39% of Americans believe Bush should be impeached.

"Hatunen" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:27:26 -0700, George Graves
wrote:

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:19:01 -0700, Hatunen wrote
(in article ):

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 13:52:31 -0700, George Graves
wrote:

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:33:58 -0700, Hatunen wrote
(in article ):

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 00:06:54 -0700, George Graves
wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 23:05:20 -0700, Hatunen wrote
(in article ):

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 16:09:52 -1000, "Hertz Dount"
wrote:


"Hatunen" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:15:09 -0700, George Graves
wrote:


And you would lose in court. Lying to the Supreme Court is
perjury.

So far, so good. That can be true. But note that if I run into
the Supreme Court chambers and yell to the assembled justices
that the building is on fire when I know it isn't, it would not
be perjury.

Lying to Congress i perjury.

Yep. That can be true, but see example exception above.

Going on national television and lying to every man,
woman and child in the country is perjury and despicable.

But that's not true. Perjury consists of lying under oath. Lying
to the public may be despicable, but it's not perjury.


The word "felony" does not appear there, although treason,
bribery and high crimes might be felonies. But misdemeanors are
definitiely not felonies.

The perjury that clinton committed was a felony.

If he had been convicted. No one, repeat, no one, can legally be
called a felon unless he or she has been convicted of a felony.
And to call someone a felon when he has not been convicted of a
felony could end you up in court on the defendant end of a
defamation suit.

Unless he CONFESSES. Apparently, Clinton confessed.

Even a confession does not make a person legally guilty. Only a
court of law can do that. Why are so many people having a problem
with this basic concept of American jurisprudence?

WEll, I'm not having any problem it. I'm just wondering. If Clinton
wasn't
convicted of anything and a confession, in court, doesn't count as a
conviction, then from what authority did Clinton's disbarment and the
huge
fine he ended-up paying come?

Did he confess in an actual court? I thought it was a
Congressional hearing. What exactly did he confess and where did
he, exactly, confess it?

Anyway, no, it doesn't count as a conviction.

By the way, have you any idea how many people have confessed to
crimes they didn't commit, even in America? Many were convicted
and are now being freed by the DNA projects.



Yeah, but that's no defense in Clinton's case.

No. But you've made the generalization that a confession counts
as a conviction.

He was asked if he had sex with the Lewinski pig, and said no he hadn't.

Who asked him?

Later it was absolutely
established that she performed oral sex on him in the oval office.

Certainly not the first president doing this sort of thing.

He then (if memory serves) when caught, tried to say that he hadn't lied
because he
didn't consider fellatio to be sex.

That was an eyebrow raiser to me, but I was surprised to see that
many young people today agree.

The judge didn't buy that


What judge? What court? What was the case at hand?

and later Clinton said, that yes, he had lied under oath.

What wa the question and why was itbeing asked?

Now, I don't remember whether
the judge sentenced him for that, based on his admission of guilt on the
stand, or held a separate sentencing hearing or what.

Ah. A little googling. Apparently it was the Paula Jones case.
The judge held Clinton in contempt of court for refusing an order
to testify truthfully. He was fined $90K. He also was disbarred.

No conviction is involved in contempt of court nor disbarment.
You need to get your facts straight here.

So you are saying that absent a conviction, Cllinton did not commit perjury?
Do you also claim that absent a cionviction Clinton was disbarred illegally?
Do you also contend that absent a conviction, Clinton was fined $90,000
illegally?

How long have you been in a coma?


Honu

"Hatunen" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 20:45:28 -1000, "Hertz Dount"
wrote:


"Hatunen" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 00:02:38 -0500, Anonymouse
wrote:


In order to impeach, there must be impeachable offenses.
Bull****. All that's needed to impeach is a vindictive Congress.
That
was demonstrated conclusively in 1998.

...and a sitting President who committed a felony. The operative word
here is
FELONY. Remember that before throwing around such phrases as
"vindictive
Congress."

Uh, no. The operative words are "treason, bribery, or other high
crimes and misdemeanors."

The word "felony" does not appear there, although treason,
bribery and high crimes might be felonies. But misdemeanors are
definitiely not felonies.

and perjury is a felony.

And one has not committed a felony unless one has been convicted
thereof.
He was impeached *FOR PERJURY*.

HE WAS NOT CONVICTED! IMPEACHMENT IS NTO A CONVICTION!!

Please, please, learn something about this before pressing "Send"



You should practice what you preach.

Honu

"Alan" wrote in message
...


When will folks realize that this thread was created to spew off-topic
disruption into a bunch of newsgroups, and restrict it to appropriate
newsgroups?


When will you learn to use a killfile?

Honu

On 2007-07-13 23:19:15 -0400, "Hertz Dount" said:

Clinton committed perjury.

= topic 1

He admittied He was *IMPEACHED* for perjury.

= topic 2

He
could not have been impeached unless he in fact did commit *PERJURY*.

= topic 3

A
court trial would have been redundant.

= topic 4

You are in idiot.

=topic 5

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 17:19:15 -1000, "Hertz Dount"
wrote:


"sechumlib" wrote in message
...
On 2007-07-13 02:05:57 -0400, Hatunen said:

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 00:02:38 -0500, Anonymouse
wrote:


In order to impeach, there must be impeachable offenses.
Bull****. All that's needed to impeach is a vindictive Congress. That
was demonstrated conclusively in 1998.

...and a sitting President who committed a felony. The operative word
here is
FELONY. Remember that before throwing around such phrases as
"vindictive
Congress."

Uh, no. The operative words are "treason, bribery, or other high
crimes and misdemeanors."

The word "felony" does not appear there, although treason,
bribery and high crimes might be felonies. But misdemeanors are
definitiely not felonies.

and perjury is a felony.

And one has not committed a felony unless one has been convicted
thereof.

And that doesn't include conviction in an impeachment trial.


Clinton committed perjury. He admittied He was *IMPEACHED* for perjury. He
could not have been impeached unless he in fact did commit *PERJURY*. A
court trial would have been redundant. You are in idiot.

You're willfully ignoring all attempts to tell you what "impeahc"
means. Again: impecahment is an indictment brought by the House
of Representatives asking to bring to trial by the Senate the
person indicted. The Senate as a whole sits as judge and jury. If
the Senate does not majority vote "guilty" the effect i just as
if a trial court faild to deliver a guilty verdict, i.e., the
person indicted is legally innocent.

But the *impeachment* is nothing but an indictment. many peope
get indicted for things they didn't do.

Also, the ONLY punishment a guilty vote by the Senate is removal
from office. For a crime necessitating a judgement such as
imprisonment, the person would have to be brought before a
regular court for a regular trial. The regular trial is NOT
redundant.

I shan't call you an idiot even though you are quite wrong and
the person you called an "idiot" was correct, but I am thinking
about the purported difference between "stupid" and "ignorant".


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

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 17:21:04 -1000, "Hertz Dount"
wrote:


"Hatunen" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 20:45:03 -1000, "Hertz Dount"
wrote:

In American jurisprudence, no one is legally guilty until
convicted by a court of law. Needless to say this does not mean
that everyon with a prurient interest in teh matter won't claim
the person is guilty.

He still committed the crime.

That is yor personal conclusion, but it is not a legal conclusion
and no legal consequences can ensue.

Read my prior posts. Your hero is a criminal.

It's a free country, and youare quite welcome to your opinion,
and it may well be true, but not because he has been so legally
adjudicated. I'm far more interested that everyone understand
what an impeachment is and isn't than whether Clinton is a hero.

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

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 17:31:42 -1000, "Hertz Dount"
wrote:


"Hatunen" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:27:26 -0700, George Graves
wrote:

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:19:01 -0700, Hatunen wrote
(in article ):

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 13:52:31 -0700, George Graves
wrote:

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:33:58 -0700, Hatunen wrote
(in article ):

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 00:06:54 -0700, George Graves
wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 23:05:20 -0700, Hatunen wrote
(in article ):

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 16:09:52 -1000, "Hertz Dount"
wrote:


"Hatunen" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:15:09 -0700, George Graves
wrote:


And you would lose in court. Lying to the Supreme Court is
perjury.

So far, so good. That can be true. But note that if I run into
the Supreme Court chambers and yell to the assembled justices
that the building is on fire when I know it isn't, it would not
be perjury.

Lying to Congress i perjury.

Yep. That can be true, but see example exception above.

Going on national television and lying to every man,
woman and child in the country is perjury and despicable.

But that's not true. Perjury consists of lying under oath. Lying
to the public may be despicable, but it's not perjury.


The word "felony" does not appear there, although treason,
bribery and high crimes might be felonies. But misdemeanors are
definitiely not felonies.

The perjury that clinton committed was a felony.

If he had been convicted. No one, repeat, no one, can legally be
called a felon unless he or she has been convicted of a felony.
And to call someone a felon when he has not been convicted of a
felony could end you up in court on the defendant end of a
defamation suit.

Unless he CONFESSES. Apparently, Clinton confessed.

Even a confession does not make a person legally guilty. Only a
court of law can do that. Why are so many people having a problem
with this basic concept of American jurisprudence?

WEll, I'm not having any problem it. I'm just wondering. If Clinton
wasn't
convicted of anything and a confession, in court, doesn't count as a
conviction, then from what authority did Clinton's disbarment and the
huge
fine he ended-up paying come?

Did he confess in an actual court? I thought it was a
Congressional hearing. What exactly did he confess and where did
he, exactly, confess it?

Anyway, no, it doesn't count as a conviction.

By the way, have you any idea how many people have confessed to
crimes they didn't commit, even in America? Many were convicted
and are now being freed by the DNA projects.



Yeah, but that's no defense in Clinton's case.

No. But you've made the generalization that a confession counts
as a conviction.

He was asked if he had sex with the Lewinski pig, and said no he hadn't.

Who asked him?

Later it was absolutely
established that she performed oral sex on him in the oval office.

Certainly not the first president doing this sort of thing.

He then (if memory serves) when caught, tried to say that he hadn't lied
because he
didn't consider fellatio to be sex.

That was an eyebrow raiser to me, but I was surprised to see that
many young people today agree.

The judge didn't buy that


What judge? What court? What was the case at hand?

and later Clinton said, that yes, he had lied under oath.

What wa the question and why was itbeing asked?

Now, I don't remember whether
the judge sentenced him for that, based on his admission of guilt on the
stand, or held a separate sentencing hearing or what.

Ah. A little googling. Apparently it was the Paula Jones case.
The judge held Clinton in contempt of court for refusing an order
to testify truthfully. He was fined $90K. He also was disbarred.

No conviction is involved in contempt of court nor disbarment.
You need to get your facts straight here.

So you are saying that absent a conviction, Cllinton did not commit perjury?

In a sense, yes. That's teh way the American legal system works.

Do you also claim that absent a cionviction Clinton was disbarred illegally?

One doesn't have to be convicted to be disbarred.

Do you also contend that absent a conviction, Clinton was fined $90,000
illegally?

Ask the judge who imposed the fine. But rememeber, and let me say
this again: CLINTON WASN'T DISBARRED NOR FINED FOR COMMITTING
PERJURY; IT WAS FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT!!

How long have you been in a coma?

How long have you been so brain dead you can't comprehend the
difference between perjury and contempt of court?

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

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 17:25:16 -1000, "Hertz Dount"
wrote:


"Hatunen" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 13:52:31 -0700, George Graves
wrote:

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:33:58 -0700, Hatunen wrote
(in article ):

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 00:06:54 -0700, George Graves
wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 23:05:20 -0700, Hatunen wrote
(in article ):

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 16:09:52 -1000, "Hertz Dount"
wrote:


"Hatunen" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:15:09 -0700, George Graves
wrote:


And you would lose in court. Lying to the Supreme Court is perjury.

So far, so good. That can be true. But note that if I run into
the Supreme Court chambers and yell to the assembled justices
that the building is on fire when I know it isn't, it would not
be perjury.

Lying to Congress i perjury.

Yep. That can be true, but see example exception above.

Going on national television and lying to every man,
woman and child in the country is perjury and despicable.

But that's not true. Perjury consists of lying under oath. Lying
to the public may be despicable, but it's not perjury.


The word "felony" does not appear there, although treason,
bribery and high crimes might be felonies. But misdemeanors are
definitiely not felonies.

The perjury that clinton committed was a felony.

If he had been convicted. No one, repeat, no one, can legally be
called a felon unless he or she has been convicted of a felony.
And to call someone a felon when he has not been convicted of a
felony could end you up in court on the defendant end of a
defamation suit.

Unless he CONFESSES. Apparently, Clinton confessed.

Even a confession does not make a person legally guilty. Only a
court of law can do that. Why are so many people having a problem
with this basic concept of American jurisprudence?

WEll, I'm not having any problem it. I'm just wondering. If Clinton
wasn't
convicted of anything and a confession, in court, doesn't count as a
conviction, then from what authority did Clinton's disbarment and the huge
fine he ended-up paying come?

Did he confess in an actual court? I thought it was a
Congressional hearing. What exactly did he confess and where did
he, exactly, confess it?

So you admit that you are ill prepared to be discussing this matter?

It shoule be quite obvious by now that you have no clue about it
yourself and in anotehr post I already gave the details from the
Paula Jones tria.

Anyway, no, it doesn't count as a conviction.

It most certainly does.

Rubbish.

A court case would be redundant.

No it woueln't.

The same level of
evidentiary prudence is required to procure and impeachment as is to get a
felony conviction.

That's simply not true. Strictly speaking someone could be
impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate without being
guilty of any legal wrongdoing at all. The impeachment of Andrew
Johnson comes to mind.

That is where you silly argument breaks down.

Whatever.



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

On 2007-07-14 17:45:42 -0400, Hatunen said:

You're willfully ignoring all attempts to tell you what "impeahc"
means.

Hatunen, don't you really think your efforts are hopeless? The stuff
you're responding to is by people who are determined to show that
Clinton was a blackguard, and they accept the very political
impeachment by the House as authentic proof that he was guilty. They
are going to find him guilty no matter what idiocy, or lack of it, is
involved in their reasoning. They are Clinton-haters, pure and simple.

The world is full of Clinton-haters and their ilk. They aren't
interested in truth, only in spin. I think it's time to start ignoring
them. If I believed in a deity, I would pray to him to help me do that.
May you be stronger than I am.

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 17:34:25 -0700, Jason McNorton wrote
(in article ):

In article , gmgraves2
@comcast.net says...
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 03:34:37 -0700, Jason McNorton wrote
(in article ):

In article , gmgraves2
@comcast.net says...
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 23:05:57 -0700, Hatunen wrote
(in article ):

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 00:02:38 -0500, Anonymouse
wrote:


In order to impeach, there must be impeachable offenses.
Bull****. All that's needed to impeach is a vindictive Congress.
That
was demonstrated conclusively in 1998.

...and a sitting President who committed a felony. The operative word
here is
FELONY. Remember that before throwing around such phrases as
"vindictive
Congress."

Uh, no. The operative words are "treason, bribery, or other high
crimes and misdemeanors."

The word "felony" does not appear there, although treason,
bribery and high crimes might be felonies. But misdemeanors are
definitiely not felonies.

and perjury is a felony.

And one has not committed a felony unless one has been convicted
thereof.

Or confesses.

eh, Clinton's one of the only presidents to be impeached.

This is just sour grapes. No worries really. They'd impeach Bush over
anything.

I'm sick of the clinton/Bush dinasty, moreso of the clinton one. We'll
see how things go in the next year for candidates. Republicans have
been blessed with truly awful, awful competition. And I do believe we
are going to get more of that coming up.


Republicans can't elect a President in '08, Jason. It doesn't matter who
they
run. It doesn't matter who the Democrats run. The Democrats will win by a
landslide and the Republicans will lose. Bush has assured that outcome. And
while "trickle down" might not work with economics, it most certainly works
in politics. Republicans will continue to lose House and Senate seats,
Gubernatorial seats and state legislature seats all over the country. If
the
Democrats play their cards right, they have an opportunity here for a coup,
a
clean sweep over the next few years. But I'm not worried, they won't be
able
to pull it off because they don't have the machine in place to do so. They
also don't have the leadership to put together such a machine. That's lucky
for the Republic which couldn't survive single party rule. But what we'll
have will be bad enough. By the time the electorate has forgotten Bush and
start electing Republicans again, this country will be a deep morass of
socialism and the march toward totalitarianism will be much further along
than it is now, if not a downright fait accompli.

I think you're wrong.

We'll see, won't we.