Clinton lies again

[flip2]

No you have them confused. It is a CRIME to lie under oath in a courtroom. Our courtrooms are public courtrooms, they are where the public sees to it that laws are enforce. Each citizen has a right to their day in court, as the SCOTUS ruled in this particular case, and the right to truthful testimony, especially when specifically ruled in thier favor as in this case.

It is not necessarily a crime to go on TV and tell a lie. Although Clinton did preciesly that, along with his lies in court, there is no evidence Bush knowingly lied about anything pertaining to the war in Iraq or Saddam Hussien.



Then you should probably be calling for the prosectution of most politicians. However lying under oath in a courtroom is a far more serious crime. If we allow such to happen then we may as well close the courts.

This makes too much sense. I think people will still disagree with such logical, rational, thinking.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

No you have them confused. It is a CRIME to lie under oath in a courtroom. Our courtrooms are public courtrooms, they are where the public sees to it that laws are enforce. Each citizen has a right to their day in court, as the SCOTUS ruled in this particular case, and the right to truthful testimony, especially when specifically ruled in thier favor as in this case.

It is not necessarily a crime to go on TV and tell a lie. Although Clinton did preciesly that, along with his lies in court, there is no evidence Bush knowingly lied about anything pertaining to the war in Iraq or Saddam Hussien.

Wait, don't get me wrong. I know that it is not a crime to lie on television. I know that it is a crime of perjury to lie in a courtroom. But that means nothing more than that there is a punishment asigned to lying in the courtroom. Where as, lying on television has no repricusiouns. Does that make it better? Hell no! It is never okay to lie. And it is most certainly not okay to lie to the people that you are representing as a leader. Though there can be no prosecution for these lies, at least not as far as legality right now goes, however that does not mean that it is not a worser "sin" against the people to lie in front of a camera. There may be evidence that Bush lied if it were under investigation. Otherwise, he is simply too foolish to be a president.

 

[Stinger]

Wait, don't get me wrong. I know that it is not a crime to lie on television. I know that it is a crime of perjury to lie in a courtroom. But that means nothing more than that there is a punishment asigned to lying in the courtroom.

No it means that we sanction lying under oath in our judicial system. And we do it because the reprucussions of not doing are so great. If people are allowed to lie with impunity in the courts then we can have no judical system.

Where as, lying on television has no repricusiouns.

Oh but it can, just not a legal sanction in most cases of it. Now if I knowingly go on TV and make a false slander against you then yes there can be reprocussions, legal reprocussions. If I lie about a product there can be legal reprocussions.

Does that make it better?

I think you begin to engage in folly when you try to make such arguements.

Hell no! It is never okay to lie.

Hell yes it is OK to lie sometimes. And I could name quite a few off the top of my head. But before you rare-back and protest I suggest you think about it, for instance if a cancer patient undergoing very harsh treatment asked you if they looked OK when if fact they did look to s***, would you lie and tell them of course they look just fine?

And it is most certainly not okay to lie to the people that you are representing as a leader.

What if someone in the press got suspicious and ask Roosevelt if we had broken the German code? OK to lie and say no?

Though there can be no prosecution for these lies, at least not as far as legality right now goes, however that does not mean that it is not a worser "sin" against the people to lie in front of a camera.

Again such generalities lead you to folly.

So let's look at facts and evidence.

Bill Clinton, as a sitting govenor, sexually propositioned a subordinate state employee while she was on the job, that was the charge for which a federal civil rights suit was entered.

The plaintiff in that lawsuit sought evidence of his sexual acitivity with other subordinate emplyees and whether they recieved rewards or favorable treatment, all under the federal rules of evidence and civil rights acts.

Under those acts Clinton was required to give truthful testimony and show up in court. And the courts, despite his protest held that the laws required him to do so.

Clinton had been engage in a sexual relationship with one Monica Lewinsky, a subordinate employee. Clinton had gone to great lengths to reward this employee with favorable treatment due to this sexual relationship. This is proof that Clinton creates a hostile workplace and helped plaintiffs case.

Clinton choose to engage in a scheme to commit perjury and obstruct justice. He lied in court and he lied on TV, your pet peeve. He got caught. He should have been removed from office for not only his actions in the court and grand jury but also for his behavior with a subordinate employee in the office, on the job.

Those are facts. Laws were broken, evidence was brought forward, it was investigated.

There may be evidence that Bush lied if it were under investigation. Otherwise, he is simply too foolish to be a president.

I see, since there is no evidence Bush lied we must investigate it. Just to make it even?

 

[26 X World Champs]

No, because if Bush knowingly lied on camera, I'm sure that can be used in court to be used to hammer at his credibility.

I don't think Bush would commit a lie like that.

Then you would be wrong....For example:

"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories."(May 29, 2003)

"I recognize we didn't find the stockpiles [of weapons] we all thought were there." (Sept. 9, 2004)
President Bush

 

[Hoot]

Ahh yes, the Supreme Court of the United States.

Does anyone believe that once they put those black robes on that they are infallible, that they never make mistakes?

What conceivable argument could possibly be made for the proposition that Paula Jone's right to proceed to trial now is more important than the public's right to have its president be undiverted and undistracted in the performance of his duties running the country?

You know what SCOTUS said?

Well, gee, ahh, err...Clinton played golf for two hours yesterday, so he can certainly spend some time here in court.

What absolute nonsense and a complete danger to our society!

It was the partisan, republican members of SCOTUS that allowed this travesty to go forward.

I'm one of the few that doesn't mind when Bush leaves Washington for his ranch at Crawford, TX.

So Bush spends half a day cutting brush on his property...so what? Does this mean he has time to appear in civil court? He could be thinking about how to improve the economy, or how to get our butts out of Iraq, or an upcoming meeting with foreign heads of state? Who knows?

Even Alexander Hamilton in his Federalist papers states that the President should always have temporary immunity..as no other American citizen does.

Anyone who believes it's ok to throw civil trials at sitting Presidents is a fool and an unpatriotic American who is biased and partisan at the expense of all our freedoms.

Delay the civil trial until after the man holding the single most important job in the world finishes serving his duty to his country! Trials are delayed everyday, in every courtroom across this nation. shouldn't the office of the Presidency have this basic right?

Why is this so difficult for you right wingers to see this is for the greater good of our nation?

The first President Bush had an affair with his secretary...yet the liberal media hardly reported this! Should we have spent 50 million investigating this affair? Should we have impeached Bush for this action? Bush's affair hardly even made the news. Yet Clinton was dragged across the coals by the "liberal media." Both Reagan, with his "Iran-Contra" scandal, and Bush received a free ride from the "liberal media." Yet we spent 50 million dollars investigating and diverting Clinton's attention away from his duly elected job.

There's nothing anyone on this forum can say that will ever convince me that SCOTUS didn't blow it..... big time.

The only stain left on the White House was not on a blue dress, but by the fanatical...get Clinton at any cost...Right wing.

If you're concerned about the office of the presidency, and respect that office, regardless of your political affilliation, then No sitting President should ever have to divert his attention away from serving his country to bother with a civil trial.

As much as I dislike Bush, and believe SCOTUS blew that decision down in FL,2000...he is now the President, and I would never want what little attention the man may or may not have, diverted away, by being forced to appear in a civil trial. Period!

I respect the office of the Presidency.

 

[Stinger]

Ahh yes, the Supreme Court of the United States.

Does anyone believe that once they put those black robes on that they are infallible, that they never make mistakes?

What conceivable argument could possibly be made for the proposition that Paula Jone's right to proceed to trial now is more important than the public's right to have its president be undiverted and undistracted in the performance of his duties running the country?

One that convinced the authority in the matter. Whatever your opinion, and that is all that it is, the law is not on your side.

You know what SCOTUS said?

Yes, that a president is not immune from lawsuits and that getting elected does not grant you any such immunity and that private citizens have a right to their day in court unless a president can present compelling reasons otherwise. Clinton was unable to.

It was the partisan, republican members of SCOTUS that allowed this travesty to go forward.

Once again proving you know not of what you speak, Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.

I'm one of the few that doesn't mind when Bush leaves Washington for his ranch at Crawford, TX.

Even Alexander Hamilton in his Federalist papers states that the President should always have temporary immunity..as no other American citizen does.

Not quite, Nixon tried the same arguement and lost, in Fitzgerald vs. Nixon the court said

Much the same can be said in response to petitioner's reliance on The Federalist No. 77. In that essay, Hamilton asked whether the Presidency combines "the requisites to safety in the republican sense -- a due dependence on the people -- a due responsibility." The Federalist No. 77, p. 520 (J. Cooke ed. 1961). He answered that the constitutional plan met this test because it subjected the President to both the electoral process and the possibility of impeachment, including subsequent criminal prosecution. Petitioner concludes from this that these were intended to be the exclusive means of restraining Presidential abuses. This, by no means follows. Hamilton was concerned in The Federalist No. 77, as were the delegates at the Convention, with the larger political abuses -- "wrongs against the state" -- that a President might commit. He did not consider what legal means might be available for redress of individualized grievances.14

Anyone who believes it's ok to throw civil trials at sitting Presidents is a fool and an unpatriotic American who is biased and partisan at the expense of all our freedoms.

Unfortuniate for you the law, and the Federalist Papers, rules against your baseless statement.

Delay the civil trial until after the man holding the single most important job in the world finishes serving his duty to his country!

Once again that arguement was made by Nixon and by Clinton and both lost, your position is baseless. And that being said I have no reason to believe Clinton would have been any more truthful and you have presented nothing that would lead anyone to believe that.

Your whole arguement is pointless and specious.

Why is this so difficult for you right wingers to see this is for the greater good of our nation?

I believe we do and that is a President who upholds his oath of office and respects the laws he is pledged to defend. You obviously don't.

The first President Bush ..........

Your phoney slander of anyone else does not prove your case, it only shows how weak it really is.

There's nothing anyone on this forum can say that will ever convince me that SCOTUS didn't blow it..... big time.

Then you can continue to have an erroneous position.

The only stain left on the White House was not on a blue dress, .......................

Actually you are partly correct. While there was a stain on the dress Clinton also left a stain on the Great Seal of the United States which is on the carpet before the desk of the President of the United States in the Oval Office. That is the one that truely matters.

If you're concerned about the office of the presidency, and respect that office, regardless of your political affilliation, then No sitting President should ever have to divert his attention away from serving his country to bother with a civil trial.

Actaully if you are oncerned about the office of the presidency, and respect that office, regardless of your political affilliation then you would have demanded he resign from office and upon his refusal demand his impeachement and subsequent removal.

I respect the office of the Presidency.

Not if you allow someone who behaves as Clinton did remain in office.

 

[Stinger]

Then you would be wrong....For example:

Quote:
"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories."(May 29, 2003)

"I recognize we didn't find the stockpiles [of weapons] we all thought were there." (Sept. 9, 2004)
President Bush

Both of those statements are correct or at a minimum were believed to be at the time of utterence.

[font=arial, helvetica, sans serif]THE PRESIDENT: We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.

Yes some have said the mobile labs could have been used for other purposes, but the fact is the were undeclared. And Kay documented secret labs with the strains of biologicals to produce the stockpiles we did not find. And we found the huge stores of organophosphates, highly toxic on thier own and the building blocks of more advanced nerve gases. And we found the proscribed missle programs, again undeclared and against the UN resolutions.

[/font] From the interim report of Dr. Kay:

Click Image to Enlarge

(note: all imagines and full report can be found at http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html)
​

Vials: A total of 97 vials-including those with labels consistent with the al Hakam cover stories of single-cell protein and biopesticides, as well as strains that could be used to produce BW agents-were recovered from a scientist's residence.

Click Image to Enlarge​

Lab Equipment From Mosque.

Click Image to Enlarge​

Burned Documents Found at SAAD Center: An exploitation team on a recent mission to the SAAD Center, part of the Baghdad New Nuclear Design Center, found massive looting and the remnants of deliberately destroyed documents. Other documents were left untouched, however, and recovered by the team

Click Image to Enlarge​

Storage room in basement of Revolutionary Command Council Headquarters. Burned frames of PC workstations visible on shelves. All rooms sharing walls with this storage room were untouched from fire or battle damage.

Click Image to Enlarge​

Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The basement historical files were systematically selected and destroyed.

What have we found and what have we not found in the first 3 months of our work?

We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later:

• A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.
• A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.
• Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.
• New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.
• Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).
• A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.
• Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.
• Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km - well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.
• Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles --probably the No Dong -- 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment.

In addition to the discovery of extensive concealment efforts, we have been faced with a systematic sanitization of documentary and computer evidence in a wide range of offices, laboratories, and companies suspected of WMD work. The pattern of these efforts to erase evidence - hard drives destroyed, specific files burned, equipment cleaned of all traces of use - are ones of deliberate, rather than random, acts. For example,

• All IIS laboratories visited by IIS exploitation teams have been clearly sanitized, including removal of much equipment, shredding and burning of documents, and even the removal of nameplates from office doors.
• Although much of the deliberate destruction and sanitization of documents and records probably occurred during the height of OIF combat operations, indications of significant continuing destruction efforts have been found after the end of major combat operations, including entry in May 2003 of the locked gated vaults of the Ba'ath party intelligence building in Baghdad and highly selective destruction of computer hard drives and data storage equipment along with the burning of a small number of specific binders that appear to have contained financial and intelligence records, and in July 2003 a site exploitation team at the Abu Ghurayb Prison found one pile of the smoldering ashes from documents that was still warm to the touch.

I would now like to review our efforts in each of the major lines of enquiry that ISG has pursued during this initial phase of its work.

With regard to biological warfare activities, which has been one of our two initial areas of focus, ISG teams are uncovering significant information - including research and development of BW-applicable organisms, the involvement of Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) in possible BW activities, and deliberate concealment activities. All of this suggests Iraq after 1996 further compartmentalized its program and focused on maintaining smaller, covert capabilities that could be activated quickly to surge the production of BW agents.
***************


It is true we did not find bubbling boiling stockpiles, but we found plenty enough.

 

[flip2]

Then you would be wrong....For example:
Quote:
"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories."(May 29, 2003)
"I recognize we didn't find the stockpiles [of weapons] we all thought were there." (Sept. 9, 2004)
President Bush

This doesn't prove Bush knowingly lied to the American people. Bush believed the intelligence presented to him, and relayed it to the American people.

No President is above the law. When Clinton lied under oath in a federal case before a federal judge, that is perjury. It is not about sex, it is not about having an affair, it is not about Lewinsky or the blue dress.It is simply about telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.Whether a poor man on the street or the President in the White House. About sex, about trading, about a dead dog in the alley.

 

[Fantasea]

I never said Bush was stupid...I have called him a liar.

Bush lied about the need to invade Iraq, and yet, to you right wingers, Clinton is a disgrace and Bush is a good 'ol boy.

Go figure?

In his 2003 State of the Union address, the President laid out, quite clearly, his intention, and the reasons for same. Kindly point out any 'lies' and refute them. Don't bother to cite anything as a lie that you are unable to refute.

Entire address: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

Relevant excerpt:

Our nation and the world must learn the lessons of the Korean Peninsula and not allow an even greater threat to rise up in Iraq. A brutal dictator, with a history of reckless aggression, with ties to terrorism, with great potential wealth, will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the United States. (Applause.)

Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.

Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)

The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups.

We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. (Applause.)

Tonight I have a message for the men and women who will keep the peace, members of the American Armed Forces: Many of you are assembling in or near the Middle East, and some crucial hours may lay ahead. In those hours, the success of our cause will depend on you. Your training has prepared you. Your honor will guide you. You believe in America, and America believes in you. (Applause.)

Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a President can make. The technologies of war have changed; the risks and suffering of war have not. For the brave Americans who bear the risk, no victory is free from sorrow. This nation fights reluctantly, because we know the cost and we dread the days of mourning that always come.

We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means -- sparing, in every way we can, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military -- and we will prevail. (Applause.)

And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies -- and freedom. (Applause.)

 

[Bluefire]

A President lying? Hmm, where have I heard that before?
*Bluefire remembers the current administration.
*Bluefire remembers every administration
*Bluefire realizes that lying = politics

 

[flip2]

I applied to become a Longhorn. I'm going to UTSA. I'll try again next fall. HOOK 'EM HORNS!

 

[Pacridge]

I applied to become a Longhorn. I'm going to UTSA. I'll try again next fall. HOOK 'EM HORNS!

I Wish you nothing but success. What's UTSA? What does have to do with this thread?

 

[Bluefire]

I applied to become a Longhorn. I'm going to UTSA. I'll try again next fall. HOOK 'EM HORNS!

Awesome. Hook 'Em Horns indeed!

I currently work and go to school at UT. Starting my junior year this fall!

 

[Bluefire]

I Wish you nothing but success. What's UTSA? What does have to do with this thread?

UTSA is the University of Texas at San Antonio, part of the UT system. The UT that everyone knows is the main campus, just an hour up I-35 in Austin, Texas.

I think he was replying to my avatar.

Now its off to get some Texadelphia! mmmmm

 

[flip2]

Believe it or not, I miss Taco Cabana.

Yeah, I'll be a Junior this year, too. It's taken me 7 years to finally get serious about my edumacation learnin'.

 

[Bluefire]

Believe it or not, I miss Taco Cabana.

Yeah, I'll be a Junior this year, too. It's taken me 7 years to finally get serious about my edumacation learnin'.

I love Taco C! Soft chicken taco combo for the 3.49 can't be beat!

 

[Hoot]

In his 2003 State of the Union address, the President laid out, quite clearly, his intention, and the reasons for same. Kindly point out any 'lies' and refute them. Don't bother to cite anything as a lie that you are unable to refute.<Fantasea

Go back and read post #25.

And why would I post a lie that I am unable to refute?

What the hell does that mean? LOL

 

[Hoot]

One that convinced the authority in the matter. Whatever your opinion, and that is all that it is, the law is not on your side.

Not at all, it's just that this particular SCOTUS was not on my side, nor on the side of the American people, nor on the history of the Supreme court, nor on the side of our Constitution.

You mentioned Nixon V Fitzgerald, which doesn't even apply here since that was a Grand Jury investigation of a possible felony action! A reporters right to keep confidential sources, but the bottom line was a felony investigation. Again, I ask you to look up the difference between a felony and a civil court case. Clinton's was a civil case that was allowed to proceed...quite a big difference from what they were investigating Nixon for, would'nt you agree?

Also, you conveniently left out what SCOTUS concluded in Nixon V Fitzgerald...

"Because of the singular importance of the president's duties, diversion of his energies by concern with private lawsuits would raise unique risks to the effective functioning of our government."

Yes, that a president is not immune from lawsuits and that getting elected does not grant you any such immunity and that private citizens have a right to their day in court unless a president can present compelling reasons otherwise.

Clinton never said he was immune from lawsuits! He simply asked for a delay in the civil court proceedings! This wasn't a felony, criminal investigation! Of course, if a President is suspected of committing a felony, then, by all means...full speed ahead, but a civil court case? No way!

I'd like to propose an imaginery scenario for you...and I would appreciate an honest answer....

Let's suppose I live next to Bush down in Crawford,
Texas, and I believe he has put a fence on what is my legal property.
Should my singular right to a day in court supercede the right of a nation to have a president undistracted from fullfilling his duly-elected duties to our nation?
Are you honestly saying I have the right to drag our president into civil court, the day after 9/11, and distract him with appearences before judges, meeting with attorneys, and sworn depositions and take this man's time and attention away from protecting our country? All for a civil trial?

You can throw all the rhetoric you want out here, but morally, you're wrong.

But you are right in one regard...the SCOTUS under Clinton did not agree. That doesn't make them right. SCOTUS goes back and over-rules previous decisions all the time...in effect saying..."Oops, we blew it that last time, here's what we should've said..."

The President has powers granted to him under Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution, and it neccessarily follows that within that "grant" is the unhampered ability to exercise those powers.

Supreme Court justice Joseph Story, who served on the court for about 35 years, and is perhaps the most respected commentator on the Constitution wrote in his often cited "Commentaries on the Constitution of the U.S., "that these powers granted to the president of the United States must include the power to perform them without any obstruction or impediment whatsoever."

But the SCOTUS under Clinton jumped around this and Stephens said that Story "did not specify the dimensions of the neccessary immunity."

What absolute hogwash!

If you get a drivers license, are you liable to be fined 100 dollars because the license doesn't detail the right to drive through St. Clair, County, IL on Highway 4?

Because Story didn't spell out the hundreds of possibilities regarding a Presidents immunity, the corrupt SCOTUS under Clinton allowed a frivolous CIVIL lawsuit, not criminal, but a CIVIL lawsuit to proceed. One of the biggest loads of garbage decisions that SCOTUS ever came down with.

If that's not enough for you, In Nixon V Fitzgerald, since you seem so fond of it, the court itself after first quoting John Adams and Senator Oliver Ellsworth, both of whom were framers of the Constitution, as saying during the first Congress that a "president, personally, was not subject to any court process whatsoever." ...this offers support for that all inclusive language by saying in the very next sentence that "Justice Story held it implicit that the President must be permitted to discharge his duties undistracted by private lawsuits."


Your arguments show the inability to see the grander scale, to see the greater good for our nation, to see beyond your own political bias. This is the real danger to our Constitution...that we actually have individuals, such as you, that believe it's ok to drag a sitting president into a civil trial, and that we actually have individuals, such as you, who so firmly believe they are right.

So again I ask you...do you honestly believe I should have the 'individual' right to drag Bush into a civil trial the day after 9/11? Hey...no one's above the law right?

Not if you allow someone who behaves as Clinton did remain in office.

Oh, so I guess that means we should've impeached Reagan for illegally selling arms during Iran/Contra, and impeach Bush for saying he was "out of the loop," and for having that affair with his secretary ( No less scandalous then the garbage and lies you've thrown out about Clinton..so deal with it) and certainly, if we didn't have a Republican Congress, we could impeach Bush for lying to America about the danger from Iraq and the WMD? Oh, and don't forget Kennedy...he was probably nailing Marilyn, and That goody-two shoes Carter admitted he lusted in his heart...damn..they should all go, based on your narrow minded view of the world.

Let's drag them all into court...who cares if they're serving their duly elected duty to out nation...who cares about the American people who voted our Presidents into office....I say..let that one individual have their damn day in a civil court case....World War III? Too bad, Bush...you gotta get that fence off my property.

Wake up America.

 

[Stinger]

Not at all, it's just that this particular SCOTUS was not on my side, nor on the side of the American people, nor on the history of the Supreme court, nor on the side of our Constitution.

Wrong again, they were on the side of the constition which does not grant a president immunity, they were on the side of the American people who have a constitutional right to their day in court and the history of previous rulings. That they were not on YOUR side has no bearing at all.

You mentioned Nixon V Fitzgerald, which doesn't even apply here since that was a Grand Jury investigation of a possible felony action!

Wrong again, it was cited in the case so there goes your contention it doesn't apply and it stated that a president can be sheilded from suits for official acts it explictly stated that he could be sued for acts committed that were not official duties.

A reporters right to keep confidential sources, but the bottom line was a felony investigation. Again, I ask you to look up the difference between a felony and a civil court case. Clinton's was a civil case that was allowed to proceed...quite a big difference from what they were investigating Nixon for, would'nt you agree?

Also, you conveniently left out what SCOTUS concluded in Nixon V Fitzgerald...

"Because of the singular importance of the president's duties, diversion of his energies by concern with private lawsuits would raise unique risks to the effective functioning of our government."

And you conveniently left out that that applied to OFFICAL acts not personal acts.

Hoot, your point was fully litigated and your side lost, any arguements you pose are specious at best and moot.

Clinton never said he was immune from lawsuits! He simply asked for a delay in the civil court proceedings!

And he lost, the constitution doesn't call for it and no law allows for it. Jones was intitled to her day in court.

This wasn't a felony, criminal investigation!

Moot point.

Of course, if a President is suspected of committing a felony, then, by all means...full speed ahead, but a civil court case? No way!

Way.

I'd like to propose an imaginery scenario for you...

We don't need imaginary scenarios, we have reality.

You can throw all the rhetoric you want out here, but morally, you're wrong.

Don't need to throw any rhetoric when I have the court case to back me up, you on the other hand seem quite determined to win by throwing out specious rhetoric and baseless assertions. And this has nothing to do with morality, just the law.

But you are right in one regard...the SCOTUS under Clinton did not agree. That doesn't make them right.

Until you bring a case and they reverse themselves they are. Until you can point to case law that proves otherwise.

The President has powers granted to him under Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution, and it neccessarily follows that within that "grant" is the unhampered ability to exercise those powers.

But it doesn't make him king does it. Nor does it put him in charge of the Judicial Branch.

Your arguments show the inability to see the grander scale,

My arguements show I am better able to read what the law and the constitution says.

to see the greater good for our nation,

To see that a president who is not answerable to the law is a dangerous precident.

to see beyond your own political bias.

To see that you have nothing but rhetoric to offer and nothing in the law.

This is the real danger to our Constitution...that we actually have individuals, such as you, that believe it's ok to drag a sitting president into a civil trial, and that we actually have individuals, such as you, who so firmly believe they are right.

As oppose to individuals such as you who believe the president is above the law and that individual citizens do not have their right to their day in court and that president can get away with the behavior Clinton tried to get away with. THAT is the danger to the country.

So again I ask you...do you honestly believe I should have the 'individual' right to drag Bush into a civil trial the day after 9/11? Hey...no one's above the law right?

Since it's an imcomparable situation the question is specious. Should a temporary posponement be allowed, perhaps. That is nothing new in court. Postpone for a month or two months, happens all the time. Should any lawsuit against Bush be dropped until he is out of office, no.

Oh, so I guess that means we should've impeached Reagan for illegally selling arms during Iran/Contra,

ROFL no it doesn't mean that at all and I have no time for you totally unrelated postulations. Deal with the subject at hand rather than trying to change pleas.

 

[Hoot]

I don't mean to be rude, but I'm writing this before I've finished reading your diatribe.

You keep saying...something along the lines of..."NO one is above the law."

Sigh....He wasn't trying to be "above the law."

Can you at least understand that point? He asked for a "stay," meaning a delay...sheesh...a perfectly reasonable thing for a President of the United States to request, don't you think?

Even your beloved SCOTUS itself said as far as this matter...

"[The president] does not contend that the occupant of the Office of the President is 'above the law,' in the sense that his conduct is immune from judicial scrutiny. The President argues merely for a postponement of the judicial proceedings."

If you can't at least understand this, then there's really no point in continuing this discussion with you.

This "immunity" that you decry so much for the President is exactly the same type of immunity that SCOTUS, enjoys, as well as legislators and prosecutors.

Under what conceivable theory do you believe that SCOTUS, prosecutors and legislators should have immunity for their official wrongs, but not the President?

It is the judicial branch of government that over-stepped the "separation of powers," not the President.

As far as civil lawsuits..the need must be shown for "immediate relief" by the plaintiff. What "immediate relief" did Paula Jones have? She waited 2 days shy of three years to even file the lawsuit. Where is Ms. Jone's "immediate need " for relief? ROTFL! This was the first time in the history of the United States that a president has ever been sued! ( Nixon V Fitzgerald was AFTER Nixon left office)

I know I will never convince you of the dangerous precedent that SCOTUS brought forward by allowing a civil case to proceed against a sitting President. SCOTUS blew it...just as they blew the decison in Gore V Bush.
As I said earlier, SCOTUS has over-ruled previous decisions all the time in their history. Yes...believe it or not SCOTUS blew it, and as Cheney would say..."Big Time."

You are one of the Clinton haters...one who suspends the good of our nation to exact a momentary bit of illusionary revenge.

I hope you enjoyed it. The Harvard Law Review and the National Journal of Law, among many others all condemned the SCOTUS decision...I could throw facts, figures and court cases at you all day, but to what avail?

You're a Clinton hater...at the expense of our nation..at the expense of our freedoms.

P.S. Please get your Thesauraus out and look up another word for 'specious." It's getting a bit old.

 

[Stinger]

I don't mean to be rude, but I'm writing this before I've finished reading your diatribe.

Well not reading what I write and not responding to what I write is rude so go back and try again.

You keep saying...something along the lines of..."NO one is above the law."

No that's not what I said at all so go back and read what I said and respond to it. And then perhaps you can address the subject of the thread which has nothing to do with this attempt to deflect and that is the perjury and obstruction of justice Clinton committed and his attempts to misrepresent what actually happened in his case before the courts and the impeachement.