Why is it okay for Bush to lie!

Jarod said:
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!
Click to expand...
True, but it is relative to understand he is being Tried for a high Crime as specified in the Constitution. Attempting to say that because punishment is mandated that it wasn't really a crime he was convicted of had he been convicted is a ridiculous argument when it is specifically defined and stated that way in the actual document.
 
The document even uses the word "convicted" twice in Article I section 3. Then specifies that this is exempted from the Double Jeopardy clause by stating that they are still subject to further trial and punishment under Law. The trial is limited in punishment and this specifically determines that they are also liable to further trail afterward. This doesn't mean that it wouldn't be a conviction of a crime, clearly it would be by the fact that the actual document states so many times, it just means that the mandates sentence does not apply as Double Jeopardy.
 
Damocles said:
True, but it is relative to understand he is being Tried for a high Crime as specified in the Constitution. Attempting to say that because punishment is mandated that it wasn't really a crime he was convicted of had he been convicted is a ridiculous argument when it is specifically defined and stated that way in the actual document.
Click to expand...


FUNNY, because thats the criteria the Supreme Court uses to determine if you qualify for the benefits afforded those accused of crimes.
 
Jarod said:
FUNNY, because thats the criteria the Supreme Court uses to determine if you qualify for the benefits afforded those accused of crimes.
Click to expand...
Which wouldn't apply. They are talking about convicting one Branch of Government of a high Crime in the Constitution. You can make it "funny" all you want, but specifically it is a Trial for a Crime as listed by the very Document.
 
"Judgement in cases of impeachemnet shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable to Indictement, trial, and punishment, according to law"

It does not say again be liable, or another trial.

You see Impeachment is not a CRIMINAL proceding and does not result in a criminal conviction or adjudication. It removes the person's immunity from criminal prosecution and then allows criminal prosecution to take place.
 
It is a trial for a crime, but CLEARLY not a criminal trial. Its akin to a preleminary proceding that MIGHT lead to criminal prosecution.

The president enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution while in office! If he is removed from office or his term expires he can be prosecuted.
 
Jarod said:
It is a trial for a crime, but CLEARLY not a criminal trial. Its akin to a preleminary proceding that MIGHT lead to criminal prosecution.

The president enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution while in office! If he is removed from office or his term expires he can be prosecuted.
Click to expand...
That was my point. It is a trial for a crime. Thank you.
 
Damocles said:
True, but it is relative to understand he is being Tried for a high Crime as specified in the Constitution. Attempting to say that because punishment is mandated that it wasn't really a crime he was convicted of had he been convicted is a ridiculous argument when it is specifically defined and stated that way in the actual document.
Click to expand...


But he is not being tried under the rules that regulate CRIMINAL prosecution. He does not have a right to a hearing, for example, on a motion to dismiss for failure to meet the elements of the alleged crime!

The reason no prosecutor charged President Clinton with a crime is because they knew that the charge would have been dismissed by any judge right away!
 
Damocles said:
*sigh* It is still a crime.
Click to expand...


My whole point is that it was not a crime. In a real court of law, the case would have been dismissed right away because no crime was commited. Because this was a political court that "tried" him, he was not offered that oppertunity. This is the reason he was never tried in any criminal court, there was no case because he committed no CRIME! Any prosecutor who filed such charges would have had egg on his face because the judge would have dismissed the case at the first hearing.

BECAUSE NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED!
 
Last edited:
Jarod said:
My whole point is that it was not a crime. In a real court of law, the case would have been dismissed right away because no crime was commited. Because this was a political court that "tried" him, he was not offered that oppertunity. This is the reason he was never tried in any criminal court, there was no case because he committed no CRIME! Any prosecutor who filed such charges would have had egg on his face because the judge would have dismissed the case at the first hearing.

BECAUSE NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED!
Click to expand...
My whole point was that he was tried for a crime. It has been my point from the beginning. You keep saying that it wasn't a trial for any crime, yet the Constitution seems to be opposed to your view.

He was acquitted in a trial for a high Crime.
 
Okay if you want to call it being tried for a crime, ill let you get away with it but I think is is a HUGE STREATCH and is misleading.

He was never criminally charged with anything.

" Former U.S. President Bill Clinton was accused of perjury--and as a result was fined for contempt of court, agreed to be disbarred, and was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998. The Senate rejected the perjury with 55 not-guilty votes and 45 guilty votes. No criminal charges were ever brought.[1][2] " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury
 
My origional point was that why were so many Republcans morally outraged at President Clinton's lie and noone seems to care about this lie of Bushes?
 
Damocles said:
Not really, on one I am explaining what other people said, in another I am poking to see if there is still a bruise and find that there is.

The judge that took his license took it far more seriously than you are right now.

Many people also do not get convicted even when they have done something that is against the law, and you know it.
Click to expand...



The Arkansas Bar Association took his liscense to practice law.. no judge did that!

President Clinton was never criminally charged with any crime.

What President Clinton did was WRONG, I agree, not illegal.

What Bush did was WRONG, I agree, not illegal.
 
Jarod said:
My origional point was that why were so many Republcans morally outraged at President Clinton's lie and noone seems to care about this lie of Bushes?
Click to expand...
Once again, those that were "outraged" at his morality were probably not talking about the lie. It is "immoral" to get a hummer from somebody that isn't your wife.
 
President Clinton did not commit any crime...

Just like Bush did not commit any crime (except his DUI)...

So what was Clinton Impeached for?

Are you admiting that he was impeached because Republicans did not like his morals?
 
Jarod said:
President Clinton did not commit any crime...

Just like Bush did not commit any crime (except his DUI)...

So what was Clinton Impeached for?

Are you admiting that he was impeached because Republicans did not like his morals?
Click to expand...
Impeachment is a political process trying them for a high Crime. He was acquitted. So far Bush hasn't been impeached, and if he is his trial would end pretty much exactly the same way. A waste of money and time, a distraction when we could ill afford distraction. A whole war was escalated and we missed it because we were discussing hummers.
 
Damocles said:
Impeachment is a political process trying them for a high Crime. He was acquitted. So far Bush hasn't been impeached, and if he is his trial would end pretty much exactly the same way. A waste of money and time, a distraction when we could ill afford distraction. A whole war was escalated and we missed it because we were discussing hummers.
Click to expand...


I agree unless some eveidnce comes up that Bush did commit a crime. It appears some evidence is surfacing that Rummy did order the tourture at Abu Grabe!
 
Jarod said:
I agree unless some eveidnce comes up that Bush did commit a crime. It appears some evidence is surfacing that Rummy did order the tourture at Abu Grabe!
Click to expand...
Nah, it appears as if a group is bringing a lawsuit in an attempt to get somebody to try him on something. I, for one, will await the result before I get all hot and bothered...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top