|
Lawyers see charges this week in CIA-leak case by Mike the Usurper at 3:53 am EDT, Oct 24, 2005 |
In a preview of how Republicans would counter charges against top administration officials by Fitzgerald, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas brushed aside an indictment for perjury -- rather than for the underlying crime of outing a covert operative -- as a "technicality."
Now I want to see if I have this right. Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury, for saying he didn't have sex with Monica Lewinsky, and that was worth three years, hundreds of millions and 200 FBI agents working on it, but Rove and Libby lying to a grand jury to cover up a breach of National Security isn't? If that's their argument, they should be run out of town on a rail. |
|
RE: Lawyers see charges this week in CIA-leak case by janelane at 9:27 am EDT, Oct 24, 2005 |
Mike the Usurper wrote: In a preview of how Republicans would counter charges against top administration officials by Fitzgerald, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas brushed aside an indictment for perjury -- rather than for the underlying crime of outing a covert operative -- as a "technicality."
Now I want to see if I have this right. Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury, for saying he didn't have sex with Monica Lewinsky, and that was worth three years, hundreds of millions and 200 FBI agents working on it, but Rove and Libby lying to a grand jury to cover up a breach of National Security isn't? If that's their argument, they should be run out of town on a rail.
Bill Clinton was most certainly not impeached. And your last statement pretty much sums up the quagmire of deception that is the Bush Administration. Or, maybe Bush is just that stupid. The jury is still out. -janelane, politically |
|
| |
RE: Lawyers see charges this week in CIA-leak case by Shannon at 9:53 am EDT, Oct 24, 2005 |
janelane wrote: Mike the Usurper wrote: In a preview of how Republicans would counter charges against top administration officials by Fitzgerald, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas brushed aside an indictment for perjury -- rather than for the underlying crime of outing a covert operative -- as a "technicality."
Now I want to see if I have this right. Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury, for saying he didn't have sex with Monica Lewinsky, and that was worth three years, hundreds of millions and 200 FBI agents working on it, but Rove and Libby lying to a grand jury to cover up a breach of National Security isn't? If that's their argument, they should be run out of town on a rail.
Bill Clinton was most certainly not impeached. And your last statement pretty much sums up the quagmire of deception that is the Bush Administration. Or, maybe Bush is just that stupid. The jury is still out. -janelane, politically
Impeached means that he was officially charged, not that he was found guilty or removed from office. People have a misconception about the word. |
|
| |
RE: Lawyers see charges this week in CIA-leak case by k at 10:14 am EDT, Oct 24, 2005 |
janelane wrote: Bill Clinton was most certainly not impeached. And your last statement pretty much sums up the quagmire of deception that is the Bush Administration. Or, maybe Bush is just that stupid. The jury is still out. -janelane, politically
Bush may be stupid, but that's not what this is about anyway. This is about all the very smart and very unethical people who surround him. It's about how those people craft a reality in which they get to do what they want and get away with it. These people know what they're doing. I don't think any of them doubt what happened, or it's overall seriousness. I think they do know and don't care, because political power is more important than doing the right thing. I've become that level of cynical. And that's worse... if you're a zealot and a True Believer and just don't think anything wrong was done, then you're just foolish. If you downplay it because you know just how wrong and thus damaging it is, that's evil. It should disqualify one from public service. sidenote, I'm 99% sure BC was actually impeached. IIRC it just means congress formally charged him. Removal from office is only one outcome, and dependent upon the revelations and truths that come from the proceedings. he was eventually censured, but not removed from office. |
|
| | |
RE: Lawyers see charges this week in CIA-leak case by janelane at 2:39 pm EDT, Oct 24, 2005 |
k wrote: janelane wrote: Bill Clinton was most certainly not impeached. And your last statement pretty much sums up the quagmire of deception that is the Bush Administration. Or, maybe Bush is just that stupid. The jury is still out. -janelane, politically
sidenote, I'm 99% sure BC was actually impeached. IIRC it just means congress formally charged him. Removal from office is only one outcome, and dependent upon the revelations and truths that come from the proceedings. he was eventually censured, but not removed from office.
Wikipedia says, "Clinton was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives and in the ensuing trial in the U.S. Senate, Clinton was acquitted on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice." I didn't think he'd actually been formally charged, and I didn't realize he subsequently lost his law license. Whatever the failings of Wikipedia, its helping me to at least realize my ignorance on some matters. -janelane, skirting the opportunity to beat around and set fire to the Bush |
|
|
|