IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New You were when the subject was Hillary
Clinton's affair was an extreme HR situation, it was an ethical violation. An ethical violation and not an impeachable offense. If Starr could have proved the rape allegations I would have supported the impeachment.

Gonzales firing the 8 attorneys for political reasons and stonewalling congressional oversight is a much more serious offense.
Seamus
New lets reason on this
congress and the president are exempt from federal labor laws agreed.
"it was an ethical violation. An ethical violation and not an impeachable offense." how is that decided? American law is precedent based

again, you agree that it was an ethical violation however you dont address what he was impeached for. He was not impeached for an ethical violation but lying under oath, purjorative statements. Repeat, not the sex but for lying under oath. You are right, there was not enough votes to impeach him.Senator Ted Stevens R alaska was quoted as saying if he was standing over a naked dead woman with a smoking gun in his hand there was not enough votes to impeach him. There are plenty of cases where people who lied under oath about sex went to jail. The offence was real, the process wouldnt convict.

Now gonzalez, he hires or is persueded to hire someone totally incompetant to do HR for the Justice department. She committed grievous HR in hiring pracices and decided that 8 good hard working Fed atty's would be fired because they wernt politically loyal enough. Again, federal labor laws are exempt in the congress and the executive at the political appointee level. So is there an impeachable offence, yes if it can be proved that gonzo lied under oath. Why do you think the broad wanted immunity? She didnt want to be staring at a purjory jail sentence.

Using base logic, not political likes, dislikes purjory is impeachable for clinton as it is for gonzales. Being a total neocon evangelical is not nor is a serial womanizer.
my 2 cents,
wanna discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a pin and why next?
thanx,
bill


Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
New Yes, lets reason on this
An impeachable offense, is what congress says it is and that congress decided his perjury was an impeachable offense, only they didn't have enough votes to actually convict. Most normal congresses probably wouldn't have voted to impeach if they didn't have enough votes to convict, but this house did. I personally think it was to appease the social conservatives and that most didn't actually think that he should be impeached, but that is just my opinion. Why did the social conservatives want him impeached? Because they didn't like him and they didn't like his politics.

Lets get back to the perjury, if he just told the truth in the first place he wouldn't committed perjury, but the country wouldn't have been as sympathetic to then as it was during the impeachment. If America wasn't so hung up about sex, the right wing groups wouldn't have funded the Paula Jones lawsuit and he probably wouldn't have to the lawsuit till after he left office. If America wasn't so hung about sex, his political career wouldn't have threatened and he wouldn't have to perjury himself.

Clinton's crime wasn't directly related to his current job duties where as Gonzales' crimes are directly related to his current job duties. Why should AG be impeached? Because he fired the attorneys to affect the outcome of political elections through selective investigation of election fraud and is stonewalling congress.

The point you are missing Box is that impeachment is a political process to remove unsuitable people from office. Clinton was not considered unsuitable for office by congress because he wasn't considered unsuitable by the American people because they understood what Starr and the republican congress were trying to do. If Starr and congress hadn't been so transparent in their actions and just gave the appearance of trying to be impartial Clinton might actually have been impeached. They overplayed their hand.

Again a high crime is what congress say it is, federal labor laws have nothing to do with this discussion. Subverting congressional oversight into activities that were intended to affect the outcomes of elections is a high crime to me and I imagine most people would end up supporting it. If Gonzales had been smarter in the way he testified, it never would have gotten this far.

To me unsuitable for office means that the person is damaging the country by being in office, Clinton wasn't but Gonzales is. It is as simple as that. It takes a lot to convince congress that someone is unsuitable for office, which I think is a very good thing. I also think that Gonzales has done enough to convince most reasonable people that he is unsuitable for office.

You and your angels can dance on your pinhead all you want, that's not for me.



Seamus
New I see, so getting a hummer while talking to senators
doesnt affect your job preformance, wag the dog ring a bell? I was sitting in a congressmans office in DC when clinton announced he was bombing an aspirin factory, impeachment hearings were going on. I asked my rep why he was hanging out in the office instead of the floor. He was bitter, the joker in the whitehouse is trying to get the news off of the impeachment, he was working his contacts but the senior senator accross the way sez there wasnt enough votes. you said the congress didnt have enough votes to impeach, you are confused are dont really understand how it works. Congress had enough to impeach and voted to send him to the SENATE for trial. the senate didnt. Now you CLAIM! that all this didnt impact the country! If the fucker had done the right thing and resigned the entire fucking world would look different now. yeah, right no impact to job preformance.

Gonzalez, you havnt mentioned where he lied under oath and you could prove it.
"Subverting congressional oversight into activities that were intended to affect the outcomes of elections is a high crime to me and I imagine most people would end up supporting it." what congressional oversight was subverted? huh? WTF are you talking about? What elections were affected? Name them. I think you have grand FEELINGS about the events but no clear understanding of them.
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
New The Senate is PART OF Congress, mr Law Expert. HTH!
New I got yer suppah swingin
Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Seamus was differentiating between the two earlier in the conversation.
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
New A) I'm not sure he got it wrong, and...
...B) Him getting it wrong is not much of an excuse for you to copy the mistrake, is it?

(But your doing so anyway does tend to cast your comment about me not knowing [U.S. Constitutional] law as well as language[s] into a different light, though, doesn't it?)


   [link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)
Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603|Jehovah]
New This is so great...you misspelled mistake :-) HTH
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New At the risk of killing the frog: What - you don't mean...
...I made a tpyo?!?


   [link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)
Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603|Jehovah]
New Killing frogs?
You sure that's not your Saxon roots showing?

I may never be able to do that again..so I enjoyed it while I had the chance.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New No Bill, I lumped the 2 together and didn't explicitly state
which body of Congress had which roll, mainly to save time.
Seamus
Expand Edited by Seamus May 24, 2007, 06:27:31 PM EDT
New I understand it just fine
I said congress, I should have been more specific and said the Senate.

The bombing was either a wag the dog scenario or a major intelligence screw up: [link|http://www.slate.com/id/2098102/|Slate] 

Congress should have investigated. If they really felt the bombing was a wag the dog scenario the House could have passed an additional set of articles of impeachment, but they didn't.

My point is that if Congress really wanted to do the right thing instead of just wounding a president they didn't like, they wouldn't have impeached Clinton and then they could continue to explain why it should be an impeachable offense and maybe have him censured. Even if they continued with the impeachment because they felt it was the right thing to do they would have continued to investigate all sexual improprieties and deal anyone who perjured themselves. But they didn't do that either.

As to Gonzales, have you been watching him lie to Congress lately? Could they prove it is a lie beyond a reasonable doubt? No, but any reasonable person cabn see he his lying to Congress. He admitted to delegating the firing to subordinates with out any real oversight. He said the list of fired attorneys was a consensus of his senior staff, but they have said that wasn't true. By admitting to being a completely incompetent manager and [link|http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/16/rove.documents/|telling congress it doesn't have the subpoenaed documents and then giving up] 
should be enough to have him impeached, but Congress really needs to figure out a way to reclaim its oversight role.

[link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/13/AR2007031301725.html|Election Fraud] 

As to the elections, this part is my opinion as to the why the firings happened. Rove and the White House were and [link|http://electionlawblog.org/archives/008232.html|continue to push election fraud even when there isn't any evidence of it.] 

But, there is evidence of the DOJ bending it own guidlines and rushing indictments just before elections ([link|http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003159.php|tpm] ):

And of course no piece on Schlozman would be complete without a mention of his precious ACORN indictments when he was the U.S. Attorney for Kansas City. Schlozman, you'll remember, rushed the indictments of four ACORN voter registration workers to land five days before the 2006 election.

The Justice Department is still desperately trying to portray the indictments as uncontroversial. As I reported Friday, the Justice Department's election crimes manual is crystal clear: "most, if not all, investigation of an alleged election crime must await the end of the election to which the allegation relates." And that's investigations -- an indictment, obviously, would be an even greater departure from policy.

But here's what the Justice Department told Savage:

The department said Schlozman's office got permission from headquarters for the election-eve indictments. It added that the department interprets the policy as having an unwritten exception for voter registration fraud, because investigators need not interview voters for such cases.

An "unwritten exception." How nice.

Because Schlozman didn't have FBI agents interrogating voters, his indictments had no possible chilling effect, apparently.

Just consider: On November 2, 2006, the indictments were widely reported, many of them featuring a quote from Schlozman that "this national investigation is very much ongoing." That same day, Schlozman released a statement that his office would have a prosecutor on duty on Election Day, ready to pounce at allegations of voter fraud. This was in a climate of trumped-up hysteria about ACORN's efforts to register poor voters both in Kansas City and in St. Louis, where Republicans were charging that tens of thousands of voter registration forms were "questionable."

Schlozman, in other words, knew just what he was doing. And now the Justice Department is inventing "unwritten exceptions" to its policies to cover for him.


I cleaned up some typos and grammatical errors and made the AG paragraph readable. I am not sure how I mangled that paragraph so badly the first time.
Seamus
Expand Edited by Seamus May 24, 2007, 07:10:30 PM EDT
Expand Edited by Seamus May 24, 2007, 07:13:15 PM EDT
     What the f*** kind of question is that. - (bepatient) - (104)
         I blame Jimmy Carter. - (Another Scott) - (1)
             I was looking for his 'lust in my heart' line -NT - (Seamus)
         Same as the rest of the media and the American public. - (n3jja) - (5)
             Just caught that episode tonight - - (Ashton) - (2)
                 Re: those Stupid French! - (a6l6e6x)
                 In true noo-meeja style... - (pwhysall)
             Heard an interesting comparison of French politics. - (static) - (1)
                 OT: what is it with tiny text? - (pwhysall)
         Scratching head.... - (Simon_Jester)
         Yeah, almost as bad as elevating extramarital blowjobs to... - (CRConrad) - (94)
             WHAT! - (jbrabeck) - (1)
                 Oh, not at all unheard of. There is the small consolation... - (CRConrad)
             lying about blowjobs under oath is the same as - (boxley) - (91)
                 Point missed. - (pwhysall) - (2)
                     because of the paula jones lawsuit claiming sexual assault - (boxley) - (1)
                         Ah, the Paula Jones lawsuit. - (pwhysall)
                 NFW are they the same - (Seamus) - (30)
                     yawn, quick poll - (boxley) - (15)
                         Yes on both - HTF could anyone vote any other way?!? -NT - (CRConrad)
                         If Starr was going after Gringrich - (Seamus) - (13)
                             Im no champion, you have me confused wit someone else - (boxley) - (12)
                                 You were when the subject was Hillary - (Seamus) - (11)
                                     lets reason on this - (boxley) - (10)
                                         Yes, lets reason on this - (Seamus) - (9)
                                             I see, so getting a hummer while talking to senators - (boxley) - (8)
                                                 The Senate is PART OF Congress, mr Law Expert. HTH! -NT - (CRConrad) - (6)
                                                     I got yer suppah swingin - (boxley) - (5)
                                                         A) I'm not sure he got it wrong, and... - (CRConrad) - (3)
                                                             This is so great...you misspelled mistake :-) HTH -NT - (bepatient) - (2)
                                                                 At the risk of killing the frog: What - you don't mean... - (CRConrad) - (1)
                                                                     Killing frogs? - (bepatient)
                                                         No Bill, I lumped the 2 together and didn't explicitly state - (Seamus)
                                                 I understand it just fine - (Seamus)
                     Numbers? - (bepatient) - (13)
                         If he can name 7, will you concede? -NT - (pwhysall) - (2)
                             Would just like to see some backup - (bepatient) - (1)
                                 You are a piece of work (new thread) - (Seamus)
                         Re: Numbers? - (Seamus) - (9)
                             Then don't do this - (bepatient) - (8)
                                 You expanded to include affairs - (Seamus) - (7)
                                     Strike 2 -NT - (bepatient) - (6)
                                         You struck out a long time ago. -NT - (Seamus) - (5)
                                             Right. Keep those blinders on firmly. -NT - (bepatient) - (4)
                                                 Again, utterly hilarious coming from you. - (CRConrad) - (3)
                                                     Right. You seem to be affected by the same... - (bepatient) - (2)
                                                         "Toe". You *tow* a car, and *toe* a line. HTH! - (CRConrad) - (1)
                                                             Thank you Mr Roget. -NT - (bepatient)
                 I don't think you're getting it. - (CRConrad) - (56)
                     *applause* - (pwhysall) - (42)
                         Meanwhile, in France - (bepatient) - (41)
                             Why did you mention age? - (pwhysall) - (34)
                                 All part of the story. -NT - (bepatient) - (33)
                                     This is what I'm on about. - (pwhysall) - (25)
                                         Ah, I see. - (bepatient) - (24)
                                             Gibbering on and on about this, in order to relativise... - (CRConrad) - (22)
                                                 First of all. - (bepatient) - (21)
                                                     They may have thought that he had WMDs - (Seamus)
                                                     You know... - (Simon_Jester) - (19)
                                                         My isn't revisionist history alive and well. - (bepatient) - (18)
                                                             they really didnt beleive it tho, snicker -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                                                                 Thats why they voted for it b4 voting against it! -NT - (bepatient)
                                                             Let's see what else Byrd said. - (Another Scott) - (11)
                                                                 Eloquent but irrelevant. - (bepatient) - (10)
                                                                     You're being too broad again... - (Another Scott) - (9)
                                                                         I don't think so. - (bepatient) - (6)
                                                                             Not so. - (Another Scott) - (4)
                                                                                 Ok, so they don't get the President's Daily Brief. - (bepatient) - (3)
                                                                                     The "You didn't catch me, so it's not my fault" defense? :-/ -NT - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                                                                         Hardly - (bepatient) - (1)
                                                                                             You do remember who ran the Senate until Jan 2007, right? - (Another Scott)
                                                                             Re: I don't think so. (new thread) - (lincoln)
                                                                         and which prrominant democrats running for prez - (boxley) - (1)
                                                                             See #285239. I don't read MoveOn.org. -NT - (Another Scott)
                                                             Yes, yes indeed it is. - (Simon_Jester) - (3)
                                                                 Alright then. - (bepatient) - (2)
                                                                     What can I say, I just pulled them from RightWingNews (iirc) -NT - (Simon_Jester) - (1)
                                                                         Never been to that site (new thread) - (bepatient)
                                             Nor is it a consistent one - (Seamus)
                                     More like all part of the "narrative" -NT - (rcareaga) - (2)
                                         Ok. Nit well picked. -NT - (bepatient) - (1)
                                             No. A distinction, not a nit. - (rcareaga)
                                     So why didn't you mention her religion? Or the colour of... - (CRConrad) - (3)
                                         Nope. - (bepatient) - (2)
                                             Ah, "relevance". That's a good one, coming from you. - (CRConrad) - (1)
                                                 Just easily distracted :-) -NT - (bepatient)
                             You're joking right? - (scoenye) - (5)
                                 Talk to Peter - (bepatient)
                                 I didn't say they weren't corrupt. - (pwhysall) - (3)
                                     Ah! Well, yes, that is a bit alien to us as well... - (scoenye) - (2)
                                         signed up, had to choose the second life option tho -NT - (boxley)
                                         Thats why I love Belgium :-) - (bepatient)
                     your great skills in language match your ignorance of law - (boxley) - (12)
                         Another article about it: - (admin) - (11)
                             I like this one better - (boxley) - (7)
                                 In the end all that matters is what congress thinks of as - (Seamus)
                                 OTOH, Posner's book covers this stuff, too. - (Another Scott) - (5)
                                     dont think much of posner's ideas -NT - (boxley) - (4)
                                         Different strokes. :-) -NT - (Another Scott) - (3)
                                             Im more aligned with Blackstone, Gerry Spence and Pliskin -NT - (boxley) - (2)
                                                 Snake Plisken, I heard you were dead. -NT - (bepatient) - (1)
                                                     sshhh! -NT - (boxley)
                             Interesting, but zooks that's broad... -NT - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                 think about it, Gore would have been president for 2 years - (boxley) - (1)
                                     Nope. - (Another Scott)

I strongly recommend 72 as a good default.
127 ms