****BREAKING NEWS**** This is a Hoot!

[imported_Curmudgeon]

Re: ****BREAKING NEWS**** This is a Hoot!

At least McKinney has some ballz.

Further proof that some folk just don't belong in the gene pool! :^

 

[technostingray]

Re: ****BREAKING NEWS**** This is a Hoot!

Let's see what this brings. Sex,sex.sex. can't you guys talk about anything but sex? o

 

[QC]

Re: ****BREAKING NEWS**** This is a Hoot!

Clinton was Impeached by the House of Reps, yet not "convicted" by the Senate that would've forced removal. Impeachment was based on alleged perjury.

For clarity, again, I was against the Impeachment as it was yet another stain on the US.

Sorry Willy, nothing on your list has been proven or is clearly illegal. Your inclusion of the 2000 vote stuff is pretty funny, I suppose you believe the Supreme Court is also illegal. Wrench turner or no, you also know that the Rumsfeld and Powell things are not impeachable anythings. Habeas Corpus can be debated, but again, debated not prosecuted and especially not convicted. It is really funny to me that those of you who claim that Bush has also destroyed, shredded, trampled or whatever on the Constitution, insist that an unConstitutional impeachment is somehow a valid course of action. Is this contradiction not visible to you?

Perjury clearly is illegal. No, Clinton was not convicted of perjury. Yes, there may be some that would interpret some of your list as illegal, an equal number could easily be found who would not. In the case of Clinton, I assert than any reasonable human that only reviewed the facts in the case, would have to rule that he perjured himself . . . Another 10 please.

 

[technostingray]

Re: ****BREAKING NEWS**** This is a Hoot!

Clinton was Impeached by the House of Reps, yet not "convicted" by the Senate that would've forced removal. Impeachment was based on alleged perjury.

For clarity, again, I was against the Impeachment as it was yet another stain on the US.

Sorry Willy, nothing on your list has been proven or is clearly illegal. Your inclusion of the 2000 vote stuff is pretty funny, I suppose you believe the Supreme Court is also illegal. Wrench turner or no, you also know that the Rumsfeld and Powell things are not impeachable anythings. Habeas Corpus can be debated, but again, debated not prosecuted and especially not convicted. It is really funny to me that those of you who claim that Bush has also destroyed, shredded, trampled or whatever on the Constitution, insist that an unConstitutional impeachment is somehow a valid course of action. Is this contradiction not visible to you?

Perjury clearly is illegal. No, Clinton was not convicted of perjury. Yes, there may be some that would interpret some of your list as illegal, an equal number could easily be found who would not. In the case of Clinton, I assert than any reasonable human that only reviewed the facts in the case, would have to rule that he perjured himself . . . Another 10 please.

The presumption of innocence is the cornerstone of our
Democratic society or if you will our Republican Government. What gives me pause is how you (QC) can so clearly see the guilt on the one hand and apply the technicality to the other. As to your denouncement of the impeachment of Clinton it shows a definite tendancy to follow the expedient route despite the indications on the map. Just food for thought. You have mail.

 

[QC]

Re: ****BREAKING NEWS**** This is a Hoot!

Yeah but, Clinton was Impeached, this may be semantics, but I know of no other method to express oneself on the net 'cept Emoticons and I do not know of one that means "Impeached but not convicted by the Senate". I think that is as close as I have come to proclaiming Clinton guilty before proven innocent . . . Well, uh, I did say he was guilty of perjury which I think the House Impeachement vote was the jury on that one.

Oh, and that I have no knowledge of any Bush Impeachable offenses. Agree, innocent unitl proven guilty, and in this case, not even charged . . .

 

[technostingray]

Re: ****BREAKING NEWS**** This is a Hoot!

Seriously, QC.? If this isn't rationalizing I haven't seen it.
tsk tsk tsk....

 

[QC]

Re: ****BREAKING NEWS**** This is a Hoot!

1) Impeachment is a "conviction" on the Articles of Impeachment, he was Impeached on 2 of 4 Articles.

Articles of Impeachment - Clinton

2) Subsequent "Conviction" in the Senate would have been for removal, not for the previously "convicted" articles of Impeachment by the House.

Is this the rationalising to which you refer? Do I have this wrong? Seriously, I was trying to recall and relearn the process as I thought I understood it. I think I got it kinda right.

 

[BoatBuoy]

Re: ****BREAKING NEWS**** This is a Hoot!

The presumption of innocence is the cornerstone of our
Democratic society or if you will our Republican Government. What gives me pause is how you (QC) can so clearly see the guilt on the one hand and apply the technicality to the other. As to your denouncement of the impeachment of Clinton it shows a definite tendancy to follow the expedient route despite the indications on the map. Just food for thought. You have mail.

Wanna buy a comma?

 

[technostingray]

Re: ****BREAKING NEWS**** This is a Hoot!

1) I think I got it kinda right.

Sorry I didn't bet back to you but I was crossing out all my I's and dotting my t's and checking up on what my lil buddy had done to my posts. It may only take a spark to get a fire going but it takes a lot fuel to keep them burning.(not to mention a great deal of effort to put them out. )
Peace Brother QC. All politics is personal. The key is presumption and perception. Or as my old pappy used to say, whenever someone says it is not the money it is the principle - it's the money. The bottom line is always served. It was as much an injustice on the one hand as it is on the other hand.

 

[technostingray]

Re: ****BREAKING NEWS**** This is a Hoot!

The presumption of innocence is the cornerstone of our
Democratic society or if you will our Republican Government. What gives me pause is how you (QC) can so clearly see the guilt on the one hand and apply the technicality to the other. As to your denouncement of the impeachment of Clinton it shows a definite tendancy to follow the expedient route despite the indications on the map. Just food for thought. You have mail.

Wanna buy a comma?

Don't have any use for any more commas, wanna buy a vowel. :^:^:^:^:^

 

[jtexas]

Re: ****BREAKING NEWS**** This is a Hoot!

A. not every lie under oath is perjury.
B. not every illegal act is an impeachable offense.

The master of the obvious J clarence darrow tex.Edit: J Eddie Cochran Tex... Now please enlighten me as to what impeachable offense is legal and a lie under oath that is not perjury.

A: An "impeachable offense" is whatever congress decides what it is at the time, so any legal act might be impeachable and any illegal act might not be.

B: A lie under oath that is not relevant to the case can't be prosecuted as perjury; you can call it perjury if it makes you feel better.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1) Impeachment is a "conviction" ...

huh?
Do they actually call it a "conviction"?

Isn't it more like an "indictment?"

 

[QC]

Re: ****BREAKING NEWS**** This is a Hoot!

huh?
Do they actually call it a "conviction"?
Isn't it more like an "indictment?"

That's why I used quotes, I guess my point was that the House "convicted" him of two of the four Articles of Impeachment (the indictment?) and this forwarded the issue to the Senate for a vote on removal from office. I think he was actually Impeached, just not removed. I'm kinda asking and too lazy to read all of the link I provided . . .

 

[technostingray]

Re: ****BREAKING NEWS**** This is a Hoot!

A. not every lie under oath is perjury.
B. not every illegal act is an impeachable offense.

A: An "impeachable offense" is whatever congress decides what it is at the time, so any legal act might be impeachable and any illegal act might not be.

B: A lie under oath that is not relevant to the case can't be prosecuted as perjury; you can call it perjury if it makes you feel better.

So it is a difference in degree rather than kind? Here is one for you: Who was a bigger crook, Nixon or Huey Long and why? 25 words or less.
Oh, by the way I don't think there would be an impeachment over a traffic violation if that is what you are suggesting. :^