Why is it okay for Bush to lie!

No State Attorney, Prosecutor or United States Attorney ever brought charges against him.

Criminal charges cannot be brought against a sitting president unless he is impeached then removed. That did not preclude charges from being brought against him once his term had expired.

Had the impeachemnt counted as criminal charges the president would be exempt from prosecution as it would be double jeoparty!
 
Jarod said:
Those are not criminal charges. Thats political...

President Clinton was never indicted, charged with an information or given a notice to appear... He was never criminally charged with any crime!
Click to expand...
No they are criminal charges and the Senate is a trial. They are charges for "High Crimes" or crimes committed by those in the position of power.

Honestly, I can understand partisanship. I can understand frustration because this wasn't that huge and there were far more important things to look at than this hummer. I can even understand the hope that you can say he was never brought up on charges. But I cannot understand any lawyer attempting to say that it was all okay that he lied on the stand, even if it supposedly wasn't "material" (pattern in bahavior is certainly material in such a proceeding). There is a reason he lost his license and it wasn't because what he did was all copascetic.
 
Jarod said:
No State Attorney, Prosecutor or United States Attorney ever brought charges against him.

Criminal charges cannot be brought against a sitting president unless he is impeached then removed. That did not preclude charges from being brought against him once his term had expired.

Had the impeachemnt counted as criminal charges the president would be exempt from prosecution as it would be double jeoparty!
Click to expand...
No, it is specifically exempted in the Constitution. Man. Did you ever take a constitutional law class?
 
When I get to my office ill pull out the part of the constitution. But A bill of impeachment is not a criminal charge... THe president is not subjected to criminal penalities if found guilty. The only result is the possability of removal from office. His liberty is not at stake unless or untill CRIMINAL charges are brought against him!
 
Right, he is subjected to removal from office. It specifically states that.

It is however a criminal charge. It is for "high crimes or misdemeanors"... Pretending otherwise is just an attempt to slither out. He was charged, tried, and acquitted...

One thing that is good about it is after removal he can be tried again as it states that he can.

Article II Section 4 of the Constitution states:

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.
 
RIght they say IMPEACHMENT instead of conviction.

The Dont provide for CRIMINAL penalities.

Later once removed he can be charged or tried criminally.
If it were a criminal charge he would have a right to trial by a JURY OF HIS peers. I dont have my copy of the constitution, but later Ill show you. Its not a criminal charge as it does not come with the protections the constitution provides all who are charged criminally.

Unless your liberty is at stake, you are not facing a criminal charge.
 
Jarod said:
RIght they say IMPEACHMENT instead of conviction.

The Dont provide for CRIMINAL penalities.

Later once removed he can be charged or tried criminally.
If it were a criminal charge he would have a right to trial by a JURY OF HIS peers. I dont have my copy of the constitution, but later Ill show you. Its not a criminal charge as it does not come with the protections the constitution provides all who are charged criminally.

Unless your liberty is at stake, you are not facing a criminal charge.
Click to expand...
No, I highlighted the portion that stated it was a conviction. Come on. At least read it.
 
I understand that it is for high crimes or misdemeanors, but it is NOT a criminal charge.

You are not prosecuted by a court, you dont have a right to a jury of your peers, you dont have the other rights offered to a person facing a criminal charge. The rules of evidence dont apply. And Jeoparty does not attach!
 
Last week, while planning for his departure, Bush told all of America Rumsfeld would be in his position for the remainder of Bush's term...

I don't recall Bush saying this.

(AP) President Bush said Wednesday he wants Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney to remain in his administration until the end of his presidency.

Bush was responding to a question asked by some pinhead, and responded with affirmation, that he indeed wanted Rumy and Cheney to remain. I don't see how he lied, I am sure he wanted this. I would suggest, you try to focus on communication from the aspect of understanding, rather than parsing and dissecting. You see... when you have no political power, you have to resort to those kind of cheap tricks to fool people, but once you've won power, people aren't so interested in word parsing and you are expected to lead.
 
Jarod said:
I understand that it is for high crimes or misdemeanors, but it is NOT a criminal charge.

You are not prosecuted by a court, you dont have a right to a jury of your peers, you dont have the other rights offered to a person facing a criminal charge. The rules of evidence dont apply. And Jeoparty does not attach!
Click to expand...
It is specifically limited in punishment and therefore exempted from the Double Jeopardy limitation. This is getting repetitive. There is a reason they called it a Conviction in that document. They also call it a trial, and that trial is for high Crimes. Presenting any other argument is getting silly.
 
Remember now that all political advertisements are specifically exempt from the truth in advertising law. One has to wonder why ;)
 
Damocles said:
It is specifically limited in punishment and therefore exempted from the Double Jeopardy limitation. This is getting repetitive. There is a reason they called it a Conviction in that document. They also call it a trial, and that trial is for high Crimes. Presenting any other argument is getting silly.
Click to expand...

And that clearly makes it NON-CRIMINAL.. What makes a prosecution Criminal is the punishment you can get. If you can loose your liberty it is a criminal prosecution. Thats why a Traffic infraction is different than a Traffic Crime!
 
Dixie said:
Last week, while planning for his departure, Bush told all of America Rumsfeld would be in his position for the remainder of Bush's term...

I don't recall Bush saying this.

(AP) President Bush said Wednesday he wants Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney to remain in his administration until the end of his presidency.

Bush was responding to a question asked by some pinhead, and responded with affirmation, that he indeed wanted Rumy and Cheney to remain. I don't see how he lied, I am sure he wanted this. I would suggest, you try to focus on communication from the aspect of understanding, rather than parsing and dissecting. You see... when you have no political power, you have to resort to those kind of cheap tricks to fool people, but once you've won power, people aren't so interested in word parsing and you are expected to lead.
Click to expand...



And Bill Clinton did not have "Sex" with that woman. He did not put his penis inside her Vagina, the traditional defination of sex, Instead he put it in her Mouth!
 
Jarod said:
And that clearly makes it NON-CRIMINAL.. What makes a prosecution Criminal is the punishment you can get. If you can loose your liberty it is a criminal prosecution. Thats why a Traffic infraction is different than a Traffic Crime!
Click to expand...
No, when it deals specifically with criminal activity it makes it more than "not criminal".

When convicted they are limited in punishment, not in crime.

The Constitution limits the Punishment for this conviction of a crime. In fact a High Crime. It's much like mandated sentencing.
 
Were President Clinton convicted by the Senate he would not have a "Conviction on his record". If you did a criminal background check on him it would not show up.

He would have to be convicted in a Court of Law for that to happen!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top