|
Chemy
Jesus is Lord

Registered: 10/05/07
Posts: 6,276
Loc: A Church
Last seen: 14 years, 1 month
|
Wexler: McClellan's Testimony Justifies Cheney's Impeachment
#8549039 - 06/21/08 10:30 PM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
(The Politico) Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.), one of the most vocal opponents of the Bush administration on Capitol Hill, said Scott McClellan's book and testimony justify the beginning of impeachment hearings against Vice President Dick Cheney.
During questioning of McClellan, Wexler asked the former White House press secretary if he believed Bush authorized the leaking of Valerie Plame Wilson's name. When McClellan said no, Wexler said this meant that Cheney must have been the source of the leak, meaning Cheney was seeking to retaliate against the wife of an administration critic. In Wexler's view, this would be enough to support the initation of impeachment hearings against Cheney immediately.
Wexler also suggested that Congress should use its authority under the inherent contempt statute to arrest Andrew Card and Karl Rove if they don't respond to Judiciary Committee subpoenas.
"We have the power of inherent contempt, and need be, we should use it," Wexler thundered.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/20/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4198871.shtml
-------------------- Alcoholics Anonymous Narcotics Anonymous Get help, help is free and available 24/7/365. God bless you all and I hope you receive the help you need to turn away from your lives of sin. Mushrooms and drugs make you gay, you can reverse this homosexual condition with rehab, get help! Stop being gay!
|
Coaster
Baʿal



Registered: 05/22/06
Posts: 33,501
Loc: Deep in the Valley
Last seen: 12 years, 3 months
|
Re: Wexler: McClellan's Testimony Justifies Cheney's Impeachment [Re: Chemy]
#8549088 - 06/21/08 10:51 PM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
we will impeach a pres for having consensual sex but no way would they impeach a pres for leaking a CIA agent for spite or even waging an unjust war for 7 years naw only sex
--------------------
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Wexler: McClellan's Testimony Justifies Cheney's Impeachment [Re: Coaster]
#8549177 - 06/21/08 11:37 PM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Coaster said: we will impeach a pres for having consensual sex but no way would they impeach a pres for leaking a CIA agent for spite or even waging an unjust war for 7 years naw only sex
we didn't impeach a president for having consensual sex, he just got media coverage for that and the resultant circus.
He got in trouble the same way libby did, only he wasn't prosecuted
|
Chemy
Jesus is Lord

Registered: 10/05/07
Posts: 6,276
Loc: A Church
Last seen: 14 years, 1 month
|
Re: Wexler: McClellan's Testimony Justifies Cheney's Impeachment [Re: Coaster]
#8549186 - 06/21/08 11:40 PM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Coaster said: we will impeach a pres for having consensual sex but no way would they impeach a pres for leaking a CIA agent for spite or even waging an unjust war for 7 years naw only sex
If Cheney leaked that agents identity that makes him a disgusting piece of shit, "go fuck yourself" yeah he should,.
-------------------- Alcoholics Anonymous Narcotics Anonymous Get help, help is free and available 24/7/365. God bless you all and I hope you receive the help you need to turn away from your lives of sin. Mushrooms and drugs make you gay, you can reverse this homosexual condition with rehab, get help! Stop being gay!
|
thedefone
deus ex machina

Registered: 10/06/07
Posts: 1,883
Loc: Gondwana
|
Re: Wexler: McClellan's Testimony Justifies Cheney's Impeachment [Re: Chemy]
#8549387 - 06/22/08 01:11 AM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
He got in trouble the same way libby did, only he wasn't prosecuted
He was prosecuted.. that's what the impeachment, and resultant trial were. He was not convicted and therefore finished his term. Libby was not an elected official and was therefore prosecuted in criminal court. Different processes for different people.
Lying under oath about a whether a man got a blow job from a fat chick, and exposing a CIA spy in retribution for her husband's speaking out against a policy, are two very different birds. I'll let you decide which is worse.
Card and Gonzales should be burned at the stake. But that's another story.. sadly.
--------------------
I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 19 days
|
Re: Wexler: McClellan's Testimony Justifies Cheney's Impeachment [Re: Chemy]
#8549834 - 06/22/08 04:53 AM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
> If Cheney leaked that agents identity that makes him a disgusting piece of shit, "go fuck yourself" yeah he should,.
Because Cheney is a disgusting piece of shit, I have no doubt at all that he was involved with the leak in an conscious effort to destroy Plame's career.
> Lying under oath about a whether a man got a blow job from a fat chick, and exposing a CIA spy in retribution for her husband's speaking out against a policy, are two very different birds.
Perjury is perjury is perjury. That being said, lying under oath about a blow job is perjury. Exposing a CIA spy as retribution is NOT perjury. Lying under oath about exposing a CIA spy as retribution IS perjury.
> I'll let you decide which is worse.
It doesn't matter which is worse... perjury is illegal while revenge is not. Now if laws were broken while performing the act of revenge, then we have something to talk about...
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
Disco Cat
iS A PoiNdexteR

Registered: 09/15/00
Posts: 2,601
|
Re: Wexler: McClellan's Testimony Justifies Cheney's Impeachment [Re: Seuss]
#8549861 - 06/22/08 05:23 AM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said: Perjury is perjury is perjury. That being said, lying under oath about a blow job is perjury. Exposing a CIA spy as retribution is NOT perjury. Lying under oath about exposing a CIA spy as retribution IS perjury.
Bush did this when he swore to uphold and defend the constitution, and then called it "just a goddamned piece of paper." As we know, he has yet to be impeached for it.
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Wexler: McClellan's Testimony Justifies Cheney's Impeachment [Re: Disco Cat]
#8549905 - 06/22/08 05:49 AM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Ok...
More hyperbole..
What is the impeachable offense? Citation please and source for claims he commited such.
Quote:
Lying under oath about a whether a man got a blow job from a fat chick, and exposing a CIA spy in retribution for her husband's speaking out against a policy, are two very different birds. I'll let you decide which is worse.
What's your point?
As for the prosecuted remark I think it clear you knew what I meant, the common refrence to a criminal action, not the more proper general sense. And I don't get your different processes thing. You just trying to say someone was treated better or something (bush better than clinton)- I take it your realize the only thing that was clear out of the clinton debacle was that there was no bar to suit of a sitting president.
If its that former, again, what was the conduct, source, and what was the crime, citation to the code please.
Given your strong statement I'd like to see your evidence- no one yet has been able to answer these questions, be the first.
|
Disco Cat
iS A PoiNdexteR

Registered: 09/15/00
Posts: 2,601
|
Re: Wexler: McClellan's Testimony Justifies Cheney's Impeachment [Re: johnm214]
#8549984 - 06/22/08 06:47 AM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said: Ok...
More hyperbole..
What is the impeachable offense? Citation please and source for claims he commited such.
No, it's not hyperbole. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper" is not defending the constitution, it's relegating it as unimportant. You shouldn't need a citation to figure that out.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: Wexler: McClellan's Testimony Justifies Cheney's Impeachment [Re: Seuss]
#8550070 - 06/22/08 08:06 AM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said: > If Cheney leaked that agents identity that makes him a disgusting piece of shit, "go fuck yourself" yeah he should,.
Because Cheney is a disgusting piece of shit, I have no doubt at all that he was involved with the leak in an conscious effort to destroy Plame's career.
As anyone who has paid any attention to this is aware, the "leaker" was Richard Armitage, a career State Department hack. Further, Plame was not covered by the statute, it was common knowledge that she worked for the CIA and her husband is a serial liar. They are also both anti-Bush ideologues and always have been. Her career should have been destroyed the old-fashioned way. By firing her immediately after she arranged for her utterly unqualified husband to investigate the yellowcake claims in Niger.Quote:
> Lying under oath about a whether a man got a blow job from a fat chick, and exposing a CIA spy in retribution for her husband's speaking out against a policy, are two very different birds.
Perjury is perjury is perjury. That being said, lying under oath about a blow job is perjury. Exposing a CIA spy as retribution is NOT perjury. Lying under oath about exposing a CIA spy as retribution IS perjury.
She was not a spy and hadn't been for many years, nor was she "exposed" by anyone in the Bush administration. As to Clinton, there seems to be a tremendous disconnect between what he was charged for and what the forgetful say he was charged for. Although it is certainly true that the content of the lies he told were about receiving blow jobs and other sexual favors from a young employee, the context is that he was lying in court to pervert justice in a civil suit filed by Paula Jones as a result of his longstanding pattern of sexual harassment. That is unacceptable by any standards, even the lowest.Quote:
> I'll let you decide which is worse.
It doesn't matter which is worse... perjury is illegal while revenge is not. Now if laws were broken while performing the act of revenge, then we have something to talk about...
Libby was convicted for impeding an investigation into a matter that never should have been investigated in the first place. Fitzgerald knew who the leaker was (Armitage) from the very beginning. He went on an entrapment hunt to get somebody for something because he well knew that there was no law against mentioning that Valerie Plame worked at the CIA and recommended her unqualified husband for a rather important counter- terrorism investigation. The court believed Russert more than Libby. Too bad for Libby.
--------------------
|
Coaster
Baʿal



Registered: 05/22/06
Posts: 33,501
Loc: Deep in the Valley
Last seen: 12 years, 3 months
|
Re: Wexler: McClellan's Testimony Justifies Cheney's Impeachment [Re: zappaisgod]
#8551319 - 06/22/08 05:01 PM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
wut do u mean too bad 4 libby he got 30 months off of jail no1 gets pardoned without doing a single day in jail, cept libby
--------------------
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: Wexler: McClellan's Testimony Justifies Cheney's Impeachment [Re: Coaster]
#8551335 - 06/22/08 05:03 PM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Libby wasn't pardoned, his sentence was commuted. He remains a disbarred felon who had to pay a huge fine. On a witch hunt. How many days in jail did Clinton spend?
--------------------
|
Coaster
Baʿal



Registered: 05/22/06
Posts: 33,501
Loc: Deep in the Valley
Last seen: 12 years, 3 months
|
Re: Wexler: McClellan's Testimony Justifies Cheney's Impeachment [Re: zappaisgod]
#8551365 - 06/22/08 05:11 PM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
cliton was never sentenced jail time and o wow he had to pay 250k which he did the same day he got sentenced, im sure it really broke his wallet
--------------------
|
Coaster
Baʿal



Registered: 05/22/06
Posts: 33,501
Loc: Deep in the Valley
Last seen: 12 years, 3 months
|
Re: Wexler: McClellan's Testimony Justifies Cheney's Impeachment [Re: Coaster]
#8551417 - 06/22/08 05:24 PM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
since clinton wasnt sentenced its no surprise he didnt serve jail time howevr libby had a long trial and wasted tons and tons of taxpayer money to put him behind bars and he got 30 months and bush said that sentence is "too harsh" so instead of 30 months which is really small for his crime he gets 0 days which is unheard of most people who get pardoned do so after some time in prison not zero time
--------------------
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: Wexler: McClellan's Testimony Justifies Cheney's Impeachment [Re: Coaster]
#8551560 - 06/22/08 06:18 PM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Clinton was sentenced. His sentence was a fine.
Libby was also sentenced. His sentence was a fine plus jail. As is his Constitutional right Bush commuted the jail sentence but not the fine and did not pardon Libby. He remains a convicted felon, as does Slick Willy.
They are both disbarred felons.
Why do you think that Libby committed a more serious crime when the investigation itself was a waste of taxpayer money, especially in light of the fact that Fitzgerald knew it was Armitage from the beginning and there was no wrongdoing involved in the first place? Clinton was trying to defraud yet another victim of his predatory sexual practices out of her due compensation by perverting a court of law simply for monetary gain. He could have just settled with Jones and let it be done with. He knew he was guilty but he thought he could get away with it yet again. Why is that so OK with you? The guy is a serial molester. Paula Jones, Juanita Broderick, Katherine Willey, Monica Lewinsky, others I forget.
Whatever. BDS rampant on a field of mushrooms. That should be the Herald of the Politics Forum.
--------------------
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs




Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 3 months, 9 days
|
Re: Wexler: McClellan's Testimony Justifies Cheney's Impeachment [Re: zappaisgod]
#8551580 - 06/22/08 06:24 PM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
If it was such a frivolous suit, why did Libby obstruct it then? That was an act of monumental stupidity. I almost think he should have been forced into the sentence just to learn not to be such a damn mongoloid.
|
thedefone
deus ex machina

Registered: 10/06/07
Posts: 1,883
Loc: Gondwana
|
Re: Wexler: McClellan's Testimony Justifies Cheney's Impeachment [Re: zappaisgod]
#8551694 - 06/22/08 06:52 PM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
the investigation itself was a waste of taxpayer money, especially in light of the fact that Fitzgerald knew it was Armitage from the beginning and there was no wrongdoing involved in the first place?
I suppose it never occurred to you that the investigation may have begun in an effort to determine whether Armitage was instructed to leak the story, or whether it was in fact a crime to out Plame, depending on her covert status at the time. The real issue is whether or not the people who leaked Plame's identity did so thinking she was presently operating covertly, whether that order came from above Armitage, and if the leak was in retribution for criticisms of the Bush Administration.
Chemy's original post is about whether McClellan's testimony provides enough evidence to initiate impeachment hearings against Cheney, not what Clinton did or didn't do. I think we can safely leave Bill Clinton out of a discussion about Valerie Plame. Or, will it keep popping up because it's a good way to distract from the actual conversation?
--------------------
I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Edited by thedefone (06/22/08 07:10 PM)
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: Wexler: McClellan's Testimony Justifies Cheney's Impeachment [Re: Redstorm]
#8551719 - 06/22/08 06:58 PM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
I personally don't think he tried to do anything of the sort. He just forgot and then tried to wing it. Or maybe thought there was some political expedience. There certainly was no legal reason to lie since no underlying crime was ever committed, as evidenced by the lack of any indictment against Armitage. I thought it was a self-aggrandizing witch hunt by Fitzgerald. Much like Starr when he couldn't get the goods (not that I don't think there were no goods there, just a lot of corpses) on Whitewater. Clinton should have been convicted of perjury, just not by Starr.
--------------------
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs




Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 3 months, 9 days
|
Re: Wexler: McClellan's Testimony Justifies Cheney's Impeachment [Re: zappaisgod]
#8551753 - 06/22/08 07:10 PM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
I gotta say, winging it in court doesn't say much more for his intelligence than lying does.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: Wexler: McClellan's Testimony Justifies Cheney's Impeachment [Re: thedefone]
#8551760 - 06/22/08 07:11 PM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
thedefone said:
Quote:
the investigation itself was a waste of taxpayer money, especially in light of the fact that Fitzgerald knew it was Armitage from the beginning and there was no wrongdoing involved in the first place?
I suppose it never occurred to you that the investigation may have begun in an effort to determine whether Armitage was instructed to leak the story, or whether it was in fact a crime to out Plame, depending on her covert status at the time. The real issue is whether or not the people who leaked Plame's identity did so thinking she was presently operating covertly, whether that order came from above Armitage, and if the leak was in retribution for criticisms of the Bush Administration.
Armitage said it was him and that he was not ordered to do so. Further, interviewing Libby had zero to do with determining whether what Armitage did was illegal. That was well known in advance. The woman who drafted the bill testified that people in Plame's position were intentionally excluded from the protection afforded foreign operatives. She was no longer a foreign operative. Further, if there is no underlying crime to investigate why bother investigating whether it was for retribution. Retribution isn't a crime and Joe Wilson should have kept his mouth shut, especially in light of the fact that he was unqualified for the mission and got it with his wife's recommendation.Quote:
Chemy's original post is about whether McClellan's testimony provides enough evidence to initiate impeachment hearings against Cheney, not what Clinton did or didn't do. I think we can safely leave Bill Clinton out of a discussion about Valerie Plame. Or, will it keep popping up because it's a good way to distract from the actual conversation?
Somebody else brought slick Willy up. Threads tend to meander. And I don't particularly find it all that distracting. At any rate, I said it before and I'll restate the obvious. There was no underlying criminal act in pointing out that Valerie Plame worked a desk at the CIA and that she recommended her incompetent husband for an important mission. Otherwise we would be discussing the Armitage indictment. But we're not, so it's all moot. Wexler has been one of the most BDS afflicted Democrats for years. He and the kook(inich). They have no credibility even within their own party. Just the similarly afflicted.
--------------------
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: Wexler: McClellan's Testimony Justifies Cheney's Impeachment [Re: Redstorm]
#8551764 - 06/22/08 07:13 PM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Redstorm said: I gotta say, winging it in court doesn't say much more for his intelligence than lying does.
It wasn't in court. He got caught in some inconsistencies over several depositions. And no, it wasn't very smart. Same as Slick Willy.
--------------------
Edited by zappaisgod (06/22/08 07:13 PM)
|
thedefone
deus ex machina

Registered: 10/06/07
Posts: 1,883
Loc: Gondwana
|
Re: Wexler: McClellan's Testimony Justifies Cheney's Impeachment [Re: zappaisgod]
#8552231 - 06/22/08 09:37 PM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Armitage said it was him and that he was not ordered to do so.
Oh.. Well he said he wasn't ordered to do so. He can't possibly be lying.
I'll also point out that regardless of whether or not J. Wilson was the most qualified person to do the job he was assigned, his conclusions were in fact correct. There were no transactions of yellow cake uranium between Niger and Iraq. Is it a coincidence that the very evidence that Wilson was sent to Niger to investigate and subsequently repudiated, is what the administration used as a foundation for the, "sixteen words?" It's pretty obvious that this whole scandal is about political retaliation against people telling the truth about the intelligence nightmare the administration was concocting
To me, this is all more relevant to Kucinich's proposal for the impeachment of Bush, in that it relates more to how the Administration cherry-picked intelligence in order to better sell the war.
--------------------
I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Edited by thedefone (06/22/08 09:45 PM)
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
|
Re: Wexler: McClellan's Testimony Justifies Cheney's Impeachment [Re: thedefone]
#8552406 - 06/22/08 10:32 PM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I'll also point out that regardless of whether or not J. Wilson was the most qualified person to do the job he was assigned, his conclusions were in fact correct. There were no transactions of yellow cake uranium between Niger and Iraq. Is it a coincidence that the very evidence that Wilson was sent to Niger to investigate and subsequently repudiated, is what the administration used as a foundation for the, "sixteen words?" It's pretty obvious that this whole scandal is about political retaliation against people telling the truth about the intelligence nightmare the administration was concocting.
Wilson was certainly not particularly qualified to do the job. Even then, though, he did find out - and reported to the CIA at his debriefing - that Ba'athist agents from Saddam's Iraq did attempt to obtain uranium from Niger but were rebuffed by the government of Niger. So the 16 words were in fact 100% truthful in every respect.
Wilson then went on to repeatedly lie about almost every aspect of his mission.
This is old news, thoroughly reported and a matter of public record. It certainly is no grounds to impeach anyone, least of all Cheney. Wilson lied, he got caught at it, end of story. No biggie.
Phred
--------------------
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Wexler: McClellan's Testimony Justifies Cheney's Impeachment [Re: Disco Cat]
#8553090 - 06/23/08 03:54 AM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Disco Cat said:
Quote:
johnm214 said: Ok...
More hyperbole..
What is the impeachable offense? Citation please and source for claims he commited such.
No, it's not hyperbole. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper" is not defending the constitution, it's relegating it as unimportant. You shouldn't need a citation to figure that out.
Yes it is more hyperbole, cuz you, and everyone else so far, simply refuses to identify the offending conduct and the crime. For an issue you feel so passionate about, I have no idea how you cannot figure you should be able to answer these simple threshold questions... I hope your next response addresses this rather than alludes to obviousness...
"You shouldn't need a citation to figure that out"
Don't equivocate/ change the subject- I didn't ask for proof that Bush relegated the constitution to an unimportant document, so your declaration that I shouldn't need a citation to conclude that he did so is irrelevant. I asked for the criminal conduct and the citation to the law, you've not provided such. Yes I do need the citation, I don't know if your implying its trivial or something, but if it is, you should have no problem finding the code making illegal the conduct you claim.
Might it be that you, like every other person so far on these boards, has simply bluffed with confidence and bravado but been utterly unable to find evidence of conduct and establish that it is a crime? We'll see, so far you've just inferred folks "shouldn't need citations" to establish something you've not shown is a crime... I'll wait for the evidence of the conduct and code criminalizing such
As for the "goddamned piece of paper", yes, I need a citation. Irregardless, this seems to fall squarely in the first amendment protections of expressive opinion, even if we ignore straightforward claims of executive privilege, and so I don't see how any citation could establish this as criminal.
Nevertheless, I'll await your citation in the first instance, and then we can discuss whether the statement meets that standard and whether if finds refuge in the first amendment or the more abstract executive privilege.
For all of our sakes, I truly hope the constitution isn't so impotent as to not protect someone's opinion on the merit or importance of a legal document- you may find yourself accused of treason if so. Tyranny is tyranny even if you don't like the target, in fact; this is the most dangerous kind.
I often disagree with the laws of this country, its disconcerting to think that some think that private conversations I have regarding this could be penalized.
|
Disco Cat
iS A PoiNdexteR

Registered: 09/15/00
Posts: 2,601
|
Re: Wexler: McClellan's Testimony Justifies Cheney's Impeachment [Re: johnm214]
#8559028 - 06/24/08 04:37 PM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Yes it is more hyperbole, cuz you, and everyone else so far, simply refuses to identify the offending conduct and the crime.
No, it isn't hyperbole, because it doesn't fit the definition of hyperbole. Whether the crime has been identified to you or not (and I thought it had been) doesn't change the fact that it is not hyperbole.
Quote:
For an issue you feel so passionate about, I have no idea how you cannot figure you should be able to answer these simple threshold questions... I hope your next response addresses this rather than alludes to obviousness...
Are you sure you're replying to the right person? Just as you confused hyperbole with a flatly expressed observation, you're also oddly confusing a passing comment with passion.
Quote:
Don't equivocate/ change the subject- I didn't ask for proof that Bush relegated the constitution to an unimportant document, so your declaration that I shouldn't need a citation to conclude that he did so is irrelevant. I asked for the criminal conduct and the citation to the law, you've not provided such. Yes I do need the citation, I don't know if your implying its trivial or something, but if it is, you should have no problem finding the code making illegal the conduct you claim.
It isn't that, genius. It's that my first post is so unambiguous in terms of what the referred to crime was, that it was un-instinctual to suppose that that was what you needed a citation for. Re-read my original post and see if you still are having trouble with it. If you are, let me know, and I'll show you the specific law.
Quote:
Might it be that you, like every other person so far on these boards, has simply bluffed with confidence and bravado but been utterly unable to find evidence of conduct and establish that it is a crime? We'll see, so far you've just inferred folks "shouldn't need citations" to establish something you've not shown is a crime... I'll wait for the evidence of the conduct and code criminalizing such
Pop a few anti-anxiety pills to let yourself calm down. The only false-confidence and bravado going on right here is your own, and you can save it.
Quote:
As for the "goddamned piece of paper", yes, I need a citation. Irregardless, this seems to fall squarely in the first amendment protections of expressive opinion, even if we ignore straightforward claims of executive privilege, and so I don't see how any citation could establish this as criminal.
Nevertheless, I'll await your citation in the first instance, and then we can discuss whether the statement meets that standard and whether if finds refuge in the first amendment or the more abstract executive privilege.
For all of our sakes, I truly hope the constitution isn't so impotent as to not protect someone's opinion on the merit or importance of a legal document- you may find yourself accused of treason if so.
You must also hope that a school-teacher who tells erotic stories of raping children to their class would not find their job threatened by such conduct, due to protection of freedom of expression. But it's irrelevant what you hope. Jobs come with restrictions, and you are fully entitled to not accept any job that does so, if you wish. The job of president of the US entails taking an oath, which doesn't contravene the constitution, but guards it. And if that oath is betrayed, the president is to be removed. They are still a US citizen, and can still believe and say whatever they want. The reason why Bush has not been impeached for that line is probably because it was said behind closed doors. Regardless, it is a line which is very much in betrayal of the Oath of Office, and there is a specific law that demands his removal for it. Again, if you still have trouble piecing things together here, let me know, and I'll give you the law.
And "Irregardless" is an improper word, because it's a double negative (Ir - less).
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Wexler: McClellan's Testimony Justifies Cheney's Impeachment [Re: Disco Cat]
#8559172 - 06/24/08 05:09 PM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
It isn't that, genius. It's that my first post is so unambiguous in terms of what the referred to crime was, that it was un-instinctual to suppose that that was what you needed a citation for. Re-read my original post and see if you still are having trouble with it. If you are, let me know, and I'll show you the specific law.
yes, I'm still having trouble with it, as I've said before.
please provide evidence and the law
Quote:
You must also hope that a school-teacher who tells erotic stories of raping children to their class would not find their job threatened by such conduct, due to protection of freedom of expression. But it's irrelevant what you hope. Jobs come with restrictions, and you are fully entitled to not accept any job that does so, if you wish. The job of president of the US entails taking an oath, which doesn't contravene the constitution, but guards it. And if that oath is betrayed, the president is to be removed. They are still a US citizen, and can still believe and say whatever they want.
No, a teacher has no right to express himself to the students in any substantial manner.
Bush has the right, and the privledge, to express himself to his advisors, i.e. his employees.
Quote:
And "Irregardless" is an improper word, because it's a double negative (Ir - less).
k
|
|