Alito = No Bush Impeachment

[libertarian_knight]

No, in order to be impeached the House of Representatives has to vote to impeach you. You certainly don't have to commit a crime.

PS Bill Clinton was not convicted of any crime.

Oh yes he did. It's called perjury.

What COURT convicted Clinton of Perjury?

 

[KCConservative]

What COURT convicted Clinton of Perjury?

You're right. He was impeached in the House and was not brought up on charges in the Senate. He was not removed from office and he did not go to jail. But this thread is about impeachment. Clinton was, indeed, impeached. Now here's another question. How many hairs are you going to split defending that snake?

 

[Stinger]

with all due respect...you're really stretching here. You wrote that if Bush decided to chainsaw shrub for the rest of his term and did nothing else he could be impeached.

Absolutely.

I say that is like saying if he was caught stealing gum from a candy store he could be impeached...except that your and my two scenarios would never happen so it's a foolish statement, sorry.

Well it's not. But say a President refuse to submit Judical nominations to the congress and the courts were being harmed by it. That's not against the law but Congress could certainly impeach him so someone who would carry out the duties of the President could take his place and hopefully the VP would have more sense.

As far as Johnson goes, that was 140 somthing years ago and has no basis on what would or could happen today.

It has every basis and his impeachment proceedings were often cited in Clintons.

The truth is that articles of impeachment in the 21st century would have to be against a specific real event, not a non-event like a permanent sabbatical.

Well if you can point to the amendment which change the constitution to reflect that please do else you statement is specious.

Now if you want to argue that the partisan GOP House overreached their authority in 1998 I would agree with you wholeheartedly.

I don't and they didn't but I do find it curious that you are claiming it takes a crime to impeach a president and that case there were crimes committed.

That truly was a partisan attempt at a Coup D'Etat

How could it have been coup d'etat since Gore would have become president and the Democrats would still have controlled the executive branch. That is NOT a coup d'etat. That is the silly specious arguement Democrats tried to pull on ignorant people.

 

[Stinger]

Actually this is exactly what you wrote:

To again clarify,

I already did clarify.

 

[libertarian_knight]

You're right. He was impeached in the House and was not brought up on charges in the Senate. He was not removed from office and he did not go to jail. But this thread is about impeachment. Clinton was, indeed, impeached. Now here's another question. How many hairs are you going to split defending that snake?

I'm not defending Clinton, I'm exposing you.

 

[KCConservative]

I'm not defending Clinton, I'm exposing you.

I was impeached? Wow, I need to pay more attention.

 

[libertarian_knight]

I was impeached? Wow, I need to pay more attention.

Of course not, you're not important enough to be impeached from anything. Nor Intelligent enough to understand I never suggested as much. Paying more attention would be good.

Seriously, I have to ask, HOW THE HELL did your brain come up with that? I mean really, that is way the hell our of left fricken field. I expose your ignorance or obfuscation of past events, and you magically think that you are now related to those past events, or somehow some other similar events could ever be warranted in your life? I mean, really, that's just ... wow I mean I don't even have the words to describe how really insane that is.

I mean really, I use language because it's useful, so really, how, out of what I said, did you magically think it had anything to do with the fantasay you constructed of you being impeached, or my having in any way alluded to such? That's really dumb or brilliant and I am leaning toward the prior.

 

[KCConservative]

Of course not, you're not important enough to be impeached from anything. Nor Intelligent enough to understand I never suggested as much. Paying more attention would be good.

Seriously, I have to ask, HOW THE HELL did your brain come up with that? I mean really, that is way the hell our of left fricken field. I expose your ignorance or obfuscation of past events, and you magically think that you are now related to those past events, or somehow some other similar events could ever be warranted in your life? I mean, really, that's just ... wow I mean I don't even have the words to describe how really insane that is.

I mean really, I use language because it's useful, so really, how, out of what I said, did you magically think it had anything to do with the fantasay you constructed of you being impeached, or my having in any way alluded to such? That's really dumb or brilliant and I am leaning toward the prior.

:lol: I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you missed the sarcasm. Yep, something tells me it definitely went over your head.

Tell me, when you read the forum rules, did it say anything about calling someone unintelligent, ignorant, insane and dumb?

 

[libertarian_knight]

:lol: I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you missed the sarcasm. Yep, something tells me it definitely went over your head.

Tell me, when you read the forum rules, did it say anything about calling someone unintelligent, ignorant, insane and dumb?

Sarcasm uses the human brains ability for wit, to wit I have yet to see you exhibit any. Furthermore, I was adressing your behavior, not your person, and I would be hard pressed to imagine behavior on the forums is protected as the person is.

the behavior of idiots can be called idiotic, and not be a personal attack.

 

[KCConservative]

Sarcasm uses the human brain

So does understanding it when you come in contact with it, smart-alec. As I said before, you missed it. I know you're trying your best to wiggle out of the error, but it's too late. Yes, knight, I know I wasn't actually impeached of anything. Sorry about confusing you so much with my earlier post.

And thanks for the tip. Now when I call you dumb, unintelligent, idiotic and insane, you'll know I just meant your post and not you personally.

 

[libertarian_knight]

So does understanding it when you come in contact with it, smart-alec. As I said before, you missed it. I know you're trying your best to wiggle out of the error, but it's too late. Yes, knight, I know I wasn't actually impeached of anything. Sorry about confusing you so much with my earlier post.

And thanks for the tip. Now when I call you dumb, unintelligent, idiotic and insane, you'll know I just meant your post and not you personally.

Ok, so I missed this great bit of sarcasm. Care to explain to me how it was witty?

You're welcome for the tip, but if you DID says those things to me, you'd be a liar, and we don't want that.

 

[NYStateofMind]

You're right. He was impeached in the House and was not brought up on charges in the Senate. He was not removed from office and he did not go to jail. But this thread is about impeachment. Clinton was, indeed, impeached. Now here's another question. How many hairs are you going to split defending that snake?

In the interest of accuracy....

Yes, Clinton was impeached by the House. However, Clinton also most certainly *was* brought up on charges and tried by the Senate, completing the impeachment process. He was found not guilty, which is why he wasn't removed from office, or sent to jail.

 

[KCConservative]

Ok, so I missed this great bit of sarcasm. Care to explain to me how it was witty?

You're welcome for the tip, but if you DID says those things to me, you'd be a liar, and we don't want that.

I see. You can use those words to describe other posters but no one else better try it. Got it. :roll:

 

[cnredd]

In the interest of accuracy....

Yes, Clinton was impeached by the House. However, Clinton also most certainly *was* brought up on charges and tried by the Senate, completing the impeachment process. He was found not guilty, which is why he wasn't removed from office, or sent to jail.

In the interest of accurately detailing your accuracy, the "not guilty" was never in question...he admitted it...here are his exact words...

I have accepted responsibility for what I did wrong in my personal life. And I have invited members of Congress to work with us to find a reasonable, bipartisan and proportionate response. That approach was rejected today by Republicans in the House. But I hope it will be embraced by the Senate. I hope there will be a constitutional and fair means of resolving this matter in a prompt manner.

When someone is brought up on charges in a regular court, admitting guilt prevents a trial, and they would go straight to the sentencing...

In this impeachment process, guilt was never an issue...as stated, it's pretty tough to call someone "not guilty" when they themselves have already declared themselves "guilty"...

The "not guilty" votes were more of a sentencing, with the question being...

"We all KNOW the President lied under oath and obstructed juctice...But is it worth removing him from office?"...

That was the issue at hand...not "guilt"...That was already established...

And as we all know, the Senate voted 45-55 on Article I...50-50 on Article II...

Source

 

[libertarian_knight]

In the interest of accurately detailing your accuracy, the "not guilty" was never in question...he admitted it...here are his exact words...



When someone is brought up on charges in a regular court, admitting guilt prevents a trial, and they would go straight to the sentencing...

In this impeachment process, guilt was never an issue...as stated, it's pretty tough to call someone "not guilty" when they themselves have already declared themselves "guilty"...

The "not guilty" votes were more of a sentencing, with the question being...

"We all KNOW the President lied under oath and obstructed juctice...But is it worth removing him from office?"...

That was the issue at hand...not "guilt"...That was already established...

And as we all know, the Senate voted 45-55 on Article I...50-50 on Article II...

Source

Impeachement is an indictment. Just as a Grand jury does not decide issues of Guilt, the House does not either. the Senate then tries the case and votes guilty of the indictment or not, and if 2/3 confirm guilty, the Offical is removed from office as part of the conviction. Which then allows normal crimminal proceedure to ensue.

Impeachment is not conviction, it is indictment.

 

[libertarian_knight]

I see. You can use those words to describe other posters but no one else better try it. Got it. :roll:

I described behaviors, not posters.

your "what if" scenerio refered to me, not acts, and that's why you would be wrong.

You still haven't elaborated on how your statement was "sarcastic."

 

[debate_junkie]

You're right. He was impeached in the House and was not brought up on charges in the Senate. He was not removed from office and he did not go to jail. But this thread is about impeachment. Clinton was, indeed, impeached. Now here's another question. How many hairs are you going to split defending that snake?

And not to mention Clinton is just NOW getting his license to practice law reinstated in Arkansas. Like I said in another thread.. I guess having sex gets Arkansas lawyers' licenses suspended. :roll:

 

[26 X World Champs]

Impeachement is an indictment. Just as a Grand jury does not decide issues of Guilt, the House does not either. the Senate then tries the case and votes guilty of the indictment or not, and if 2/3 confirm guilty, the Offical is removed from office as part of the conviction. Which then allows normal crimminal proceedure to ensue.

Impeachment is not conviction, it is indictment.

Exactly...sadly there are some people who are either ignorant of the process or cannot accept that it ended up being a failed attempt at making a blow job into a crime. Amazing really when you consider that our current American Taliban regime is breaking law after law, has killed thousands of Americans, permanently maiming tens of thousands more, etc. etc. etc.

 

[cnredd]

Exactly...sadly there are some people who are either ignorant of the process or cannot accept that it ended up being a failed attempt at making a blow job into a crime. Amazing really when you consider that our current American Taliban regime is breaking law after law, has killed thousands of Americans, permanently maiming tens of thousands more, etc. etc. etc.

Why the continued lie that Congress was trying Clinton on a blowjob?...He lied to a Federal Grand jury..."about what" is irrelevant...The fact that it was a blowjob may be morally wrong in someone's eyes, but that was NOT what the impeachment proceedings were about...The tabloid angle is a loser...

Please tell me where it mentions ANYTHING of a sexual nature in the articles of the impeachment proceedings...

You can't...why?...Because it ONLY deals with perjury and obstruction...That is the ONLY concern...

In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administra tion of justice, in that:

On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before a Federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following: (1) the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee; (2) prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a Federal civil rights action brought against him; (3) prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil rights action; and (4) his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action.

In doing this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.

In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to a Federal civil rights action brought against him in a duly instituted judicial proceeding. The means used to implement this course of conduct or scheme included one or more of the following acts:

(1) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to execute a sworn affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false and misleading.

(2) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to give perjurious, false and misleading testimony if and when called to testify personally in that proceeding.

(3) On or about December 28, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly engaged in, encouraged, or supported a scheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in a Federal civil rights action brought against him.

(4) Beginning on or about December 7, 1997, and continuing through and including January 14, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton intensified and succeeded in an effort to secure job assistance to a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him in order to corruptly prevent the truthful testimony of that witness in that proceeding at a time when the truthful testimony of that witness would have been harmful to him.

(5) On January 17, 1998, at his deposition in a Federal civil rights action brought against him, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly allowed his attorney to make false and misleading statements to a Federal judge characterizing an affidavit, in order to prevent questioning deemed relevant by the judge. Such false and misleading statements were subsequently acknowledged by his attorney in a communication to that judge.

(6) On or about January 18 and January 20-21, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton related a false and misleading account of events relevant to a Federal civil rights action brought against him to a potential witness in that proceeding, in order to corruptly influence the testimony of that witness.

(7) On or about January 21, 23 and 26, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton made false and misleading statements to potential witnesses in a Federal grand jury proceeding in order to corruptly influence the testimony of those witnesses. The false and misleading statements made by William Jefferson Clinton were repeated by the witnesses to the grand jury, causing the grand jury to receive false and misleading information.

In all of this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/impeachment/vote/vote_article1.html

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/impeachment/vote/vote_article2.html

 

[debate_junkie]

Exactly...sadly there are some people who are either ignorant of the process or cannot accept that it ended up being a failed attempt at making a blow job into a crime. Amazing really when you consider that our current American Taliban regime is breaking law after law, has killed thousands of Americans, permanently maiming tens of thousands more, etc. etc. etc.

Show me where in either of the Articles of Impeachment, it says William Jefferson Clinton is guilty of nothiing else but getting his schlong sucked by an intern in the oval office? When you can provide me these facts to which you base your case, maybe I'll burn my copy of the US Constitution.

 

[NYStateofMind]

The fact remains that Clinton was indeed tried by the Senate and found not guilty on both articles of impeachment.....like it or not, that is the truth.

Given a choice between a president who fools around on his wife and a president who tells bald-faced lies in order to justify an unnecessary war, I'll take the unfaithful guy. :smile:

 

[cnredd]

The fact remains that Clinton was indeed tried by the Senate and found not guilty on both articles of impeachment.....like it or not, that is the truth.

Given a choice between a president who fools around on his wife and a president who tells bald-faced lies in order to justify an unnecessary war, I'll take the unfaithful guy. :smile:

So would I...

Too bad we haven't had one of the latter to make a real comparison...:shrug:

 

[Deegan]

So would I...

Too bad we haven't had one of the latter to make a real comparison...:shrug:

That's correct, the only impeachments have been of Dem's, I can certainly see why one would want to even the score card!:rofl

 

[debate_junkie]

The fact remains that Clinton was indeed tried by the Senate and found not guilty on both articles of impeachment.....like it or not, that is the truth.

Given a choice between a president who fools around on his wife and a president who tells bald-faced lies in order to justify an unnecessary war, I'll take the unfaithful guy. :smile:

Precedent was already set. Andrew Johnson, in 1868 was also found not guilty by the senate, and was STILL recorded in history as the first United States President to be IMPEACHED. Like it or not, the fact IS William Jefferson Clinton was IMPEACHED by the United States House of Representatives. These are the facts.. and the facts are undisputed.

 

[Kelzie]

That's correct, the only impeachments have been of Dem's, I can certainly see why one would want to even the score card!:rofl

Nixon was a dem? Really?