Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Yvonne707

Impeaching the President

Recommended Posts

Very good point Neo!

 

I don't care for either side of the bipartisan coin, and vehemently state that at times, but I do appreciate it when people recognize facts and avoid making judgements based on hype.

 

The biggest problem we have is that our citizens don't want to make the effort to change things- just let voting day pass by and complain about it when the guy that gets in isn't living up to expectations.

 

Of course that reminds me of a plato quote to the effect of: A physician doesn't poll a sick persons neighbors to find a cure, likewise it is folly to poll the body politic to cure it's ills.

 

 

So, what would an earnest investigation of the administration yield? If Bush were forced to endure the same level of scrutiny that was applied to Clinton, how would he fare?

 

I'm sure there are things that would come out there as well, but the nature of a congressional body being responsible for anything of the sort scares me worse than 1 lame-duck running the show for another few years.

Edited by FrankenBox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:rofl2:  Republican denial.  :rofl2:

 

It is a fact that when Bill Clinton left office, the US was running a record surplus.

 

 

 

 

it wasnt a sustainable surplus, it had nothing to do with anything he did while in office and was almost entirely based on capital gains and cash outs. Its like finding $100 on the ground and claiming you earned it.

 

In fact the "crash" can be directly credited to Clinton and what he failed to do because he enjoyed the term "surplus" so much. If he as the president looked at what was going on he could have allowed teh DOJ to do their job and curb some of the hype and possibly prevent "enron" "worldcom" "tyco" and others.

 

The current economic problems in the state of california are directly related to the "surplus" and the failure of government to realize the revenue being generated was temporary and instead calculated future spending on this increased revenue which of course was flushed down the toilet with cooked books and unsavy investors.

Edited by one2gamble

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure there are things that would come out there as well, but the nature of a congressional body being responsible for anything of the sort scares me worse than 1 lame-duck running the show for another few years.

It would take an independent investigation to gain my confidence. After the their attempts to neuter the Ethics Committee, I don't think the Republican leadership in Congress can be trusted to do an earnest or credible investigation. I don't think George Bush can be trusted to lead an investigation of the Katrina response either--after all, he still hasn't found that culprit in his administration who outed Valerie Plame.

 

My previous post didn't relate to any specific investigation. I was just wondering out loud about what might be found if Republicans still possessed the same investigative zeal that they have demonstrated in immediate past years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Mr. Evil. Mistook your avatar. Don't believe your facts are entirely correct. And why Clinton, why not Kennedy; probably one of the things behind his assassination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny thing about Bush is he tried to out do his father. You know the old story of how the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. But in this case the tree was perched at the top of a tall, steep hill and when the apple fell, it rolled and rolled and rolled and...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I found $100 on the ground I would pay off my debt and put the rest in the bank or maybe buy something I wanted. I guess if the Clinton surplus was like that that would have been OK. I don't think that I would take the $100 and spend it and then get a $100,000 loan but then I don't understand economics as well as Bush I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it wasnt a sustainable surplus, it had nothing to do with anything he did while in office and was almost entirely based on capital gains and cash outs. Its like finding $100 on the ground and claiming you earned it.

 

In fact the "crash" can be directly credited to Clinton and what he failed to do because he enjoyed the term "surplus" so much. If he as the president looked at what was going on he could have allowed teh DOJ to do their job and curb some of the hype and possibly prevent "enron" "worldcom" "tyco" and others.

No, the surplus was not sustainable at all in view of the massive tax cuts, pork-barrell pharmaceutical bill, war in Iraq, etc.

 

Whatever the Clinton people were doing at the DOJ and SEC, they were being much too hard on corporations and accounting firms according to the Bush Administration. When George Bush appointed Harvey Pitt chairman of the SEC, practically the first words out of Pitt's mouth were that a "kinder, gentler" approach was needed. Of course at one time or another, Mr. Pitt had represented the five largest accounting firms in the US. He had spent his entire life fighting the SEC, and he was appointed to reduce the effectiveness of the SEC.

 

Arthur Levitt served with universal acclaim as Clinton's SEC chairman.

So Levitt proposed, sensibly enough, banning accounting firms from doing other business with the same corporations they audit. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) fought back with a fierce lobbying campaign that eviscerated Levitt's ban. The accountants' campaign was spearheaded, of course, by Harvey Pitt.

http://tnr.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20011217&s=chait121701

Edited by rhizome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Mr. Evil. Mistook your avatar. Don't believe your facts are entirely correct. And why Clinton, why not Kennedy; probably one of the things behind his assassination.

No problem. That is Ozzy Osbourne on my avitar. I don't think he would like to be called Ms either. :mrwinky:

Kennedy was not sued for sexual harrasment like Clinton was. It was at that deposition before a Judge and under oath that he was asked specifically about his relationship with Ms lewinsky. He lied under oath, thereby perjuring himself and breaking the law. If it had been anyone else, it would have been five years in the federal pen. That fact is not debatable. I personally do not care about his relationships. I do care though that he lied under oath. Martha Stewart got 10 months for lying to the FBI for christ sake. Bill Clinton got his priveledges to practice law suspended for five years and cannot ever argue before the supreme court. How is that fair that he is held to a lower standard than the rest of us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No problem. That is Ozzy Osbourne on my avitar. I don't think he would like to be called Ms either. :mrwinky:

Kennedy was not sued for sexual harrasment like Clinton was. It was at that deposition before a Judge and under oath that he was asked specifically about his relationship with Ms lewinsky. He lied under oath, thereby perjuring himself and breaking the law. If it had been anyone else, it would have been five years in the federal pen. That fact is not debatable. I personally do not care about his relationships. I do care though that he lied under oath. Martha Stewart got 10 months for lying to the FBI for christ sake. Bill Clinton got his priveledges to practice law suspended for five years and cannot ever argue before the supreme court. How is that fair that he is held to a lower standard than the rest of us?

Its not fair..the left treats their own to one set of values...while holding the right to another set...

 

Hell I "almost" wish Kerry would have won...I love seeing them lefties squirm.. :lol:

 

Bush has made plenty of mistakes...but them others are a disaster waiting to be elected...... :( v

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the left can really identify with a set of values- that was the biggest problem with Kerry. Too many positions at once, and that is epidemic throughout the party... it's pegged by multiple conflicting special intrest groups that appear to pull it in too many different directions.

 

The righties OTOH have been about "God, Guns, and Govornment" and because they pretend to have higher values, the other side mocks them for it. It is easier for them to get together and needle opponents because their causes interlock very well.

 

What sucks for us citizens is that once the horse and pony show of the election cycle is over, they get their seats and it all changes from promises and happy endings to pork-barrels and soft money.

 

As far as budgets are concerned- The Govornment is a non-profit organization, so it is as bad to have surplus as it is to have deficit. If you report over or under budget it means you have planned poorely. A surplus in the budget means that you are not distributing the money where it should or could be used, a deficit reveals irresponsible spending or bad contingency planning.

 

I think what I liked best about Clinton's terms were that we had a democratic president and a republican congress; nothing got done (checks and balances) which means that although things didn't get any better, they didn't get any worse either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the left can really identify with a set of values- that was the biggest problem with Kerry. Too many positions at once, and that is epidemic throughout the party... it's pegged by multiple conflicting special intrest groups that appear to pull it in too many different directions.

 

The righties OTOH have been about "God, Guns, and Govornment" and because they pretend to have higher values, the other side mocks them for it. It is easier for them to get together and needle opponents because their causes interlock very well.

 

What sucks for us citizens is that once the horse and pony show of the election cycle is over, they get their seats and it all changes from promises and happy endings to pork-barrels and soft money.

 

As far as budgets are concerned- The Govornment is a non-profit organization, so it is as bad to have surplus as it is to have deficit. If you report over or under budget it means you have planned poorely. A surplus in the budget means that you are not distributing the money where it should or could be used, a deficit reveals irresponsible spending or bad contingency planning.

 

I think what I liked best about Clinton's terms were that we had a democratic president and a republican congress; nothing got done (checks and balances) which means that although things didn't get any better, they didn't get any worse either.

I believe that is why we have Three branches of Government and two houses of Congress. Bravo to the fore fathers who understood that gridlock in Washington is the path to prosperity. :beer:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew Jackson was the only other impeached president, right?  I see no reason to impeach him, just not re-elect him. :lol:

Uhh, I haven't read the entire thread, so maybe this has already been said, but puhleeez don't mistakenly refer to the truly great American and Tennesseean Andrew "Old Hickory" Jackson with Abe Lincoln's vice president Andrew Johnson.

 

Unlike a certain current guy, Andy Jackson was the real deal, he'd personally been there, done that. Some of his ideas as mentioned in the article would be well considered even today.

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/aj7.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhh, I haven't read the entire thread, so maybe this has already been said, but puhleeez don't mistakenly refer to the truly great American and Tennesseean Andrew "Old Hickory" Jackson with Abe Lincoln's vice president Andrew Johnson.

 

Unlike a certain current guy, Andy Jackson was the real deal, he'd personally been there, done that. Some of his ideas as mentioned in the article would be well considered even today.

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/aj7.html

Wouldn't Andrew Jackson be the guy that beat the Brittish in the Battle Of New Orleans? What country in it's right mind would impeach him? Andrew Johnson on the otherhand is a nobody so impeachment is totally understandable. (Tounge in cheek.) :woot:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant no slight to Andrew Johnson. He had a different cross to bear durring incredibliy toubled times.

 

Andrew Jackson was indeed the US commander at the battle of New Orleans. But that was just 1 of many battles he fought and or led.

 

But he was definately not a one dimesional military type of guy. He was far from perfect, a slave owner, but a rarely fine leader nonetheless.

 

In particular, his attempt to do away with the Electoral College would have saved us from the fine mess we are in now.

 

In his first Annual Message to Congress, Jackson recommended eliminating the Electoral College. He also tried to democratize Federal officeholding. Already state machines were being built on patronage, and a New York Senator openly proclaimed "that to the victors belong the spoils. . . . "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, the surplus was not sustainable at all in view of the massive tax cuts, pork-barrell pharmaceutical bill, war in Iraq, etc.

 

 

If you believe the surplus would have continued if Clinton was allowed another term I dont realy know what to say other than

 

 

:rofl2:

Edited by one2gamble

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not fair..the left treats their own to one set of values...while holding the right to another set...

 

Hell I "almost" wish Kerry would have won...I love seeing them lefties squirm.. :lol:

 

Bush has made plenty of mistakes...but them others are a disaster waiting to be elected...... :(  v

Um... both sides don't do that? :huh:

 

I think what I liked best about Clinton's terms were that we had a democratic president and a republican congress; nothing got done (checks and balances) which means that although things didn't get any better, they didn't get any worse either.

Not entirely true, when it came time to put some cash in those pockets the Dems and Reps were all too happy to work together. Telecommunications Act Of 1996 anybody? :rolleyes: Bill deserves to be punched in the face for that one. Damn politicians... Edited by Neo X1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" He lied under oath, thereby perjuring himself and breaking the law. If it had been anyone else, it would have been five years in the federal pen." Perjury is among the least often prosecuted crimes at the state and federal level. It is very difficult to prove. So "if it had been anyone else" then nothing would have happened instead of prosecution.

 

As for Martha Stewart. She was tried for perjury because the feds thought there was plenty of evidence to support insider trading but they didn't think that they could meet the standard of proof due to weak witnesses. So they went with a lesser charge of perjury.

 

In some ways these are opposite examples. In Clinton's case after years of investigation and millions of dollars spent they could find no evidence of criminal activity so he was asked under oath if he had been sexually involved. They then sought evidence to prove that his statement was a lie. In the absence of a case they created a crime. In Martha Stewart's case they had a case and evidence of a crime but not enough to convict so they found a lesser charge they could convict on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" He lied under oath, thereby perjuring himself and breaking the law. If it had been anyone else, it would have been five years in the federal pen." Perjury is among the least often prosecuted crimes at the state and federal level. It is very difficult to prove. So "if it had been anyone else" then nothing would have happened instead of prosecution.

 

As for Martha Stewart. She was tried for perjury because the feds thought there was plenty of evidence to support insider trading but they didn't think that they could meet the standard of proof due to weak witnesses. So they went with a lesser charge of perjury.

 

In some ways these are opposite examples. In Clinton's case after years of investigation and millions of dollars spent they could find no evidence of criminal activity so he was asked under oath if he had been sexually involved. They then sought evidence to prove that his statement was a lie. In the absence of a case they created a crime. In Martha Stewart's case they had a case and evidence of a crime but not enough to convict so they found a lesser charge they could convict on.

Martha Stewart was not convicted of purjury. She was convicted of an ocscure Federal law about lying to the FBI during an investigation. Paula Jones CIVIL lawsuit had nothing to with whitewater gate. Bill clinton lied about his sexual history under oath at that hearing. Scores of people are convicted every year for perjury under the federal system. Many came out of the woodworks during hearings in Congress who were convicted of the same charge that Bill Clinton was accused of. Once that the Monica Lewinsky affair broke, and a dress was found with Clintons DNA, they had him lock stock and barrel. Also Clinton confessed to the crime publicly when he admitted to the affair on national television. Had he not origionally lied in court about the affair, then you could say all the hoopla was just about sex.

 

In some ways these are opposite examples. In Clinton's case after years of investigation and millions of dollars spent they could find no evidence of criminal activity so he was asked under oath if he had been sexually involved. They then sought evidence to prove that his statement was a lie.  In the absence of a case they created a crime. In Martha Stewart's  case they had a case and evidence of a crime but not enough to convict so they found a lesser charge they could convict on.

So what you are saying here is that it is ok for the Federal Government to go on a witch hunt to find a crime when it comes to Martha Stewart. They had no ewvidence she commited a crime of insider trading by the way or they would have convicted her on that too. Ken Starr never asked Bill Clinton under oath about his affair with lewinsky until after Clinton lied under oath in CIVIL court in the Paula Jones case. They did find evidence of criminal activity but no one persued it in a court of law. Even the Supreme Court has ruled Clinton commited a crime and therefore he is barred from ever arguing a case before that court. You need to get the facts straight and quit basing it on just you opinion of what the facts are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And why was Clinton's affair pertanent to the investigation again? :huh:

He lied under oath and Janet Reno assigned it to the Special Prosecutor who was already in place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He lied under oath and Janet Reno assigned it to the Special Prosecutor who was already in place.

I was unclear... why did they ask him about his affair in the first place which caused him to commit perjury.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was unclear... why did they ask him about his affair in the first place which caused him to commit perjury.

Federal Law is that during a sexual harrasment lawsuit the accused is required to give a accurate account of his or her sexlife under oath before a judge. Clinton was asked by Paula Jones Attorney point blank about the Lewinsky affair and Clinton denied it. These are the very same laws championed by Clintons party and his own Wife. That is why they asked him about the affair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was unclear... why did they ask him about his affair in the first place which caused him to commit perjury.

Why? You're kidding right?

 

If I catch an employee doing that in our workplace on company time you can bet he will be fired.

 

The President is an elected federal employee and the Oval Office is his workplace. Sorry, but that is a termination offense. Go ahead, try it where you work and see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Federal law and most state law reads that any statement made to a govt. official is considered to be oathful statement and is subject to prosecution if the statement is factually incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go ahead, try it where you work and see.

 

My grocery manager use to pick up chicks at the foodstore I worked at. He punched out for his 15 and then went out to his car with his new accomplice. Very unprofessional, but hell, it was his own time. :shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...