🚀 go-pugleaf

Merlin, if you were to say, "In my opinion, this is not an impeachable
offense" I would have a lot less to argue with you about.  To state that the
president has not committed impeachable offenses after he is impeached is
somewhat silly.

Merlin Dorfman wrote in message ...
>dgdsk@tiac.net wrote:
>
>: >      Not an impeachable offense.  If lying were an impeachable offense,
>: > about 40 of our 43 presidents would have been impeached...if there
>: > were anybody left in Congress to impeach them.
>
>: Quite correct. However, there are two levels here. The first level is the
>: level of truth. As in, what really happened. And, on that level, what a
>: person like Clinton is willing to do to propagate lies. In this case, he
>: got on national television, and actually remonstrated the entire
>: country--the entire world--for believing that he had not told the truth
>: when he said he did not have sex.
>
>     Not an impeachable offense.
>
>: The second level is that of perjury. He clearly committed perjury, as
>: well. Few people bother to get into the details of the perjury, since
they
>: are either on one side or the other, and don't want to be bothered with
>: details. But I have looked at the details. THIS MAN COMMITTED PERJURY.
Not
>: once, but several times.
>
>     Do you know the definition of perjury?  Hint: it's not "lying
>under oath."  I'll bet the word "lie" doesn't even appear in the
>statute that defines perjury.  No ordinary citizen would ever be
>prosecuted for the alleged perjury that Clinton committed.  By the
>way, if you are referring to the Paula Jones case, that article of
>impeachment was defeated.
>     I also maintain that "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and
>misdemeanors" does not include weasel-wording in immaterial testimony
>in a dismissed/settled civil suit.
>
>: This man also obstructed justice. He tried to make sure that his
secretary
>: had the "same story" as he did. His secretay testified that he told her a
>: version of the story, and then kept indicating "right". His next
>: obstruction of justice came when he sent her to get the presents back.
>
>     Do you know the definition of "obstruction of justice?"  You would
>never get a prosecution, much less a conviction, of an ordinary citizen
>for these accusations.  It would get laughed out of court.
>
>: This man will do anything, anything.
>
>     Not an impeachable offense.  Nor is it an impeachable offense if
>some small fraction of the population believes that you will do
>"anything, anything."  (Have you ever heard an accusation against
>Clinton that you didn't believe, or had any reaction to anything he
>said or did other than the worst possible intepretation?
>
>: > I dare say you may have lied occasionally in your life, too.  I
>: > know I have.
>
>: Have you ever committed perjury? Have you ever gotten on the witness
>: stand, sworn to tell the truth before God, and then lied your ass off? I
>: haven't, but Clinton did. And Clinton is not just any person. He was the
>: highest legal officer in the State of Arkansas. He was the highest
>: executive officer in Arkansas. He is a lawyer--with a sworn duty of
>: upholding the law and of duty to the court to promote justice. He was a
>: law professor in Arkansas. He is the highest executive officer in the
>: United States.
>
>     Ducking in and out of a legal definition is hardly  "lying your
>ass off."  It is also probably not perjury.
>     And I would ask where you find in the Constitution that offenses
>are more serious if committed by the governor of Arkansas or any other
>official than if committed by an ordinary citizen.
>
>: And he gets up there and commits perjury. And obstruction of justice.
>
>     Doubtful; and in any case not "treason, bribery, or other high
>crimes and misdemeanors" since they were about private acts, in a
>dismissed civil suit, etc., and therefore not impeachable.
>     Lest there be any doubt about where I stand--what Clinton did is
>stupid and dishonorable in the extreme, but it would not be prosecuted
>if he were an ordinary citizen, and is not impeachable.  I would like
>for our president to set a higher standard than "not prosecutable" and
>"Not impeachable," but that is where we are.
>