39% of Americans believe Bush should be impeached.

On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 15:06:28 -0700, Ric Seyler wrote
(in article ):



George Graves wrote:

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 12:53:04 -0700, sechumlib wrote
(in article ):



On 2007-07-08 13:53:32 -0400, George Graves said:



On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 06:49:25 -0700, sechumlib wrote
(in article ):



On 2007-07-07 22:34:26 -0400, George Graves 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?


I'm no Republican, but had I been the Judge, Clinton would
have done time.

Just curious, what about Scooter?

Scooter GOT time, but Bush pardoned him.

On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 14:39:51 -0700, sechumlib wrote
(in article ):

On 2007-07-09 16:33:58 -0400, George Graves said:

You're talking about the Libby pardon, I take it? That has nothing to do
with
the court or the law practiced in that court. They did their job; which was
to try, and if found guilty, sentence Libby. The fact that Bush used his
executive power to set that sentence aside with a pardon, is his privilege
as
president and has nothing whatsoever to with the court and its decision and
sentence. You are really having a problem with these legal concepts, aren't
you?

You know, you're being both hyperidiotic and inaccurate.

There was no "pardon" (yet); there was a "commutation". Do you know the
difference?

And that has a lot to do with your inflexible position. Apparently the
Prez thinks you're wrong about what is appropriate for people who lie
under oath. If that's what he thinks, who are you and who am I to apply
that principle as inflexible as you have to someone else, namely
Clinton?

I don't really care what the prez thinks. Scooter should be going to jail.
I've said that before.

Try being realistic for a while, anyway.


Just going by the law.

On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 15:39:14 -0700, Matthew L. Martin wrote
(in article ):

George Graves wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 04:58:33 -0700, Matthew L. Martin wrote
(in article ):

sechumlib wrote:
On 2007-07-08 18:54:04 -0400, George Graves 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!


Having been tried, convicted and sentenced, Bill Clinton (or anyone
else) can not be tried for the same offense again.

Yes, and that applies to Clinton, how?


That was simple, not unlike yourself.

Personal rancor? Why? Do you name-call everyone who disagrees with you?

On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 14:41:13 -0700, sechumlib wrote
(in article ):

On 2007-07-09 16:47:13 -0400, George Graves said:

On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 12:15:28 -0700, sechumlib wrote
(in article ):

On 2007-07-09 14:10:43 -0400, George Graves said:

Given most of this thread's respondents grasp of US law (as witnessed by
their inability to understand simple perjury laws) is woefully inadequate,
I'd say very few.

We're not all the kind of Pharisee you are.


No, you're not. You don't know the law, and you don't seem to want to learn
it and you don't seem understand the importance of being compelled to tell
the truth in a court of law. Whether it's stubbornness that makes you this
way, or willful ignorance, or just stupidity is not for me to comment upon,
and I won't.

I've been a lawyer for 42 years. I just have a different political view
than you do.


A lawyer, huh? Then maybe you can tell me what either your or my POLITICS
have to do with the law? And by the way, sir, remind me not to choose your
firm If I ever need legal council.

Ric Seyler wrote:


Thumper wrote:

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 06:46:42 -0700, Sam Spade
wrote:



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....



No way, Jose. Americans only bitch and moan. If they were inclined to
Civil War it would be happening now over illegal immigration and how the
left (and Bush) tell us we are racists because we can no longer stand
this invasion by Mexico.




Many of the people bitching about illegal immigrants ARE racist. They
use this as a cover.
Thumper


That is a very valid point!


So does that make illegal immigration okay?

George Graves wrote:

On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 15:06:28 -0700, Ric Seyler wrote
(in article ):



George Graves wrote:


On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 12:53:04 -0700, sechumlib wrote
(in article ):




On 2007-07-08 13:53:32 -0400, George Graves said:




On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 06:49:25 -0700, sechumlib wrote
(in article ):




On 2007-07-07 22:34:26 -0400, George Graves 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?



I'm no Republican, but had I been the Judge, Clinton would
have done time.


Just curious, what about Scooter?


Scooter GOT time, but Bush pardoned him.

This is a thread full of inaccuracies.

The Bushman commuted his sentence. He (thus far) did not pardon him.

On 2007-07-09 20:35:18 -0400, George Graves said:

A lawyer, huh? Then maybe you can tell me what either your or my POLITICS
have to do with the law? And by the way, sir, remind me not to choose your
firm If I ever need legal council.

Politics have quite a lot to do with the law, actually. Especially
these days, at the Supreme Court level.

And I wasn't in a firm. I was employed by a corporation. (A rather big one.)

And there is no such thing as "legal council". Counsel, yes.

And you're not nearly as smart as you want to appear.

On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 18:22:02 -0700, sechumlib wrote
(in article ):

On 2007-07-09 20:35:18 -0400, George Graves said:

A lawyer, huh? Then maybe you can tell me what either your or my POLITICS
have to do with the law? And by the way, sir, remind me not to choose your
firm If I ever need legal council.

Politics have quite a lot to do with the law, actually. Especially
these days, at the Supreme Court level.

But not yours or mine which was the question. Besides which you don't really
know whet my politics are as I have not revealed them.

And I wasn't in a firm. I was employed by a corporation. (A rather big one.)

Good for you, but irrelevant.


And there is no such thing as "legal council". Counsel, yes.

Hmmm, so there is no difference between medical council, legal council,
social counsel or psychological council? Thanks for the info. And all this
time, I assumed that they were different disciplines.

And you're not nearly as smart as you want to appear.

Is anybody?

In article ,
sechumlib wrote:

On 2007-07-09 20:35:18 -0400, George Graves said:

A lawyer, huh? Then maybe you can tell me what either your or my POLITICS
have to do with the law? And by the way, sir, remind me not to choose your
firm If I ever need legal council.

Politics have quite a lot to do with the law, actually. Especially
these days, at the Supreme Court level.

Uh... this was a non responsive answer... of course, being a lawyer for 42
years... I'm sure you're already aware of this. No offense... but if you're
looking to impress people it really should include a display that shows you can
comprehend what you just replied to.

And I wasn't in a firm. I was employed by a corporation. (A rather big one.)

And there is no such thing as "legal council". Counsel, yes.

And you're not nearly as smart as you want to appear.

Funny... I had the same thought about you

--
"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

George Graves wrote:



And there is no such thing as "legal council". Counsel, yes.


Hmmm, so there is no difference between medical council, legal council,
social counsel or psychological council? Thanks for the info. And all this
time, I assumed that they were different disciplines.


I know I am not as smart as any of you guys. Especially, I don't
understand the use of the word "council" when applied to the fields of
medicine and law, as you state them above.

Please help me understand these unusual uses of the word "council."

And, what is a "social counsel?"