 |
|
Caligastia
|
|
What Chris said.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DinoDoc
I highly doubt that they are rethinking it. The Lott=racist accussation has been around for quite sometime. The only thing that I can think of that might derail it is if he pulls a Byrd and starts talking about n****** on the Senate floor. |
I agree, Plus, I think most of the donations were probably private, and therefore less likely to fall to pressure.
My biggest concern with the whole thing was it was named after a sitting Senator, I think things like that should wait until either the person is dead or long retired.
Realistically, if they were to rename the Lott school, they would probably have to rename 2/3 the buildings on campus, eh? hehe.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DinoDoc
quote:
that she had that damned stained dress |
Has anyone ever figured out why she kept the thing? |
Maybe it was a trophy, something a serial female blowjobist would keep to relive the memories.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chris 62
Boris, you just don't know what your talking about."Section. 4. 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."
Perjury is a Misdemeanor, Clinton admited he lied under oath in his deposition, thus commited perjury, a Misdemeanor.
That's what Clinton was Impeached for, it was the Democrats who spit of the Constituition, which I quoted in part above, you can read it yourself if you like, Article II section 4 of the US Constitution.
http://www.rosanna.com/constitution/constit_.htm#con2.4 |
Chris, as usual, flowing freely with insults, but little on fact.
First, what Clinton did wasn't perjury. Lying under oath and perjury are not the same think. The Independent Prosecutor, Mr. Starr, didn't even charge Clinton with perjury. Hence no perjury existed to merit impeachment:
http://www.salon.com/news/1998/12/11newsd.html
"Members of Congress have been conflating "perjury" and "lying under oath" in their accusation against President Clinton, using the two terms interchangeably as though they are synonymous.
They are not. Perjury is a far more serious crime, and it requires a much higher burden of proof. "Lying under oath exacts a lower penalty and lower modicum of proof," says Washington attorney Stanley Brand.
A close reading of Clinton's testimony in the Paula Jones case, and before the grand jury, reveals a cagey witness who could be found guilty of sexual selfishness, if that were a crime, but not of perjury, nor lying under oath.
In fact, independent counsel Kenneth Starr did not charge President Clinton with perjury in his September referral to Congress. Starr charged only that Clinton had lied under oath, both in his Jan. 17 Jones deposition and to the grand jury on Aug. 17, about whether he'd had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky; that he had lied about not remembering being alone with Lewinsky; and that he had lied about conversations he had with Lewinsky and Vernon Jordan about the Jones case."
The Supreme Court has ruled, says Brand, that "to prove perjury, there must be corroborated proof of the intent to lie, and the lie must be material to the case. Perjury can't be proved if you are cute with your answers and thereby evade answering. Clinton is absolutely entitled to rely on every legal means to protect himself, because he is facing civil and criminal prosecution, plus impeachment."
Many other legal and constitutional scholars have made the same point. Lying under oath, false statements and omissions also require intent and materiality, says Brand, "but to prove perjury requires proof that he conscientiously and purposefully lied in an unambiguous way."
So murky is the case against Clinton that the articles of impeachment charging him with perjury did not even specify which statements were perjurious. When asked by Rep. Gerald Nadler, D-N.Y., to identify the specific statements in the record, Committee Chairman Henry Hyde couldn't do it. Instead, Hyde got shy, and resisted reading sections of the Starr Report that detailed exactly which of Lewinsky's body parts she says Clinton touched. That touching would seem to fall within the tortured definition of sexual relations in the Jones case, unless the definition is read as Clinton says he read it.
But Hyde's sudden attack of squeamishness was likely a cover for his real worry: about the fuzziness of the charges against Clinton. The committee's explosive hearing Thursday revealed a level of confusion about the exact charges against Clinton, even in the Republican caucus, that should doom the impeachment move against him, but probably won't.
If Hyde's true motive was aversion to publicly discussing the sexual details of Clinton's relationship with Lewinsky, he probably would have stopped the impeachment railroad before it began. Because, assuming this gets to a Senate trial, the prurient details aired there are going to make this week's committee hearing seem like "Sesame Street."
There was no perjury. No misdemeanor. The Articles of Impeachment were so flawed as to be a laughing crock. Impeachment was not warranted.
This also gives a lawyer's summary:
http://www.law4u.com.au/lil/ls_clinton2.html
This one sums it up nicely:
http://www.reporter-news.com/1998/opinion/case1219.html
As Madison expressly said, the impeachment should be used a last resort for the most heinous of acts by a president who has abused his power in a matter that subverts the country. This is in no way comparable. Instead, the GOP did exactly what Madison feared--used impeachment as a buldgeon and cynical political tool to go after a man they despised.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chris 62
|
 |
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:24
|
|
As further proof, oh little spin doctor:
"Of the 11 possible grounds for impeachment cited by Starr, four were eventually approved by the House Judiciary Committee: grand jury perjury, civil suit perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power."
"On December 19, following much debate over the constitutionality of the proceedings and whether or not Clinton could be punished by censure rather than impeachment, the House of Representatives held its historic vote. Clinton was impeached on two counts, grand jury perjury (228–206) and obstruction of justice (221–212), with the votes split along party lines. "
Which is a misdemeanor, and thus subject to the US Constitution's definition of what is laegal grounds for impeachment.
The Republicans didn't lower the bar, Clinton was guilty of betraying the public trust.
Yey not ONE Democrat voted for impraechment, and the Dems are still realing from this, having lost the whitehouse, and now the Senate.
Next time tell it like it is, without the spin.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chris 62
As further proof, oh little spin doctor:
"Of the 11 possible grounds for impeachment cited by Starr, four were eventually approved by the House Judiciary Committee: grand jury perjury, civil suit perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power."
"On December 19, following much debate over the constitutionality of the proceedings and whether or not Clinton could be punished by censure rather than impeachment, the House of Representatives held its historic vote. Clinton was impeached on two counts, grand jury perjury (228–206) and obstruction of justice (221–212), with the votes split along party lines. "
|
Your comprehension skills are lower than normal. As I pointed out, the House articles didn't even specify what statements were perjurous.
Tell, me o wise one, how you can charge someone with a crime when one doesn't specify what crime one has committed? 
quote:
Which is a misdemeanor, and thus subject to the US Constitution's definition of what is laegal grounds for impeachment. |
And again, he was never indicted for perjury. The Independent Counsel declined to charge him with perjury. So he was never convicted of a misdemeanor.
And guess what? There is no clear constitutional measure of what "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" means. It's ambiguous at best. High Misdemeanors perhaps? What constitutes a High Misdemeanor as opposed to a low one? What's a Low Crime?
Read up on it, my boy. You'll find it's an awfully gray area when one is talking jurisprudence, which is why perjury is so hard to prove and is not often brought as a charge.
quote:
The Republicans didn't lower the bar, Clinton was guilty of betraying the public trust. |
Clinton was not elected to be president, not moral standardbearer. He in no way violated that trust in the performance of his duties in this matter.
quote:
Yey not ONE Democrat voted for impraechment, and the Dems are still realing from this, having lost the whitehouse, and now the Senate. |
Um, MANY Democrats voted for impeachment, including good ol' Mr. Gary Condit. Wrong again, sir.
quote:
Next time tell it like it is, without the spin. |
Next time, have some facts, and try not to be such a pr*ck about it, mmmkay?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chris 62
|
|
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Your comprehension skills are lower than normal. As I pointed out, the House articles didn't even specify what statements were perjurous. |
You are a simp.
YOU said he wasn't guilty of perjury, yet he was.
quote:
Tell, me o wise one, how you can charge someone with a crime when one doesn't specify what crime one has committed? |
Are you PMSing?
The Congress found him guilty.
quote:
And again, he was never indicted for perjury. The Independent Counsel declined to charge him with perjury. So he was never convicted of a misdemeanor. |
Wrong again, but at least your consistant.
It's obvious you don't understand Constitutional law, the Congress acts as a court, THEY convicted him.
Did charge him...THEY CONVICTED HIM!
quote:
And guess what? There is no clear constitutional measure of what "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" means. It's ambiguous at best. High Misdemeanors perhaps? What constitutes a High Misdemeanor as opposed to a low one? What's a Low Crime? |
Spin, spin, spin....
YOU said he wasn't even charged, yet he was found GUILTY.
quote:
Read up on it, my boy. You'll find it's an awfully gray area when one is talking jurisprudence, which is why perjury is so hard to prove and is not often brought as a charge. |
Your caught in your fantasy loop, we are LONG passed "charged", Congress CONVICTED him.
quote:
Clinton was not elected to be president, not moral standardbearer. He in no way violated that trust in the performance of his duties in this matter. |
Wrong again, the Constitution provides a moral standard, and he must meet it, and he did not.
quote:
Um, MANY Democrats voted for impeachment, including good ol' Mr. Gary Condit. Wrong again, sir. |
Nice try, I am referring to where he escaped, in the senate.
quote:
[b]Next time, have some facts, and try not to be such a pr*ck about it, mmmkay? |
It must kill you to be proven wrong so often!
Boris, you want to argue against Lott, fine.
But forget trying to reserect Clinton was innocent, he was busted, just like your lame defense of him is.
Just once, be a normal dude and say you were wrong, I do it, everybody else does, come off that high horse and join us.
Your just being silly insisting he's innocent when the Congress convicted him.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chris 62
You are a simp.
YOU said he wasn't guilty of perjury, yet he was. |
No he wasn't. He was never found guilty of perjury. When was he found guilty of perjury? Pray tell.
quote:
Are you PMSing?
The Congress found him guilty. |
No they didn't. They didn't find him guilty of anything. Acquitted, remember?
quote:
Wrong again, but at least your consistant.
It's obvious you don't understand Constitutional law, the Congress acts as a court, THEY convicted him.
Did charge him...THEY CONVICTED HIM! |
It's obvious you don't understand the definition of impeachment. This whole post of yours was one big flop. Impeachment = indictment. Not conviction. He was acquitted. Pathetic.
quote:
Spin, spin, spin....
YOU said he wasn't even charged, yet he was found GUILTY. |
No he wasn't.
quote:
Your caught in your fantasy loop, we are LONG passed "charged", Congress CONVICTED him. |
No they didn't.
quote:
Wrong again, the Constitution provides a moral standard, and he must meet it, and he did not. |
The Constitution says NOTHING of moral standards, only legal ones.
quote:
Nice try, I am referring to where he escaped, in the senate. |
You mean his acquittal? You mean the part that isn't impeachment?
You don't know what "impeachment" even means.
It must kill you to be proven wrong so often!
quote:
But forget trying to reserect Clinton was innocent, he was busted, just like your lame defense of him is. |
Clinton was found not guilty. Under U.S. law, he's innocent. Make you so mad, doesn't it?
quote:
Just once, be a normal dude and say you were wrong, I do it, everybody else does, come off that high horse and join us.
Your just being silly insisting he's innocent when the Congress convicted him. |
Funny, since every legal scholar will tell you Congress ACQUITTED him.
Get a better dictionary, Chris. That 1928 copy must be REALLY bad.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
He was sanctioned by the Federal District Court in the Jones case, and settled by voluntarily accepting suspension of his license to practice law as a condition of the special prosecutor not moving for an indictment.
|
Which was after impeachment, yes?
quote:
As innocent as Nixon.  |
quote:
Impeachment and conviction do not address "guilt" of any charge, or "innocence" - they are solely limited to continuance in office or removal from office, so you're both wrong. |
Actually, this supports me, since I was the one arguing that the Congressional impeachment did not constitute any sort of criminal conviction against Clinton. Thanks, MtG!
To say Clinton deserved impeachment because he was criminally guilty of perjury is incorrect, as he was criminally guilty of nothing when he was impeached.
quote:
Let's not split too many hairs - a majority of the Senate found Clinton guilty on two of four Articles of Impeachment, but not the two-thirds majority necessary to remove him from office. |
The Constitution sets the bar, so he was by definition acquitted in the Senate. The number by which he was acquitted is not an issue.
quote:
Clinton was in fact determined by the trial judge in Jones v. Clinton to have committed perjury and was sanctioned by that court - not a criminal conviction, but an uncontested finding of law and fact by a Federal District Court that led to Clinton's disbarment. |
Again, after the fact of impeachment. And as you say, not criminal.
Thanks for the insights, MtG.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Funny, I wouldn't refer to Eisenhower and MacArthur and many others of the military top brass as liberal revisionists. But whatever floats your boat. |
Both supported use of the bomb. MacArthur wanted to make the Chinese glow. Eisenhower authorized the superbomb project, and more development of new throw weight, delivery vehicles, delivery platforms and weapons types than any President in history. So please cite any primary authority source where either described the use of the bombs as a war crime.
quote:
Accepting surrender is a war crime? Weird!
|
Please cite any reference to a surrender offer broadcast from national command authority of the Japanese empire to any representative of the government of the United States prior to either August 6, or August 9, 1945? What? There is none? 
What few civilian leaders (de facto with token power at best) suggested surrender were immediately subject to a number of assassination plots, and several were assassinated, in the exact same vein as Ni-Ni-Roku nine and a half years before. There were also two distinct conspiracies against the person of the emperor (one to assassinate, one to simply kidnap and hold under "reliable" military control) to prevent him ordering surrender after the two bombs had been dropped. In addition, there were attempts to intercept the message from the emperor, to assassinate members of the imperial household staff involved with communications from the emperor, etc.
Japanese forces in the field were actively operating and resisting to the limits of their abilities given their numerical, transport and supply situation. There wasn't one single externally visible indication of an intent or desire to surrender, and prior to the atomic bombings, the real authorities in control of the country leaned more to a fight to the death and extinction of the Japanese nation rather than surrender.
My ex-brother-in-law was ten years old at the end of the war, and was being trained as a spearman with a bamboo yari to be part of the home defense. They were intended to be used as spearmen, since real weapons were too scarce, and indoctrinated with the notion of the "glory" of sacrificing themselves for the emperor.
BTW, I lived in Nagasaki for four months, in sight of ground zero out my bedroom window. I've seen and talked to survivors, been to both museums, and had a friend whose father was a doctor in Hiroshima and survived several bouts of cancer. Knowing the subject (and the results) better than most, had I been in Truman's position with the knowledge available to the US at the time, the only thing I would have changed in retrospect was giving LeMay authorization to use the second bomb on his own initiative. I would have given the Japanese a few extra days to see the light, so to speak, and if they didn't, (which they probably wouldn't have, since they initially dismissed the Hiroshima bomb reports as hysteria), I'd have ordered the second bomb dropped a few days after the ninth.
quote:
Yeah, sounds 'bout right. Would that this could cost him his leadership.
Of course, Daschle should have lost his leadership position over the elections, but that hasn't happened either. Must be like moving mountains. |
 The entire Democratic Party should be purged and we all start over. The results sure as hell couldn't be worse.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
To say Clinton deserved impeachment because he was criminally guilty of perjury is incorrect, as he was criminally guilty of nothing when he was impeached.
|
Now you're sounding like Floyd. Somebody has a right to resist arrest and kill cops because they're wrongfully being arrested, since they're innocent until proven guilty, but that can't happen until after they're arrested, but they have the right to resist arrest yadda yadda blah blah blah.
Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding, it is a political proceeding to determine if an Article I or Article III officer of the United States should be removed from office.
You can play all the semantic games you want, the fact is that Clinton lied under oath in deposition, and felt his legal position vis-a-vis a perjury indictment was so poor that he voluntarily gave up his right to practice law.
quote:
The Constitution sets the bar, so he was by definition acquitted in the Senate. The number by which he was acquitted is not an issue.
|
For semanticists and apologists, no. The fact that more than half of the Senate of the United States felt that there was reason to commit the gravest political action possible under our Constitution suggests there was a bit of a substantive issue, regardless of semantics.
quote:
Again, after the fact of impeachment. And as you say, not criminal.
|
quote:
Thanks for the insights, MtG. |
Any time. Besides, the real crime has never been addressed - Clinton could have had virtually any woman he wanted under the table, why that SPCA reject?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:24
|
|
Another interesting article on the Lott issue
Many things I didn't know such as:
Opposed creation of MLK day-said there were people more deserving (who is more deserving than MLK???)
Actually stated about the integration of Ole Miss "Yes, you could say that I favored segregation then"
Tried to keep his fraternity segregated
campaigned for Jefferson Davis's citizenship
gave an interview to Southern Partisan magazine
I'm sure that many of you already knew of these incidents, however I did not.
Are these incidents relevant to what has happened recently, or are they too far in the past? do they create a pattern that continues today, or has he reformed and just forgotton to take a 22 year old joke out of his repertoire? Is using a 22 year old joke itself a crime, shouldn't the Senate Majority Leader be creative enough to make new jokes?
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-12-2002 00:17
|