Democrat NJ Attorney General resigns in Scandal
mmarsh
Active member
Missileer said:
This is not a defense of his behavior, but he really never actually practiced law. He got his degree and based his BAR exam, but he went directly into politics afterward. The closest he got was when he was made the AG of Arkansas, but ADGvery rarely prosecute cases personally. And he only stayed AG for less than 2 years.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html
Chief Bones
Forums Grumpy Old Man
This absolutely cracks me up ... there are still people out there that are angry that the Republicans impeached Clinton but were unable to remove him from office. And for what ... a little sexual encounter between consenting adults (oh yeah - lying about it) ... something that ANYONE would do.
HOW SAD.
Chief Bones
Forums Grumpy Old Man
P80phoenix80 said:
He is NOT my idol ... I just believe that his peccadilloes are not/were not as constitutionally as dangerous as some of the charges that are being leveled at GW. Slick Willy lied about a sexual encounter between consenting adults. The fact that any man WOULD lie about something like this seemed to be beyond the circling vultures that were in the House and Senate at the time (Republicans). Now we look at King GW Bush and we see him violating the very wiretap law that SCOTUS has ruled on so many many times - the ruling states it is against the law and the constitution to carry out a wiretapping operation without a valid warrant and probable cause. Keep in mind that this is the same person (GW), that has signed more signing statements than ALL the rest of the presidents down through history. Evidently GW believes he is beyond the law and ONLY has to obey the laws he agrees with.
NOW - these same vultures (Republican), act as though nothing is wrong.
I guess that honor, integrity and honesty are ONLY important to the Republicans and the Republican Party when they are going after a sitting Democratic President.
Chief Bones said:This absolutely cracks me up ... there are still people out there that are angry that the Republicans impeached Clinton but were unable to remove him from office. And for what ... a little sexual encounter between consenting adults (oh yeah - lying about it) ... something that ANYONE would do.
HOW SAD.
Hahahaha Chief, isn't that what makes us men? The biblical urge to go forth and spawn our seeds... Clinton should have used that quote to his defence, that would have gotten the Democrats lots of extra constituents from Bible Belt
!
mmarsh
Active member
phoenix80 said:
Phoneix01
He wasn't my idol, I idolize nobody but my parents. He was a far better president than the person we have now. Clinton popularity IS NEARLY DOUBLE this current *president* (I use the term lightly). You can spin that as much as you want, but thats the truth.
Secondly you are rewritting history. Lewenski has stated that it was SHE that chased him, not the other way around. As Chief Bones stated, consentual sex amongst adults is not illegal. This isnt Iran, its not even illegal to cheat on your wife. Clinton's impeachment wasnt really about sex or even lying to a judge, the underlying reason why he was impeached was because the minority in power disliked his political policies and wanted him out of office. It was nothing more than a thinly-veiled coup d'etat. It failed.
And to once again paraphrase the Chief, whatever crimes Clinton was accused of pales in comparison to some of thing things Bush has done.
Last edited:
WarMachine
Active member
I'm just surprised the republicans who are more about traditional values rather than christian or neocon ones are still going along with GW's dismal plans.
I like the idea of a balanced budget, and concentrating on domestic affairs. I'm not that enthusiastic about tax cuts for the rich and government deregulation and of the economy. I have a mixed bag of values and i think most people do as well.
I'm just wondering why the republicans are shifting towards doing more harm than good for themselves these days. I know the dems have their problems too, but i'd rather have them acting as a counter to bush than his own party which hasn't done anything except let him ruin everything he touches.
I like the idea of a balanced budget, and concentrating on domestic affairs. I'm not that enthusiastic about tax cuts for the rich and government deregulation and of the economy. I have a mixed bag of values and i think most people do as well.
I'm just wondering why the republicans are shifting towards doing more harm than good for themselves these days. I know the dems have their problems too, but i'd rather have them acting as a counter to bush than his own party which hasn't done anything except let him ruin everything he touches.
phoenix80
Banned
mmarsh said:
LoL, give me a break...
Minority in power? What are you trying to imply by that? I can't help laughing at you guys for being so un-educated about your own country's history though.
Clintoon was a weak person who cared more for money than national interests of the United States.
By the way, I am starting to wonder if some people are suffering from BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome)... LMAO
phoenix80 said:
Mmarsh is implying the this moral fanatic Star was chasing Clinton because of the stalemate between and Republican congress and a Democratic president. What do you think Mmarsh is implying?
Fortunatly un-education is easily fixed but your blind dismissal of some affairs and facts might not be so easily fixable.
Missileer
Active member
Ted said:Hahahaha Chief, isn't that what makes us men? The biblical urge to go forth and spawn our seeds... Clinton should have used that quote to his defence, that would have gotten the Democrats lots of extra constituents from Bible Belt
Federal Judges have this inherent dislike for perjury. And frankly, they scare the h**l out of me because they can really strike fire from your butt any time they feel like it. I also think they leave their sense of humor in the room where they put on their robes, that's enough to discourage me from lying to them about anything regardless of what it might cost me personally.
Last edited:
Chief Bones
Forums Grumpy Old Man
ME TOO.Missileer said:
However, that is NOT what we have been discussing. The Republicans went after Clinton like stink on shiite for lying about sex ... but they sit on their behinds when the President is a Republican who violates our laws every time he takes a breath. Wiretapping our phone system without a legal warrant (probable cause required) is against the law and SCOTUS has so ruled EVERYTIME one of these cases has come before them. Keep in mind that there is/was an out for him - FISA would have rubber stamped a warrant with the slightest probable cause even after the fact ... so far GW has refused to even use this approach to make the wiretaps legal.
According to our Constitution, if the President knowingly disobeys our laws, he can be impeached and removed form office for "crimes and misdemeanors". GW has a reputation for obeying ONLY those laws he agrees with - he acts as though he is above the law.
Where is the outrage from the Republicans NOW? As far as I am concerned, they are a bunch of hypocrites. What is good for the goose should also be good for the gander. Republican (or) Democrat, the law should be applied equally.
There will be Republicans that will excuse GW's actions by saying that Congress was appraised of these operations and authorised them ... IF SO ... these actions would have been deemed illegal by SCOTUS also. The ONLY way a law can be abridged (set aside), is for Congress to do so after a legitimate Declaration of War and by a vote of the House and Senate. When was there a Declaration of War, and just when was there a vote to set aside the wiretapping law ... THERE WASN'T A DECLARATION OF WAR AND THERE WASN'T A VOTE.
Missileer
Active member
But Chief, talk about thinking they are above the law....If the Republicans were gunning for President Clinton, he supplied them all the ammunition they needed.
http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-Clintonimpeach.htm
The impeachment of President Bill Clinton arose from a series of events following the filing of a lawsuit on May 6, 1994, by Paula Corbin Jones in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. In her complaint initiating the suit, Ms. Jones alleged violations of her federal civil rights in 1991 by President Clinton when he was governor of Arkansas and she was an Arkansas state employee. According to the allegations, Governor Clinton invited Ms. Jones to his hotel room where he made a crude sexual advance that she rejected.
On January 17, 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 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.
After debate, the House approved two of the Articles alleging that the President had provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury regarding the Paula Jones case and his relationship with Monica Lewinsky and that he had obstructed justice through an effort to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence related to the Jones case. After the House vote, President Clinton appeared before the media at the White House, saying in part:
As for an impeachable offense such as "high crimes and misdemeaners", President Bush has not committed an impeachable offense in the War On Terror.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764613.html
"The right to impeach public officials is secured by the U.S. Constitution in Article I, Sections 2 and 3, which discuss the procedure, and in Article II, Section 4, which indicates the grounds for impeachment: “the President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
"Removing an official from office requires two steps: (1) a formal accusation, or impeachment, by the House of Representatives, and (2) a trial and conviction by the Senate. Impeachment requires a majority vote of the House; conviction is more difficult, requiring a two-thirds vote by the Senate."
http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-Clintonimpeach.htm
The impeachment of President Bill Clinton arose from a series of events following the filing of a lawsuit on May 6, 1994, by Paula Corbin Jones in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. In her complaint initiating the suit, Ms. Jones alleged violations of her federal civil rights in 1991 by President Clinton when he was governor of Arkansas and she was an Arkansas state employee. According to the allegations, Governor Clinton invited Ms. Jones to his hotel room where he made a crude sexual advance that she rejected.
On January 17, 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 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.
After debate, the House approved two of the Articles alleging that the President had provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury regarding the Paula Jones case and his relationship with Monica Lewinsky and that he had obstructed justice through an effort to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence related to the Jones case. After the House vote, President Clinton appeared before the media at the White House, saying in part:
As for an impeachable offense such as "high crimes and misdemeaners", President Bush has not committed an impeachable offense in the War On Terror.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764613.html
"The right to impeach public officials is secured by the U.S. Constitution in Article I, Sections 2 and 3, which discuss the procedure, and in Article II, Section 4, which indicates the grounds for impeachment: “the President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
"Removing an official from office requires two steps: (1) a formal accusation, or impeachment, by the House of Representatives, and (2) a trial and conviction by the Senate. Impeachment requires a majority vote of the House; conviction is more difficult, requiring a two-thirds vote by the Senate."
Last edited:
Chief Bones
Forums Grumpy Old Man
Big M
It's the semantics that get used every time that this issue is discussed that ALWAYS torques my jaws.
When you boil everything down to it's simplest form ... Clinton was guilty of lying about having consensual sex with someone NOT his wife ... something that every married man would do if he was caught.
When you boil everything down to it's simplest form where GW Bush is concerned ... he IS guilty of ordering warrant-less wiretaps (he admits it) ... a violation of law, and he did this knowing that it IS against the law.
Keeping the discussion on the lowest ladder of discussion, just where was Clinton's lie about sex MORE detrimental to your rights and to my rights. That is the REAL victim to an illegal wiretap. GW's personal decision that he can disobey ANY law that he doesn't agree with concerns me a h*ll of a lot more than ANY lie about a sexual encounter ... even if the person were to lie about it to SCOTUS. Especially when the person disobeying our laws is the President of the United States. That's downright scary and challenges the very Constitution we live by and that he swore to uphold.
It's the semantics that get used every time that this issue is discussed that ALWAYS torques my jaws.
When you boil everything down to it's simplest form ... Clinton was guilty of lying about having consensual sex with someone NOT his wife ... something that every married man would do if he was caught.
When you boil everything down to it's simplest form where GW Bush is concerned ... he IS guilty of ordering warrant-less wiretaps (he admits it) ... a violation of law, and he did this knowing that it IS against the law.
Keeping the discussion on the lowest ladder of discussion, just where was Clinton's lie about sex MORE detrimental to your rights and to my rights. That is the REAL victim to an illegal wiretap. GW's personal decision that he can disobey ANY law that he doesn't agree with concerns me a h*ll of a lot more than ANY lie about a sexual encounter ... even if the person were to lie about it to SCOTUS. Especially when the person disobeying our laws is the President of the United States. That's downright scary and challenges the very Constitution we live by and that he swore to uphold.
Chief Bones
Forums Grumpy Old Man
Legititmately, they could sign a 'bench' warrant for your arrest for perjury and contempt of court and then put you into jail or prison for a very long time. That's what power they have.phoenix80 said:Whats the power of a Federal judge in the US?
Marinerhodes
Active member
Chief Bones said:
Semantics is where it all lays. I can say one thing to you and mean it one way and you can twist those words to mean something different. So when you say semantics irritates you, you use the same ploy to make your point as do others. You can not just break something down to it's simplest form and have it be agreeable to everyone. But if you use enough words to make it agreeable to everyone then you are giving them more room to twist your words. You can not have it both ways.
On another note: If the authorizing authority was fully aware of the crimes then don't you think they are guilty as well for allowing it to continue? Sort of like an accessory to the crime? If you do nothing to hinder or help a crime but you are aware of it then tha makes you an accessory from my understanding of the law. If that is the case I would say just about every single Federal official is guilty of one thing or another that could get them jail time.
FIRE THEM ALL!!!
Chief Bones
Forums Grumpy Old Man
I have a tendency to agree with your thought that we should FIRE THEM ALL - after all, they are aiding and abetting GW and his administration in the breaking of the law, and in violation of the Constitution.Marinerhodes said:
How supposedly smart people can NOT see this is beyond me. When the law says that you can NOT take a certain action WITHOUT a warrant ... that it is breaking the law in it's simplest application ... how somebody can then turn around, and try to defend the person who broke the law is beyond me. (This is where semantics are at their strongest and most perverted form of the English language ... when someone tries to defend the indefensible).
I GUESS THE TIMES - THEY ARE A CHANGING. and not for the best.
WarMachine
Active member
There's a possibilty that all these "executive privileges" are around since 7 out of the 9 justices were appointed by presidents from bush's own party over the decades, including the chief justice. Perhaps they're just interpreting the law a different way, i cannot tell what goes through these king judges' minds over federal law.