39% of Americans believe Bush should be impeached.

In article ,
"TheNewsGuy(Mike)" wrote:

George Graves wrote:
...
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.

If you were involved in another legal case (like Clinton was) you very well may
have been called. Why Clinton was in front of a grand jury was his own doing...
once there, you tell the truth.

--
"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

On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 10:06:55 -0700, sechumlib wrote
(in article ):

On 2007-07-09 12:45:18 -0400, George Graves said:

Lying under oath to grand jury is NOT a trivial matter.

Not when applied to Clinton, according to your non-standards. What
about when applied to Lewis Libby?


I repeat, lying under oath is not a trivial matter. Perjury is punishable by
a prison term. I don't care if its Bill Clinton, Lewis Libby, or G.W. Bush.
If someone lies under oath on a witness stand, he or she should be subject to
the full weight of the law - irrespective of the perjurer's position or
extenuating circumstances. One either tells the truth while under oath or one
takes the 5th, where appropriate. There is no third road to take. ANY first
year law student can tell you that. Were that not the case, our system of
jurisprudence would be worthless.

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.


To quote you: "Sir, in this country, if YOU or I were to lie under oath, in
court, YOU or I
would go to jail."

Does this not also apply to Lewis Libby? A jury found him guilty. By your
reasoning, he should go to jail. Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence
(prison part) does a disservice to us. If Bush thought the sentence was
excessive, why not let Libby go to prison until Bush thinks he's served a
proper, (not excessive) time?


--
Bearman

America: Land of the free because of the brave.

In article ,
George Graves wrote:

On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 04:56:49 -0700, Matthew L. Martin wrote
(in article ):

George Graves wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 16:31:37 -0700, sechumlib wrote
(in article ):

On 2007-07-08 18:54:04 -0400, George Graves 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.

I think you're wasting your time here... there are going to be people that don't
understand what this represents... but it is weird to me that many of them are
Americans.

--
"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

On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 10:05:12 -0700, TheNewsGuy(Mike) wrote
(in article ):

George Graves wrote:
...
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!!!!


And I suppose that you are unable to discern for yourself the irrelevancy of
your above statement? The absurdity of the situation is NOT license for the
court to excuse perjury.

George Graves wrote:

On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 19:03:32 -0700, Sparrow wrote
(in article om):

Read all about it, he 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.

It would be interesting to see what percentage of them know that
impeachment itself does not get rid of the president but is just a step
towards it. In the British parliamentary system the non confidence vote is
done by the Parliament, not the people, and generally only happens when
there is a minority government.

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 13:37:39 -0400, Dave Smith
wrote:


It would be interesting to see what percentage of them know that
impeachment itself does not get rid of the president but is just a step
towards it.

What is the next step? Or do you just mean the vote of the
Senate?

In the British parliamentary system the non confidence vote is
done by the Parliament, not the people, and generally only happens when
there is a minority government.

So what's your point there?

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 10:18:28 -0700, Steve Carroll wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
George Graves wrote:

On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 04:56:49 -0700, Matthew L. Martin wrote
(in article ):

George Graves wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 16:31:37 -0700, sechumlib wrote
(in article ):

On 2007-07-08 18:54:04 -0400, George Graves 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.

I think you're wasting your time here... there are going to be people that
don't
understand what this represents... but it is weird to me that many of them
are Americans.

Yeah. I don't get it either unless this is further evidence of the
"dumbing-down" of America that has been going on in our schools since the
late '60's. I just don't see how anyone could possibly be that dumb, that
ill-informed and on top of it, that thick-headed as not to grasp the simple
concept of law that this entails.

On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 10:18:22 -0700, bearman wrote
(in article ):




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.


To quote you: "Sir, in this country, if YOU or I were to lie under oath, in
court, YOU or I
would go to jail."

Does this not also apply to Lewis Libby? A jury found him guilty. By your
reasoning, he should go to jail.

This applies to anyone who perjures himself and is caught. Of course
sentencing is up to the Court, and with a lot of the soft-headed liberal
judges we have nowadays.....


Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence
(prison part) does a disservice to us.

Yes, it does, but its the president's privilege to do that. The important
thing is that justice was served by the court (the man was found guilty and
sentenced), and that's THEIR job.


If Bush thought the sentence was
excessive, why not let Libby go to prison until Bush thinks he's served a
proper, (not excessive) time?

You'll have to ask G.W, that one. I have no idea.

In article ,
George Graves wrote:

On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 10:18:28 -0700, Steve Carroll wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
George Graves wrote:

On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 04:56:49 -0700, Matthew L. Martin wrote
(in article ):

George Graves wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 16:31:37 -0700, sechumlib wrote
(in article ):

On 2007-07-08 18:54:04 -0400, George Graves
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.

I think you're wasting your time here... there are going to be people that
don't
understand what this represents... but it is weird to me that many of them
are Americans.

Yeah. I don't get it either unless this is further evidence of the
"dumbing-down" of America that has been going on in our schools since the
late '60's. I just don't see how anyone could possibly be that dumb, that
ill-informed and on top of it, that thick-headed as not to grasp the simple
concept of law that this entails.

I saw a little vid-clip today that had a couple of people debating the potential
of "dumbing-down" due to the internet. One would tend to think having access to
much more information than ever before we'd find people being more informed...
but one guy's argument was that people are too willing to believe much of what
they read simply because it was in print on some webpage (or blog). He may be on
to something...

--
"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