Pelosi: "Impeachment is off the table ... making them lame ducks is good enough for me"

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I don't think he did anything wrong. I agree with the war, the terrorist eavsdropping and the way we question suspected terrorist. The only thing I didn't like is he caved to the dems preasure and didn't go farther with it.

I understand your position, but I'm saying that if there was an independent counsel that brought charges against Bush and the evidence presented was convincing, would you still support him? We're in a sorry state if politicians put party loyalty before justice.

As far as Clinton's impeachment proceedings. If you believe that all the Democrats were just being loyal to him then what about the Republicans who voted for his aquittal? Were they following their conscience perhaps?

...in the Paula Jones lawsuit, the President was found not guilty with 45 Senators voting for the President's removal from office and 55 against. Ten Republicans split with their colleagues to vote for acquittal; all 45 Democrats voted to acquit. On Article II, charging that the President "...has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice"..., the vote was 50-50, with all Democrats and five Republicans voting to acquit.

http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-po...ntonimpeach.htm

[GaryC 7]

I don't think he did anything wrong. I agree with the war, the terrorist eavsdropping and the way we question suspected terrorist. The only thing I didn't like is he caved to the dems preasure and didn't go farther with it.

I understand your position, but I'm saying that if there was an independent counsel that brought charges against Bush and the evidence presented was convincing, would you still support him? We're in a sorry state if politicians put party loyalty before justice.

As far as Clinton's impeachment proceedings. If you believe that all the Democrats were just being loyal to him then what about the Republicans who voted for his aquittal? Were they following their conscience perhaps?

...in the Paula Jones lawsuit, the President was found not guilty with 45 Senators voting for the President's removal from office and 55 against. Ten Republicans split with their colleagues to vote for acquittal; all 45 Democrats voted to acquit. On Article II, charging that the President "...has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice"..., the vote was 50-50, with all Democrats and five Republicans voting to acquit.

http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-po...ntonimpeach.htm

He did what they were accusing him for. He lied to a grand jury. So you tell me.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I don't think he did anything wrong. I agree with the war, the terrorist eavsdropping and the way we question suspected terrorist. The only thing I didn't like is he caved to the dems preasure and didn't go farther with it.

I understand your position, but I'm saying that if there was an independent counsel that brought charges against Bush and the evidence presented was convincing, would you still support him? We're in a sorry state if politicians put party loyalty before justice.

As far as Clinton's impeachment proceedings. If you believe that all the Democrats were just being loyal to him then what about the Republicans who voted for his aquittal? Were they following their conscience perhaps?

...in the Paula Jones lawsuit, the President was found not guilty with 45 Senators voting for the President's removal from office and 55 against. Ten Republicans split with their colleagues to vote for acquittal; all 45 Democrats voted to acquit. On Article II, charging that the President "...has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice"..., the vote was 50-50, with all Democrats and five Republicans voting to acquit.

http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-po...ntonimpeach.htm

He did what they were accusing him for. He lied to a grand jury. So you tell me.

In my opinion those 5 Republicans who voted for his aquittal weighed in the severity of the case and in what context the charges against the President were for. So they followed their conscience and voted for his aquittal...and rightly so.

I know this is an ongoing debate that will never end, but lying about having sex with an intern was not severe enough to remove Clinton from office...that to me as well as the majority opinions from all around the world was just nonsense. Why the hell was even being asked such a question? Have you ever wondered what would have happened had Clinton just came out and said, "Yes, she gave me a #######?" Nothing. In other words his little white lie did nothing to cover up anything illegal. There's the big difference. As moral reprehensible his acts may have been, he was not breaking any law having sex with an intern.

[GaryC 7]

In my opinion those 5 Republicans who voted for his aquittal weighed in the severity of the case and in what context the charges against the President were for. So they followed their conscience and voted for his aquittal...and rightly so.

I know this is an ongoing debate that will never end, but lying about having sex with an intern was not severe enough to remove Clinton from office...that to me as well as the majority opinions from all around the world was just nonsense. Why the hell was even being asked such a question? Have you ever wondered what would have happened had Clinton just came out and said, "Yes, she gave me a #######?" Nothing. In other words his little white lie did nothing to cover up anything illegal. There's the big difference. As moral reprehensible his acts may have been, he was not breaking any law having sex with an intern.

I am not going to get into a "should Clinton have been impeached" debate. It's over and done with. But just to clarify my thoughts on this here goes. It does not matter if he lied about getting a BJ or he lied about bank robbery. Lying under oath is still a crime and he should have been convicted. But because it was about sex they let it slide. That shows me that the dems regard party over truth.

And BTW it was never about Monica. It was about a lawsuit over attempted rape. People seem to forget about that.

Edited October 23, 2006 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[mybackpages 0]

It will never happen. Bush did nothing to warrent a conviction.

Hypothetically speaking, if the evidence presented was convincing, would you have faith in the Republicans that party loyalty would be set aside for the sake of justice?

Not any more than the dems did for Clinton. It will always go along party lines regardless of who is under the gun.

With Nixon, it finally did stop going along party lines. The evidence becme so convincing that Reoublicans were turning against him. But otherwise you are right, from Andrew Johnson to Clinton its about party politics and not law breaking.

Now I understand your point of view that you do not see that Bush did anything wrong, I would disagree and I believe that if the media would their job and the public would begin to understand what happened here, the public would be outraged. Would tat then make Bush impeachable? I don't know, but I would like a honest investigation into what happened.

[GaryC 7]

It will never happen. Bush did nothing to warrent a conviction.

Hypothetically speaking, if the evidence presented was convincing, would you have faith in the Republicans that party loyalty would be set aside for the sake of justice?

Not any more than the dems did for Clinton. It will always go along party lines regardless of who is under the gun.

With Nixon, it finally did stop going along party lines. The evidence becme so convincing that Reoublicans were turning against him. But otherwise you are right, from Andrew Johnson to Clinton its about party politics and not law breaking.

Now I understand your point of view that you do not see that Bush did anything wrong, I would disagree and I believe that if the media would their job and the public would begin to understand what happened here, the public would be outraged. Would tat then make Bush impeachable? I don't know, but I would like a honest investigation into what happened.

If the dems get back the house you can count on endless investigations. In fact I hope they do. It will keep them busy so they will do less damage to our country. And in the end what will we get? Same thing we have now. Half saying he did wrong and half saying he did right. But at least the public will see the dems for what they are. Bitter, vindictive and without a plan of their own. In two years they will have a backlash of major proportions and the Republicans will have the house back and another Republican president. Let them investigate. I dare them.

[dani_christine 0]

I don't think he did anything wrong. I agree with the war, the terrorist eavesdropping and the way we question suspected terrorist. The only thing I didn't like is he caved to the dems pressure and didn't go farther with it.

There will be a day of reckoning. The terrorists have declared war on us. If the left gets it's way and we stop fighting them we will have a lot more problems in the future. One day soon we will have one of our cities go up in a fireball. One day we will be fighting them in our streets. Bush had the balls to do what was needed to fight them and the dems have blocked him at every turn. When all hell breaks loose they will see that he was right. But it will also be to late.

Look at what is happening to the French. They are loosing their country to these fanatics. They were soft on terrorism and it's coming back to bite them. You can't negotiate with them, you can't reason with them all you can do is kill them.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=38404

Muslims are waging civil war against us, claims police union

By David Rennie, Europe Correspondent

(Filed: 05/10/2006)

Radical Muslims in France's housing estates are waging an undeclared "intifada" against the police, with violent clashes injuring an average of 14 officers each day.

Nicolas Sarkozy

Interior minister Nicolas Sarkozy was warned of an 'intifada'

As the interior ministry said that nearly 2,500 officers had been wounded this year, a police union declared that its members were "in a state of civil war" with Muslims in the most depressed "banlieue" estates which are heavily populated by unemployed youths of north African origin.

It said the situation was so grave that it had asked the government to provide police with armoured cars to protect officers in the estates, which are becoming no-go zones.

The number of attacks has risen by a third in two years. Police representatives told the newspaper Le Figaro that the "taboo" of attacking officers on patrol has been broken.

Instead, officers – especially those patrolling in pairs or small groups – faced attacks as soon as they tried to arrest locals.

Senior officers insisted that the problem was essentially criminal in nature, with crime bosses on the estates fighting back against tough tactics.

The interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, who is also the leading centre-Right candidate for the presidency, has sent heavily equipped units into areas with orders to regain control from drug smuggling gangs and other organised crime rings. Such aggressive raids were "disrupting the underground economy in the estates", one senior official told Le Figaro.

However, not all officers on the ground accept that essentially secular interpretation. Michel Thoomis, the secretary general of the hardline Action Police trade union, has written to Mr Sarkozy warning of an "intifada" on the estates and demanding that officers be given armoured cars in the most dangerous areas.

He said yesterday: "We are in a state of civil war, orchestrated by radical Islamists. This is not a question of urban violence any more, it is an intifada, with stones and Molotov cocktails. You no longer see two or three youths confronting police, you see whole tower blocks emptying into the streets to set their 'comrades' free when they are arrested."

He added: "We need armoured vehicles and water cannon. They are the only things that can disperse crowds of hundreds of people who are trying to kill police and burn their vehicles."

However, Gerard Demarcq, of the largest police unions, Alliance, dismissed talk of an "intifada" as representing the views of only a minority.

Mr Demarcq said that the increased attacks on officers were proof that the policy of "retaking territory" from criminal gangs was working.

Mayors in the worst affected suburbs, which saw weeks of riots and car-burning a year ago, have expressed fears of a vicious circle, as attacks by locals lead the police to harden their tactics, further increasing resentment.

As if to prove that point, there were angry reactions in the western Paris suburb of Les Mureaux following dawn raids in search of youths who attacked a police unit on Sunday. The raids led to one arrest. They followed clashes on Sunday night when scores of youths attacked seven officers who had tried to arrest a man for not wearing his seat belt while driving. That driver refused to stop, and later rammed a police car trying to block his path.

The mayor of Les Mureaux, Francois Garay, criticised aggressive police tactics that afterwards left "the people on the ground to pick up the pieces".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../wmuslims05.xml

[Carol&Marc 0]

wasnt she in the wizard of oz, flying around with a bunch of monkeys? she looks so familiar.

If the dems are successful she will be the next speaker. She is from SanFransisco and her values and politics reflect that. She is so liberal she makes Clinton look like Regan.

VERY VERY SCARY!

I don't think he did anything wrong. I agree with the war, the terrorist eavesdropping and the way we question suspected terrorist. The only thing I didn't like is he caved to the dems pressure and didn't go farther with it.

There will be a day of reckoning. The terrorists have declared war on us. If the left gets it's way and we stop fighting them we will have a lot more problems in the future. One day soon we will have one of our cities go up in a fireball. One day we will be fighting them in our streets. Bush had the balls to do what was needed to fight them and the dems have blocked him at every turn. When all hell breaks loose they will see that he was right. But it will also be to late.

Look at what is happening to the French. They are loosing their country to these fanatics. They were soft on terrorism and it's coming back to bite them. You can't negotiate with them, you can't reason with them all you can do is kill them.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=38404

Muslims are waging civil war against us, claims police union

By David Rennie, Europe Correspondent

(Filed: 05/10/2006)

Radical Muslims in France's housing estates are waging an undeclared "intifada" against the police, with violent clashes injuring an average of 14 officers each day.

Nicolas Sarkozy

Interior minister Nicolas Sarkozy was warned of an 'intifada'

As the interior ministry said that nearly 2,500 officers had been wounded this year, a police union declared that its members were "in a state of civil war" with Muslims in the most depressed "banlieue" estates which are heavily populated by unemployed youths of north African origin.

It said the situation was so grave that it had asked the government to provide police with armoured cars to protect officers in the estates, which are becoming no-go zones.

The number of attacks has risen by a third in two years. Police representatives told the newspaper Le Figaro that the "taboo" of attacking officers on patrol has been broken.

Instead, officers – especially those patrolling in pairs or small groups – faced attacks as soon as they tried to arrest locals.

Senior officers insisted that the problem was essentially criminal in nature, with crime bosses on the estates fighting back against tough tactics.

The interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, who is also the leading centre-Right candidate for the presidency, has sent heavily equipped units into areas with orders to regain control from drug smuggling gangs and other organised crime rings. Such aggressive raids were "disrupting the underground economy in the estates", one senior official told Le Figaro.

However, not all officers on the ground accept that essentially secular interpretation. Michel Thoomis, the secretary general of the hardline Action Police trade union, has written to Mr Sarkozy warning of an "intifada" on the estates and demanding that officers be given armoured cars in the most dangerous areas.

He said yesterday: "We are in a state of civil war, orchestrated by radical Islamists. This is not a question of urban violence any more, it is an intifada, with stones and Molotov cocktails. You no longer see two or three youths confronting police, you see whole tower blocks emptying into the streets to set their 'comrades' free when they are arrested."

He added: "We need armoured vehicles and water cannon. They are the only things that can disperse crowds of hundreds of people who are trying to kill police and burn their vehicles."

However, Gerard Demarcq, of the largest police unions, Alliance, dismissed talk of an "intifada" as representing the views of only a minority.

Mr Demarcq said that the increased attacks on officers were proof that the policy of "retaking territory" from criminal gangs was working.

Mayors in the worst affected suburbs, which saw weeks of riots and car-burning a year ago, have expressed fears of a vicious circle, as attacks by locals lead the police to harden their tactics, further increasing resentment.

As if to prove that point, there were angry reactions in the western Paris suburb of Les Mureaux following dawn raids in search of youths who attacked a police unit on Sunday. The raids led to one arrest. They followed clashes on Sunday night when scores of youths attacked seven officers who had tried to arrest a man for not wearing his seat belt while driving. That driver refused to stop, and later rammed a police car trying to block his path.

The mayor of Les Mureaux, Francois Garay, criticised aggressive police tactics that afterwards left "the people on the ground to pick up the pieces".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../wmuslims05.xml

Democrats would say, we need to have a little talk! No but really it will be interesting to see how the Frenchies deal with this problem!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

...his little white lie did nothing to cover up anything illegal. There's the big difference. As moral reprehensible his acts may have been, he was not breaking any law having sex with an intern.

True, but consider that in this nation an ordinary citizen like you or I will be put in jail if we are caught perjuring ourselves, even if all we lie about is a ####### with a consenting adult. I agree with you that he never should have been asked the question, but once he lied I believe consequences were necessary. He was trapped, but if you're dumb enough to walk into the trap, you oughta do the time. JMHO.

[mybackpages 0]

...his little white lie did nothing to cover up anything illegal. There's the big difference. As moral reprehensible his acts may have been, he was not breaking any law having sex with an intern.

True, but consider that in this nation an ordinary citizen like you or I will be put in jail if we are caught perjuring ourselves, even if all we lie about is a ####### with a consenting adult. I agree with you that he never should have been asked the question, but once he lied I believe consequences were necessary. He was trapped, but if you're dumb enough to walk into the trap, you oughta do the time. JMHO.

There is still alegal debate over whether or not Clinton even committed perjury. According to the average citizen we all know Clinton lied - it's pretty simple. But under the law it's not so clear. Accordig tot he definition designed by the judge of what is "sexual relations" Clinton's lawyers could argue no perjury was committed. It's legal language and I know while that make make some people disgusted because it is seen as a loophole or technicality, but it is the law. Ans the law is there for a reason.

[GaryC 7]

There is still alegal debate over whether or not Clinton even committed perjury. According to the average citizen we all know Clinton lied - it's pretty simple. But under the law it's not so clear. Accordig tot he definition designed by the judge of what is "sexual relations" Clinton's lawyers could argue no perjury was committed. It's legal language and I know while that make make some people disgusted because it is seen as a loophole or technicality, but it is the law. Ans the law is there for a reason.

The old "definition of "is" is. And BJ's are not sex" defense. If you or I tried that we would be behind bars so quick it would make your head spin. Prolly get a contempt charge also.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

...his little white lie did nothing to cover up anything illegal. There's the big difference. As moral reprehensible his acts may have been, he was not breaking any law having sex with an intern.

True, but consider that in this nation an ordinary citizen like you or I will be put in jail if we are caught perjuring ourselves, even if all we lie about is a ####### with a consenting adult. I agree with you that he never should have been asked the question, but once he lied I believe consequences were necessary. He was trapped, but if you're dumb enough to walk into the trap, you oughta do the time. JMHO.

I understand that and MyBackPages above explains the legal meandering/interpretation that Clinton's legal team was doing with the meaning of "having sex." Clinton didn't just answer that way out of arrogance - I'm sure he felt that not only was he within legal means of telling the truth, but that it was such a ridiculous question to ask and quite frankly, none of their goddam business.

There is still alegal debate over whether or not Clinton even committed perjury. According to the average citizen we all know Clinton lied - it's pretty simple. But under the law it's not so clear. Accordig tot he definition designed by the judge of what is "sexual relations" Clinton's lawyers could argue no perjury was committed. It's legal language and I know while that make make some people disgusted because it is seen as a loophole or technicality, but it is the law. Ans the law is there for a reason.

The old "definition of "is" is. And BJ's are not sex" defense. If you or I tried that we would be behind bars so quick it would make your head spin. Prolly get a contempt charge also.

Imagine a prosecutor asking the question, "Did you have a candy bar the morning of October 20th?" And the defendent answered, "No," because he believed it was a protein bar. Call it legal hair splitting but does it really matter what he ate on that morning if he wasn't breaking the law doing it?

[GaryC 7]

...his little white lie did nothing to cover up anything illegal. There's the big difference. As moral reprehensible his acts may have been, he was not breaking any law having sex with an intern.

True, but consider that in this nation an ordinary citizen like you or I will be put in jail if we are caught perjuring ourselves, even if all we lie about is a ####### with a consenting adult. I agree with you that he never should have been asked the question, but once he lied I believe consequences were necessary. He was trapped, but if you're dumb enough to walk into the trap, you oughta do the time. JMHO.

I understand that and MyBackPages above explains the legal meandering/interpretation that Clinton's legal team was doing with the meaning of "having sex." Clinton didn't just answer that way out of arrogance - I'm sure he felt that not only was he within legal means of telling the truth, but that it was such a ridiculous question to ask and quite frankly, none of their goddam business.

I can see you need a refresher on what happened. Clinton was being sued by 2 different women for sexual harassment and I think attempted rape (not sure about that one). A valid thing for the prosecution to do is to establish his prior behaviors. It happens all the time. When Monica came to light it was a valid question to ask. It establishes his mind set. It was all Clintons fault for dropping trousers and asking for sex from a subordinate. He was a leacher and he brought it on himself.

Imagine a prosecutor asking the question, "Did you have a candy bar the morning of October 20th?" And the defendent answered, "No," because he believed it was a protein bar. Call it legal hair splitting but does it really matter what he ate on that morning if he wasn't breaking the law doing it?

You ask that after asking me if I thought I could look at the evidence without predjudice in regards to Bush? I see a double standard there!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

...his little white lie did nothing to cover up anything illegal. There's the big difference. As moral reprehensible his acts may have been, he was not breaking any law having sex with an intern.

True, but consider that in this nation an ordinary citizen like you or I will be put in jail if we are caught perjuring ourselves, even if all we lie about is a ####### with a consenting adult. I agree with you that he never should have been asked the question, but once he lied I believe consequences were necessary. He was trapped, but if you're dumb enough to walk into the trap, you oughta do the time. JMHO.

I understand that and MyBackPages above explains the legal meandering/interpretation that Clinton's legal team was doing with the meaning of "having sex." Clinton didn't just answer that way out of arrogance - I'm sure he felt that not only was he within legal means of telling the truth, but that it was such a ridiculous question to ask and quite frankly, none of their goddam business.

I can see you need a refresher on what happened. Clinton was being sued by 2 different women for sexual harassment and I think attempted rape (not sure about that one). A valid thing for the prosecution to do is to establish his prior behaviors. It happens all the time. When Monica came to light it was a valid question to ask. It establishes his mind set. It was all Clintons fault for dropping trousers and asking for sex from a subordinate. He was a leacher and he brought it on himself.

Imagine a prosecutor asking the question, "Did you have a candy bar the morning of October 20th?" And the defendent answered, "No," because he believed it was a protein bar. Call it legal hair splitting but does it really matter what he ate on that morning if he wasn't breaking the law doing it?

You ask that after asking me if I thought I could look at the evidence without predjudice in regards to Bush? I see a double standard there!

Gary, it was nothing but a witch hunt.

President Clinton was deposed in the Jones lawsuit. He denied having "sexual relations" with Ms. Lewinsky under a definition provided to him in writing by her lawyers, and also said that he could not recall whether he was ever alone with her. On January 21, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and ABC News reported that Starr had expanded his investigation of the President to include the allegations related to Lewinsky. After repeated media inquiries, on January 26 President Clinton asserted in an appearance before the White House press corps: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky," and denied urging her to lie about an affair.

The President's attorneys failed in efforts to block Starr's expansion of his investigation, which also included whether the President himself had lied under oath in his own deposition taken in the Paula Jones litigation. In July 1998, after being granted sweeping immunity from prosecution by Special Prosecutor Starr, Ms. Lewinsky admitted that she in fact had had a sexual relationship with the President that did not include intercourse, but denied that she had ever been asked to lie about the relationship by the President or by those close to him.

On August 17, the President testified for over four hours before Starr's grand jury on closed-circuit television from the White House. In his testimony, he admitted the Lewinsky relationship, but denied that he perjured himself in the Paula Jones deposition because he did not interpret the conduct with Ms. Lewinsky as constituting sexual relations. On the same evening, he appeared on national television and admitted that he had an "inappropriate relationship" with Lewinsky and had misled the American people about it.

On September 9, Independent Counsel Starr submitted a detailed report to the Congress in which he contended that there was "substantial and credible information that President William Jefferson Clinton committed acts that may constitute grounds for an impeachment" by lying under oath in the Jones litigation and obstructing justice by urging Ms. Lewinsky "... to to file an affidavit that the President knew would be false". On September 11, the House of Representatives approved House Resolution 525 by a vote of 363 to 63 authorizing a review by the Committee on the Judiciary of the report of the Independent Counsel to determine whether sufficient grounds existed to recommend to the House that an impeachment inquiry be commenced and also approved the public release of the Starr report. On September 21, the Judiciary Committee released nearly 3,200 pages of material from the grand jury proceedings and the Starr investigation, including transcripts of the tesimony of President Clinton and Ms. Lewinsky.

...it's like digging for pennies in a sandbox... only it cost the American public 40 million dollars. And what purpose did it serve? Nothing.

[GaryC 7]

...it's like digging for pennies in a sandbox... only it cost the American public 40 million dollars. And what purpose did it serve? Nothing.

Well, I guess you just answered your own question about objectively looking at the evidence.