39% of Americans believe Bush should be impeached.

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. He was asked if he had sex
with the Lewinski pig, and said no he hadn't. Later it was absolutely
established that she performed oral sex on him in the oval office. He then
(if memory serves) when caught, tried to say that he hadn't lied because he
didn't consider fellatio to be sex. The judge didn't buy that and later
Clinton said, that yes, he had lied under oath. 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.

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.

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

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.

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?

"sechumlib" wrote in message
...
On 2007-07-13 02:05:20 -0400, Hatunen said:

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.

Not to mention the fact that it takes a trial in court to convict a person
of a felony, or even a misdemeanor. Impeachment, even if followed by
conviction,, is not a substitute for a trial and does not make a person
guilty of said felony or whatever.


Clinton was impeached for perjury. He is guilty of perjury. If he was not
guilty of perjury, he could not have been impeached. What part of this do
you not understand? You pathetic desperation to vindicate
Clintoon is moronic.

Clinton *IS* guilty of perjury. Clinton was *IMPEACHED* for perjury.
Clinton would have to have been found to have committed *PERJURY* to be
*IMPEACHED*.

You are indead an ignorant turd.

Honu

"sechumlib" wrote in message
...
On 2007-07-13 02:45:03 -0400, "Hertz Dount" said:

He committed a felony. He was impeached for it.
He is as guilty whether he was convicted in civil litigation or not. He
still committed the crime.

A person isn't "convicted in civil litigation". Civil litigation is for
lawsuits by one party against another, for negligence, trespass, etc.

Moreover, impeachment does not mean guilt. It merely means politics.

Perhaps before you go on posting idiocies, you should learn just a little
about the way the law operates.


Wow...you continue to make a fool of yourself.

You are at least consistent...you are consistently WRONG.

Honu

"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.

Honu

"George Graves" wrote in message
. net...
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.

That will be the epitaph that is used when they destroy the country.

Honu

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


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


"Hatunen" wrote in message
m...
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.


Except Clinton was not yelling fire or calling wolf.

The analogy is nto gemaine to the discussion at hand.

What analogy? I am simply pointing out that you seem to not have
clue about what constitutes perjury.

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.

If it had gone to a "court of law", his statements, recorded with his
knowledge an dconsent, could indeed be used against him, and used directly
to support perjury charges.

No recording of public statements can be used to support a
perjury charge because he wasn't under oath. Period. Perjury is
LYING UNDER OATH. Why can't you understand that?

He committed a felony. He was impeached for it.

Not only do you not understand what perjury is, you do not
understand what impeachment is. You wouldbe advised to learn
these concepts before saying more silly things.

Impeachment is the bringing of charges by the United States House
of Representaives. It's the equivalent of an indictment in the
"outside world" with the House acting as the equivalent of a
state's attorney. As in the outside world, it is an accusation
that a crime has been committed. But an accusation doesn't nmake
a person guilty.

Once the House brings the articles of impeachment, the US Senates
sits as a panel of judges and a trial commences. If, and only if,
the Senate votes for conviction is the person legally guilty.

He is as guilty whether he was convicted in civil litigation or not.

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.



OJ Simpson comes to mind...

I'm sure it would.

"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?



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


It most certainly does. A court case would be redundant. The same level of
evidentiary prudence is required to procure and impeachment as is to get a
felony conviction. That is where you silly argument breaks down.



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.


And that has any bearing on this discussion in what way?

Are you saying Clinton lied when making his confession?

Are you saying that the DNA evidence used against him is not accurate?

You'd go anywhere or say anything to bolster your position.

Someday, you'll get over your irrational devotion to Clinton, and realize
what a fool you have been.

Honu