Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 57
  1. #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    Same logic goes for those who object to sobriety checkpoints. If one is not intoxicated, one has nothing to be concerned about.
    While I am indifferent to whether Bush and Cheney are investigated, this is a horrible analogy. If Holder et al decide to proceed with an investigation with probable cause, that's within the bounds of their office (although I think the theory I heard on Hardball where they're only doing it possibly to turn over evidence to an international court would be cowardly). However, X checkpoints are pure laziness and very sketchy where civil liberties are concerned. Investigating every citizen passing through a certain location with the hopes of finding the ones who are actually committing a crime flies in the face of what the US supposedly stands for. It's guilty until proven innocent.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  2. #22  
    This is a political witch hunt. What applies to one party needs to apply to another party. So let the witch hunt begin and then when Barry is gone we need to witch hunt him. In fact, let us do both at the same time. As for the international view - hang the international community. None of them is especially clear of dirt.
  3. 1thing2add's Avatar
    Posts
    6 Posts
    Global Posts
    8 Global Posts
    #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    This is a political witch hunt. What applies to one party needs to apply to another party. So let the witch hunt begin and then when Barry is gone we need to witch hunt him. In fact, let us do both at the same time. As for the international view - hang the international community. None of them is especially clear of dirt.
    There is no witch hunt, plain and simple. The review of presidential actions, and that of their administrations, goes back quite far. No administration should be allowed to be above the law of the land.
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    There is no witch hunt, plain and simple. The review of presidential actions, and that of their administrations, goes back quite far. No administration should be allowed to be above the law of the land.
    I fully agree and am looking forward to the Dear Leaders trial in 2013.
  5. #25  
    Really? The review; however, this is not a review. This is persecution, excuse me, prosecution and there is a dramatic difference between the 2. I also concur about no administration should be allowed to be above the law of the land. Now that said, and you said it also, what about Barry? Surely you are keeping up with what is going on and what his buddies are doing - should he be held responsible for his buddies? Surely he should be, because he sure has expressed no interest in being responsible for his brother, his auntie, his uncle and gosh, who knows who else. Definitely not responsible to those who put him in office.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    There is no witch hunt, plain and simple. The review of presidential actions, and that of their administrations, goes back quite far. No administration should be allowed to be above the law of the land.
  6. 1thing2add's Avatar
    Posts
    6 Posts
    Global Posts
    8 Global Posts
    #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Really? The review; however, this is not a review. This is persecution, excuse me, prosecution and there is a dramatic difference between the 2. I also concur about no administration should be allowed to be above the law of the land. Now that said, and you said it also, what about Barry? Surely you are keeping up with what is going on and what his buddies are doing - should he be held responsible for his buddies? Surely he should be, because he sure has expressed no interest in being responsible for his brother, his auntie, his uncle and gosh, who knows who else. Definitely not responsible to those who put him in office.
    Your complete disconnect with reality is disturbing. As I said elsewhere, if this is the "loyal opposition", Republicans have much more to fear from within their ranks than from any external force.
  7. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #27  
    Hello Everyone,

    Sure, go ahead. Get those accusations on the table and try those cases. Not the wild accusations that internet folks tend to throw around--real legal accusations where specific laws were broken.

    I find that possibility to be highly unlikely. Instead, we are more likely to see a very protracted "investigation" that is designed for political purposes rather than to punish criminal wrongdoing.

    It is important to note that you can't have a government that prosecutes the former administration because they disliked the decisions they made, and their vocal supporters cry for blood. That's banana republic stuff. Again--if there are hard laws that were broken--go ahead, there is nothing that makes government officials above the law.

    I'd love to get to the bottom of this, and have these issues settled, because all we have now is a cloud of accusations. Of course, I doubt that will settle it for some people either. Facts aren't that important to them.

    KAM
  8. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    Not sure why you would move this into international law... as you stated, the US states it is more than capable of prosecuting its own criminials. So my guess is if Mr. Holder goes forward, it will not involve the international community.
    Were international laws broken?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  9. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    There is no witch hunt, plain and simple. The review of presidential actions, and that of their administrations, goes back quite far. No administration should be allowed to be above the law of the land.
    Just curious, what was your stance on the "I did not have sex with that woman" investigation?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  10. #30  
    While we are in the investigating "mode", can we go after Charlie Rangel while we're at it? That seems pretty clear cut that that man continues to cheat and lie on his taxes and get away with it. Not only does he get to avoid late fees and interest (I had to pay both when I made an error, and it was not intentional, it was my error, and I paid it), but he gets to stay on as Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. I mean how crazy is this? If we are on this path to clean things up....and to get things straight....lets look at both sides. I'm sure everyone will agree to that!

    The Rangel Rule: GOP Congressman Intros 'Rangel Rule,' Eliminating IRS Late Fees - Political News - FOXNews.com
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  11. nullity's Avatar
    Posts
    175 Posts
    Global Posts
    193 Global Posts
    #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Just curious, what was your stance on the "I did not have sex with that woman" investigation?
    I know your question was not directed at me, but I feel compelled to ask: is having sex with a woman against the law? Sure hope not! And the very fact that there was an investigation for something so trivial in the grand scheme of things seems to have set a precedent.

    Note: I care not to revisit the Clinton perjury argument or the semantics of what constitutes 'sex'. It is old news and not very relevant to the thread.
    "Maturity is a bitter disappointment for which no remedy exists, unless laughter can be said to remedy anything."
    ~ Kurt Vonnegut
  12. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by nullity View Post
    I know your question was not directed at me, but I feel compelled to ask: is having sex with a woman against the law? Sure hope not! And the very fact that there was an investigation for something so trivial in the grand scheme of things seems to have set a precedent.

    Note: I care not to revisit the Clinton perjury argument or the semantics of what constitutes 'sex'. It is old news and not very relevant to the thread.
    I could care less what Clinton did in the oval office, or under a desk, or whatever (that's an issue between him and his family).....I think the issue was he lied under oath. It's been awhile, but I think that was the issue. But I agree....let's not go down that path....that is way old history.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  13. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by nullity View Post
    I know your question was not directed at me, but I feel compelled to ask: is having sex with a woman against the law? Sure hope not! And the very fact that there was an investigation for something so trivial in the grand scheme of things seems to have set a precedent.

    Note: I care not to revisit the Clinton perjury argument or the semantics of what constitutes 'sex'. It is old news and not very relevant to the thread.
    Well, you just said it--he wasn't charged with having sex with anyone--he was charged with perjury and obstructing justice as I recall. Of course he was eventually found not-guilty. However, he was cited as being in contempt of court over this and had his law license suspended. That judge found that he intentionally made false statements.

    I would agree--this would be trivial LEGALLY--in fact, irrelevant legally, but that really wasn't the issue--that was the smokescreen. "This is just about sex." No, that's the distortion used in an attempt to attack the accusers.

    But you are correct--not relevant to this thread. What COULD be more relevant is Eric Holder's actions in his role in advising President Clinton (not in the Lewinsky scandal), because the investigation of lawyers providing legal advice to the Bush administration is part of this whole issue.

    KAM
  14. 1thing2add's Avatar
    Posts
    6 Posts
    Global Posts
    8 Global Posts
    #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Just curious, what was your stance on the "I did not have sex with that woman" investigation?
    What do I think about the culmination of the entire Vince Foster/Whitewater multi-year investigation machine, ultimately centering upon perjury regarding a president's extra-marital affair? All hat. No cattle.

    How would Republicans feel if Democrats spend upwards of $100s of millions (realistic considering the 8 years in office and the plethora of new policies, new legal definitions, and unprecedented practices) investigating the entire Bush administration, to only find that the president was proven a liar over a matter of a minor personal nature completely unrelated in which no one was harmed?

    That is the very reason why a thorough examination by DOJ is necessary in order to remove the cloud of suspicion and focus on what, if anything, can be legitimately prosecuted.
  15. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by nullity View Post
    I know your question was not directed at me, but I feel compelled to ask: is having sex with a woman against the law? Sure hope not! And the very fact that there was an investigation for something so trivial in the grand scheme of things seems to have set a precedent.

    Note: I care not to revisit the Clinton perjury argument or the semantics of what constitutes 'sex'. It is old news and not very relevant to the thread.
    You kind of missed the whole point of the investigation, didn't you. Amazing. I agree, silly all that hoopala over having sex with a woman. Maybe if he'd NOT LIED (hint hint), it could have been avoided.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  16. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Of course he was eventually found not-guilty.

    KAM
    He was? I missed that. Last I heard, he was impeached for lying.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  17. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    How would Republicans feel if Democrats spend upwards of $100s of millions (realistic considering the 8 years in office and the plethora of new policies, new legal definitions, and unprecedented practices) investigating the entire Bush administration, to only find that the president was proven a liar over a matter of a minor personal nature completely unrelated in which no one was harmed?
    Yeah.... everybody lies... who cares.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  18. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    He was? I missed that. Last I heard, he was impeached for lying.
    Hello Micael:

    Yes, he was impeached for obstruction of justice and perjury. However, he wasn't convicted by the Senate of those charges. If we look at this as a normal court of law (which it really isn't) he was found "not guilty."

    It doesn't mean he didn't actually do it--but that he is "not guilty."

    As I stated--a judge found otherwise in terms of his testimony.

    One should also not forget--this wasn't a victimless crime. Paula Jones (no matter what you think of her) claimed damages, and I believe she did end up with some settlement.

    Bottom line--President Clinton was not found guilty in his impeachment trial.

    KAM
  19. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    He was? I missed that. Last I heard, he was impeached for lying.
    With the necessary two-thirds majority not having been achieved, the President was thus acquitted on both charges and would serve out the remainder of his term of office lasting through January 20, 2001.
  20. #40  
    What's hilarious is that all of you have fallen for the "smokescreen effect" in politics. There is no difference between the Rebublicans and Democrats. While you were sleeping, money was and is still being stolen from you. Globalization is the goal, research why Milosavic was murdered in jail at the Hauge just prior to his acquittal for lack of evidence. This all why you were blinded by the "Monica Episode" and Madeline's war, war in Afganistan, Iraq etc..

    The Murder of Slobodan Milosevic

    Research your puppet presidents bloodline
    New England Historic Genealogical Society Explores Obama's Bloodlines.

    In fact Obama even admits on Tavis Smiley his being a cousin of **** Cheney


    Do your research people, the words came from his own mouth. Get out of the smokescreen.
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions