Newsweek: Most Americans support impeachment, GOP numbers continue to crumble - Page 6

JaJae · 10-25-2006, 07:34 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

When would you or I EVER be called in front of a jury or judge to say "I didn't fuck that woman?" Come on.

When you're on the stand for sexual harrassment.

Donkey® · 10-25-2006, 07:37 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

When you're on the stand for sexual harrassment.

So was there any sexual harrassment in the Clinton case? And when it's a "he said she said" thing...how can either side be convicted of perjury without proof?

JaJae · 10-25-2006, 07:41 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

So was there any sexual harrassment in the Clinton case? And when it's a "he said she said" thing...how can either side be convicted of perjury without proof?

I think it's been considered an established fact that Clinton claimed to have not had sexual relations (as defined by the court to include a blowjob for him ahead of time) and the fact that he did have his penis polished by an ugly intern. He admitted to having a blowjob by her. He basically said he misunderstood the question. You know because the word "is" has so many strange and various definitions unbeknowest to a Rhodes Scholar, Lawyer and President.

Donkey® · 10-25-2006, 07:44 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

I think it's been considered an established fact that Clinton claimed to have not had sexual relations (as defined by the court to include a blowjob for him ahead of time) and the fact that he did have his penis polished by an ugly intern. He admitted to having a blowjob by her. He basically said he misunderstood the question. You know because the word "is" has so many strange and various definitions unbeknowest to a Rhodes Scholar, Lawyer and President.

I already agreed with you that Clinton perjured himself...not sure where you're going with this? What punishment would have satisfied YOUR conscience? Hanging? The chair? Even in a criminal case, the punishment for perjury isn't all that awful. And to tie this in somehow to the thread, do you think the willful incompetence and Constitutional end arounds by this current President is less deserving of impeachment than Clinton and his lie? We have seen Bush lie on national TV to when he said "stay the course? WTF is that shit?"

JaJae · 10-25-2006, 07:50 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

What punishment would have satisfied YOUR conscience? Hanging? The chair?

Yes, hang him

Whatever punishment I would have received is exactly what I expect him to receive. Plain and simple. Hold our politicians accountable for their crimes.

Donkey® · 10-25-2006, 07:54 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Yes, hang him

Whatever punishment I would have received is exactly what I expect him to receive. Plain and simple. Hold our politicians accountable for their crimes.

So Raphael Palmerio, Mark Mcguire, Sammy Sosa...they lied in front of Congress as well...under oath. What was their punishment? I think you're VASTLY over stating what the punishment for perjury would be...what it should be.

Donkey® · 10-25-2006, 07:55 PM

And since you're talking about "I want my politicians to be held to the same standards you and I would..." If Bush was running a company, he would have been fired years ago for mismanagment and incompetence. No?

7960 · 10-25-2006, 11:43 PM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

I hate to be the guy who says I want a link, because it is annoying for you to have to go find credible sources. But I have heard this out of top republican's mouths defending themselves and no where else. Contrarily I have testimony from whitehouse and intelligence officials and Woodward's first book (the older one) that says the charges were intentionally trumped up. Also the UN inspectors found no evidence of weapons and were vocal on that point. What was all this other evidence?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...111101832.html

"the notion that somehow this administration manipulated the intelligence." He said that "those people who have looked at that issue, some committees on the Hill in Congress, and also the Silberman-Robb Commission, have concluded it did not happen."

In the same speech, Bush asserted that "more than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence, voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power." Giving a preview of Bush's speech, Hadley had said that "we all looked at the same intelligence."

I understand that other parts of the article point out "Bush does not share his most sensitive intelligence, such as the President's Daily Brief, with lawmakers" and "there were doubts within the intelligence community not included in the NIE" but then it also goes on to say "The lawmakers are partly to blame for their ignorance. Congress was entitled to view the 92-page National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq before the October 2002 vote. But, as The Washington Post reported last year, no more than six senators and a handful of House members read beyond the five-page executive summary."

So, originally my point was congress heard information from sources other than the white house. The hearings presented information from UNSCOM (united nations special commission - link). UNSCOM includes information from british intelligence and had members from a range of countries. It was disbanded in 1999 but some of the reports were still used at in front of congress. Scott Ritter (headed the inspection team for a while) said information was "cherry-picked" but you tell me...is a chicken feed plant with extensive air defenses surrounding it a bit curious?

7960 · 10-25-2006, 11:49 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

And since you're talking about "I want my politicians to be held to the same standards you and I would..." If Bush was running a company, he would have been fired years ago for mismanagment and incompetence. No?

Depends...

Dow is at record high, oil prices are dropping, gas prices (adjusted for inflation) are back to "normal", unemployment is down, economy is up, no terror attacks in the US since 9/11 (which was clinton's fault anyway)......... mismanagement and incompetence?

Donkey® · 10-26-2006, 01:20 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

Depends...

Dow is at record high,

Has nothing to do with Bush.

Originally Posted by 7960

oil prices are dropping, gas prices (adjusted for inflation) are back to "normal",

Nothing to do with Bush.

Originally Posted by 7960

unemployment is down, economy is up,

Nothing to do with Bush.

Originally Posted by 7960

no terror attacks in the US since 9/11 (which was clinton's fault anyway)......... mismanagement and incompetence?

Clinton's fault? Wow. You're more delusional than I originally thought. That's an entirely different thread. I am also not going to sit and list the mismanagement and incompetence either. You'll just ignore it. NO point.

WickedLou9 · 10-26-2006, 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

Depends...

Dow is at record high, oil prices are dropping, gas prices (adjusted for inflation) are back to "normal", unemployment is down, economy is up, no terror attacks in the US since 9/11 (which was clinton's fault anyway)......... mismanagement and incompetence?

I'm with Donkey on this one. Bush didn't do any of that and 9/11 was NOT Clinton's fault no matter how much you on the right want it to be. 9/11 was a systematic failure of our government spanning decades to properly deal with a growing threat. DOW has nothing to do with Bush. Oil prices and gas prices are controled by the world market, again not Bush's doing at all and to think that this drop in price is permanent is foolish. Economy and unemployment are improving on thier own, on the strnegth of american business. The no terror attacks thing is a false arguement. Everyone who makes it looks foolish.

WickedLou9 · 10-26-2006, 11:19 AM

Oh and congress never approved the warrantless wiretapping. Bush just went ahead and did it without approval. I think they might have passed some sort of legislation after the fact but that woudln't be illegal. If congress passes unconstitutional legislation, it can be challened and overturned by the SUpreme Court.
Bush just deciding to go ahead and do it before he got approval is illegal and he should be impeached. We can't just let our presidents go around making up thier own version of the constitition. The constitution applies to him too, and he has sworn to uphold it.

7960 · 10-26-2006, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Has nothing to do with Bush.

When clinton was in office he was the mastermind behind this and got credit. Now that bush is in office it's somehow "luck" that it's going well. Go figure.

Nothing to do with Bush.

When clinton was in office he was the mastermind behind this and got credit. Now that bush is in office it's somehow "luck" that it's going well. Go figure.

Nothing to do with Bush.

When clinton was in office he was the mastermind behind this and got credit. Now that bush is in office it's somehow "luck" that it's going well. Go figure.

Clinton's fault? Wow.

I was just seeing if you were paying attention

. But, it's not like al queda started planning their attack the day bush was elected. Clinton could have and should have done more to stop it during the planning stages, but instead he was making laws that CIA/FBI can't use known criminals as informants so the CIA/FBI was hogtied and couldn't gather important information.

Diesel66 · 10-26-2006, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by hsmith

i'll ask it again if i feel like it.

it is only impossible because they are piece of shit politicians. they have no moral backing.

They helped break the law, why would they put their partner on trial ?

What will be the testimony:

Congress:did you allow the NSA to record private phone calls without a warrant
President: yes and you backed it. Hell you even passed legislation afterwerds that gave me more power to do the same thing.

Originally Posted by Donkey®

At least a misdemeanor? Link?

The Constitution.

WickedLou9 · 10-26-2006, 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

They helped break the law, why would they put their partner on trial ?

What will be the testimony:

Congress:did you allow the NSA to record private phone calls without a warrant
President: yes and you backed it. Hell you even passed legislation afterwerds that gave me more power to do the same thing.

Read my post. 2 posts up.

Donkey® · 10-26-2006, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

They helped break the law, why would they put their partner on trial ?

What will be the testimony:

Congress:did you allow the NSA to record private phone calls without a warrant
President: yes and you backed it. Hell you even passed legislation afterwerds that gave me more power to do the same thing.

But they didn't do that. Bush and his cohorts did it on their own.

Originally Posted by Diesel66

The Constitution.

I keep asking for a link but you won't provide it. Show me the exact place where you're reading this please.

Diesel66 · 10-26-2006, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

But they didn't do that. Bush and his cohorts did it on their own.

everything else they did.

I keep asking for a link but you won't provide it. Show me the exact place where you're reading this please.

I gave you the source. Constitution under impeachment

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

ballz2wallz · 10-26-2006, 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

He not only can,,,,, he did.

You make congress sound like they're all a bunch of fools that have no idea what's goin on.