, George Graves <gmgr...@comcast.net> said:
>>>
>>>> Please show me where, in any code of jurisprudence in the country where it
>>>> gives a witness the right to lie under oath about anything?
>>> Please show me where, in any sensible political system, a politician
>>> will put the chief executive in a position where he might lie under
>>> oath about anything as trivial as a blow job? And use that as a reason
>>> to try to get rid of a chief executive who is doing a perfectly fine
>>> job?
>>
>> There is simply no way around this. Clinton LIED under oath. End of story.
>> All side issues are irrelevant.
>
> You live in an interesting world of black and white. Were you GWB's
> roommate? The Republican Senate was smarter than you.
And this has to do with the Republican Senate, how? Understand that the court
indictment for perjury and the impeachment proceedings are entirely different
things.
>>> No politician with scruples would have done such a thing. Which types
>>> the Republican Congress perfectly.
>
> That is the point. Clinton was impeached for what the founders would
> have considered a trivial matter.
Lying under oath to grand jury is NOT a trivial matter. It never ceases to
amaze me that you Clinton apologists cannot separate the crime (perjury
before a grand jury) from what Clinton lied about (getting a BJ from Monica
Lewinski). You seem to think that the triviality of the subject about which
Clinton lied in some way makes the fact that he lied trivial. It doesn't.
Under the law, it doesn't matter what one lies about, perjury is a FELONY.
Clinton could have lied about what he had for breakfast that morning, and it
would be same or he could have lied about ordering someone's murder and it
would be the same. The law is the same in both instances. It doesn't matter
what the subject is or how trivial or grave the lie. Perjury is perjury and
it cannot be condoned or excused. Clinton got-off light. He should have
served time as you or I would certainly do were we to be caught perjuring
ourselves before a Federal Grand Jury.
> It came no where near treason or
> bribery in the impact on the nation.
Irrelevant. You just don't get it, do you?
If he had done what Scooter Libby
> did he should have been convicted.
Irrelevant
>
> Matthew
>
>
George Graves
(in article <46922cf4$0$20558$4c36...@roadrunner.com>):
The courtesy is not fake. I don't necessarily think that everyone with whom I
disagree on any given subject warrants the name asshole. Perhaps, I don't
wish to polarize myself to that degree. Extreme polarization seems to be a
Liberal trait. One is either a fellow traveler or an asshole. There seems to
be no other choice form liberals.
George Graves
(in article <Kppki.108$id4...@newsfe03.lga>):
> sechumlib wrote:
>> On 2007-07-08 18:54:04 -0400, George Graves <gmgr...@comcast.net> said:
>>
>>> Had I been the judge, as I've said before, the man would have done time -
>>> starting the minute his presidency was up.
>>
>> There you go again! Have you NO decency, sir? More particularly, have
>> you NO concept of the difference between an impeachment trial in
>> Congress and a criminal trial in court?
>>
>
> He has also never heard of the constitutional protection from double
> jeopardy. That doesn't surprise me.
>
> Matthew
>
>
Would you like to explain how Clinton's perjury in any way ivolved double
jeopardy? This I gotta hear!
George Graves
(in article <1394cn8...@corp.supernews.com>):
> Clinton was Impeached (a Constitutional term equal to indited Congress).
> Congress then failed in the vote to remove him from office.
>
> Richard
>
>
Yes, and....?
TheNewsGuy(Mike)
> ...
> Sir, in this country, if YOU or I were to lie under oath, in court, YOU or I
> would go to jail.
But YOU OR I would NEVER have been called before a grand jury and asked
if we had a blow job. The whole situation was ABSURD to begin with and
the vast majority of your country knew it!!!!
...If you can't see that, then all I can say is that I hope your point
of view is a minority point of view, because if it is the majority
opinion in this matter, then may the fates help you as a nation,...
--
Seinfeld Lists http://tinyurl.com/f7k9d
Sawyer's Nicknames http://tinyurl.com/gowma