39% of Americans believe Bush should be impeached.

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

On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 10:37:39 -0700, Dave Smith wrote
(in article ):

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.

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.


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.

Hmmmm. Thanks for that correction. I was under the assumption that it was
done by plebiscite.

George Graves wrote:

On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 20:03:44 -0700, James Davis wrote
(in article . com):



On Jul 7, 9:34 pm, George Graves wrote:


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.


Right now about 30% of Americans are very happy with President Bush,
who was elected by a 51% majority. While I personally believe he's a
moron, there is no rule that says it's undemocratic for a president to
only please 30% of the population. There could be some time in the
future where angering 70% of the population is the right thing to do.
If you had to please the majority of people, then we wouldn't even
elect presidents. We would just vote on issues and the majority vote
would decide what to do.



I understand that and its sorta my point.


It would be unfair to the 30% of Americans who like Bush to impeach
him unless he has done something illegal.




As I said. I think he's a lousy president who has done ABSOLUTELY nothing in
his second term except to defend his flawed policy in Iraq. Not one piece of
legislation has he introduced! But until he actually breaks the law, he is,
AFAIK, unimpeachable.


Yea the Dems and Independents and real Republicans gotta be sure and not
be a completely moronic
and short sighted to do and say the idiotic things that the
NeoCON/RightWing sect of the Republican party has........
"How dare you queston our leaders during war time, ya traitor!" They
aren't even copentent
enough to realize that goes both ways, even in the hypocrite world they
inhabit.



He won the vote, so he is
the president. Besides, he doesn't have any power to do anything that
70% of Congress disagrees with. If his actions are so bad, they can
be democratically overridden by others.



Also true.



You can't just do away with the rules of democracy because they are
giving you the results you want.



Again, that's pretty much my point.




--
Ric Seyler
Online Racing: RicSeyler
GPL Handicap 6.35

http://www.pcola.gulf.net/~ricseyler
remove -SPAM- from email address
--------------------------------------
"Homer no function beer well without."
- H.J. Simpson

On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 11:05:30 -0700, George Graves
wrote:

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.



Bush should be impeached for commuting Libby's sentence to insure his
silence.
Thumper
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.

On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 10:59:07 -0700, 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.


The judge said it was immaterial.
Thumper
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 2007-07-09 13:17:53 -0400, George Graves said:

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.

Apparently the Honorable President of the United States disagrees with you.

On 2007-07-09 14:06:37 -0400, Steve Carroll said:

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...

Some of them may even believe George Graves. That's about as dumbed
down as you can get!

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.