Senate Majority Leader: I wish the segregationist had won!

[Caligastia]

What Chris said.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I highly doubt that they are rethinking it. The Lott=racist accussation has been around for quite sometime. The only thing that I can think of that might derail it is if he pulls a Byrd and starts talking about n****** on the Senate floor.

I agree, Plus, I think most of the donations were probably private, and therefore less likely to fall to pressure.

My biggest concern with the whole thing was it was named after a sitting Senator, I think things like that should wait until either the person is dead or long retired.

Realistically, if they were to rename the Lott school, they would probably have to rename 2/3 the buildings on campus, eh? hehe.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Lying about a blowjob is trivial.

Your morals really are screwed up if that's what you think.

Hindsight is 20/20. At the time, Clinton had no reason to think they knew the truth about Lewinsky or that she had that damned stained dress that would prove it. So he figured the lie would go undetected. A miscalculation, yes. Stupid? Not really.

How about just plain old dishonest.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

that she had that damned stained dress

Has anyone ever figured out why she kept the thing?

Maybe it was a trophy, something a serial female blowjobist would keep to relive the memories.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Boris, you just don't know what your talking about."Section. 4. 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."

Perjury is a Misdemeanor, Clinton admited he lied under oath in his deposition, thus commited perjury, a Misdemeanor.

That's what Clinton was Impeached for, it was the Democrats who spit of the Constituition, which I quoted in part above, you can read it yourself if you like, Article II section 4 of the US Constitution.

http://www.rosanna.com/constitution/constit_.htm#con2.4

Chris, as usual, flowing freely with insults, but little on fact.

First, what Clinton did wasn't perjury. Lying under oath and perjury are not the same think. The Independent Prosecutor, Mr. Starr, didn't even charge Clinton with perjury. Hence no perjury existed to merit impeachment:

http://www.salon.com/news/1998/12/11newsd.html

"Members of Congress have been conflating "perjury" and "lying under oath" in their accusation against President Clinton, using the two terms interchangeably as though they are synonymous.

They are not. Perjury is a far more serious crime, and it requires a much higher burden of proof. "Lying under oath exacts a lower penalty and lower modicum of proof," says Washington attorney Stanley Brand.

A close reading of Clinton's testimony in the Paula Jones case, and before the grand jury, reveals a cagey witness who could be found guilty of sexual selfishness, if that were a crime, but not of perjury, nor lying under oath.

In fact, independent counsel Kenneth Starr did not charge President Clinton with perjury in his September referral to Congress. Starr charged only that Clinton had lied under oath, both in his Jan. 17 Jones deposition and to the grand jury on Aug. 17, about whether he'd had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky; that he had lied about not remembering being alone with Lewinsky; and that he had lied about conversations he had with Lewinsky and Vernon Jordan about the Jones case."

The Supreme Court has ruled, says Brand, that "to prove perjury, there must be corroborated proof of the intent to lie, and the lie must be material to the case. Perjury can't be proved if you are cute with your answers and thereby evade answering. Clinton is absolutely entitled to rely on every legal means to protect himself, because he is facing civil and criminal prosecution, plus impeachment."

Many other legal and constitutional scholars have made the same point. Lying under oath, false statements and omissions also require intent and materiality, says Brand, "but to prove perjury requires proof that he conscientiously and purposefully lied in an unambiguous way."

So murky is the case against Clinton that the articles of impeachment charging him with perjury did not even specify which statements were perjurious. When asked by Rep. Gerald Nadler, D-N.Y., to identify the specific statements in the record, Committee Chairman Henry Hyde couldn't do it. Instead, Hyde got shy, and resisted reading sections of the Starr Report that detailed exactly which of Lewinsky's body parts she says Clinton touched. That touching would seem to fall within the tortured definition of sexual relations in the Jones case, unless the definition is read as Clinton says he read it.

But Hyde's sudden attack of squeamishness was likely a cover for his real worry: about the fuzziness of the charges against Clinton. The committee's explosive hearing Thursday revealed a level of confusion about the exact charges against Clinton, even in the Republican caucus, that should doom the impeachment move against him, but probably won't.

If Hyde's true motive was aversion to publicly discussing the sexual details of Clinton's relationship with Lewinsky, he probably would have stopped the impeachment railroad before it began. Because, assuming this gets to a Senate trial, the prurient details aired there are going to make this week's committee hearing seem like "Sesame Street."

There was no perjury. No misdemeanor. The Articles of Impeachment were so flawed as to be a laughing crock. Impeachment was not warranted.

This also gives a lawyer's summary:

http://www.law4u.com.au/lil/ls_clinton2.html

This one sums it up nicely:

http://www.reporter-news.com/1998/opinion/case1219.html

As Madison expressly said, the impeachment should be used a last resort for the most heinous of acts by a president who has abused his power in a matter that subverts the country. This is in no way comparable. Instead, the GOP did exactly what Madison feared--used impeachment as a buldgeon and cynical political tool to go after a man they despised.

[Chris 62]

You are so full of sh1t you eyes must be brown Boris.

Your busted, take it like a man, you little whiner.

[Boris Godunov]

Says a man cornered on his lack of arguments. Go away and find someone else's thread to spread your bile to.

[Chris 62]

Your such a baby.

Your proven to be a liar, so it's "bile".

Sorry, your hero committed a crime, and your party freed him and broke US law.

All your spin won't change it.

As usual, you lack the guts to admit the truth.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Your such a baby.

Your proven to be a liar, so it's "bile".

Sorry, your hero committed a crime, and your party freed him and broke US law.

All your spin won't change it.

As usual, you lack the guts to admit the truth.

As usual, all you have is personal insults plus a tenuous grasp on reality to support yourself.

You can't add anything to my thread, so you may go now. Dismissed.

[Chris 62]

As further proof, oh little spin doctor:

"Of the 11 possible grounds for impeachment cited by Starr, four were eventually approved by the House Judiciary Committee: grand jury perjury, civil suit perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power."

"On December 19, following much debate over the constitutionality of the proceedings and whether or not Clinton could be punished by censure rather than impeachment, the House of Representatives held its historic vote. Clinton was impeached on two counts, grand jury perjury (228–206) and obstruction of justice (221–212), with the votes split along party lines. "

Which is a misdemeanor, and thus subject to the US Constitution's definition of what is laegal grounds for impeachment.

The Republicans didn't lower the bar, Clinton was guilty of betraying the public trust.
Yey not ONE Democrat voted for impraechment, and the Dems are still realing from this, having lost the whitehouse, and now the Senate.

Next time tell it like it is, without the spin.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


As usual, all you have is personal insults plus a tenuous grasp on reality to support yourself.

You can't add anything to my thread, so you may go now. Dismissed.

You lose.

As usual.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Chris 62
As further proof, oh little spin doctor:

"Of the 11 possible grounds for impeachment cited by Starr, four were eventually approved by the House Judiciary Committee: grand jury perjury, civil suit perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power."

"On December 19, following much debate over the constitutionality of the proceedings and whether or not Clinton could be punished by censure rather than impeachment, the House of Representatives held its historic vote. Clinton was impeached on two counts, grand jury perjury (228–206) and obstruction of justice (221–212), with the votes split along party lines. "

Your comprehension skills are lower than normal. As I pointed out, the House articles didn't even specify what statements were perjurous.

Tell, me o wise one, how you can charge someone with a crime when one doesn't specify what crime one has committed?

Which is a misdemeanor, and thus subject to the US Constitution's definition of what is laegal grounds for impeachment.

And again, he was never indicted for perjury. The Independent Counsel declined to charge him with perjury. So he was never convicted of a misdemeanor.

And guess what? There is no clear constitutional measure of what "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" means. It's ambiguous at best. High Misdemeanors perhaps? What constitutes a High Misdemeanor as opposed to a low one? What's a Low Crime?

Read up on it, my boy. You'll find it's an awfully gray area when one is talking jurisprudence, which is why perjury is so hard to prove and is not often brought as a charge.

The Republicans didn't lower the bar, Clinton was guilty of betraying the public trust.

Clinton was not elected to be president, not moral standardbearer. He in no way violated that trust in the performance of his duties in this matter.

Yey not ONE Democrat voted for impraechment, and the Dems are still realing from this, having lost the whitehouse, and now the Senate.

Um, MANY Democrats voted for impeachment, including good ol' Mr. Gary Condit. Wrong again, sir.

Next time tell it like it is, without the spin.

Next time, have some facts, and try not to be such a pr*ck about it, mmmkay?

[Ramo]

Slick Willy should've been impeached, but the reasons for impeachment the Republicans chose were idiotic.

[Chris 62]

God, you are thick

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Your comprehension skills are lower than normal. As I pointed out, the House articles didn't even specify what statements were perjurous.

You are a simp.
YOU said he wasn't guilty of perjury, yet he was.

Tell, me o wise one, how you can charge someone with a crime when one doesn't specify what crime one has committed?

Are you PMSing?
The Congress found him guilty.

And again, he was never indicted for perjury. The Independent Counsel declined to charge him with perjury. So he was never convicted of a misdemeanor.

Wrong again, but at least your consistant.
It's obvious you don't understand Constitutional law, the Congress acts as a court, THEY convicted him.
Did charge him...THEY CONVICTED HIM!

And guess what? There is no clear constitutional measure of what "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" means. It's ambiguous at best. High Misdemeanors perhaps? What constitutes a High Misdemeanor as opposed to a low one? What's a Low Crime?

Spin, spin, spin....
YOU said he wasn't even charged, yet he was found GUILTY.

Read up on it, my boy. You'll find it's an awfully gray area when one is talking jurisprudence, which is why perjury is so hard to prove and is not often brought as a charge.

Your caught in your fantasy loop, we are LONG passed "charged", Congress CONVICTED him.

Clinton was not elected to be president, not moral standardbearer. He in no way violated that trust in the performance of his duties in this matter.

Wrong again, the Constitution provides a moral standard, and he must meet it, and he did not.

Um, MANY Democrats voted for impeachment, including good ol' Mr. Gary Condit. Wrong again, sir.

Nice try, I am referring to where he escaped, in the senate.

[b]Next time, have some facts, and try not to be such a pr*ck about it, mmmkay?

It must kill you to be proven wrong so often!

Boris, you want to argue against Lott, fine.

But forget trying to reserect Clinton was innocent, he was busted, just like your lame defense of him is.

Just once, be a normal dude and say you were wrong, I do it, everybody else does, come off that high horse and join us.
Your just being silly insisting he's innocent when the Congress convicted him.

[Sprayber]

Bush calls Lott comments 'offensive'

President Bush on Thursday sharply rebuked incoming Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott for comments that some have called racist, saying any suggestion that segregation was acceptable is "offensive and it is wrong."

Bush's comments, delivered to a mixed-race audience in Philadelphia, came one day after Lott, a Mississippi Republican, said he would not give up his leadership post, despite the furor over his remarks.

"Recent comments by Sen. Lott do not reflect the spirit of our country," Bush said to loud applause. "He has apologized and rightly so. Every day that our nation was segregated was a day our nation was unfaithful to our founding ideals."

Here is a small excerpt of the article. the rest of the article is here.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/12/lott.comment/index.html