Senate Majority Leader: I wish the segregationist had won!

[Boris Godunov]

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

Yeah, but we all know your standards.

Of all the presidents worthy of impeachment, Clinton ranks far below Nixon, Reagan and Truman, IMO.

[DinoDoc]

What did Truman do?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
What did Truman do?

War crimes.

[Boris Godunov]

Re: God, you are thick

Originally posted by Chris 62
You are a simp.
YOU said he wasn't guilty of perjury, yet he was.

No he wasn't. He was never found guilty of perjury. When was he found guilty of perjury? Pray tell.

Are you PMSing?
The Congress found him guilty.

No they didn't. They didn't find him guilty of anything. Acquitted, remember?

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!

It's obvious you don't understand the definition of impeachment. This whole post of yours was one big flop. Impeachment = indictment. Not conviction. He was acquitted. Pathetic.

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

No he wasn't.

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

No they didn't.

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

The Constitution says NOTHING of moral standards, only legal ones.

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

You mean his acquittal? You mean the part that isn't impeachment?

You don't know what "impeachment" even means.

It must kill you to be proven wrong so often!

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

Clinton was found not guilty. Under U.S. law, he's innocent. Make you so mad, doesn't it?

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.

Funny, since every legal scholar will tell you Congress ACQUITTED him.

Get a better dictionary, Chris. That 1928 copy must be REALLY bad.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

that she had that damned stained dress

Has anyone ever figured out why she kept the thing?

Figure out how much money, ego trips from media appearances, etc., she's made as a result of having kept that dress. She knew she had DNA evidence, and a ticket to money and fame/notoriety.

If it hadn't been for that, how many of us would have ever heard of Monica Lewinsky? Same with Paula Jones?

They're both millionaires a few times over. Otherwise, Lewinsky would be an anonymous junior level copy writer in a third rate ad agency, and Jones would still be living in a trailer and making her living vacuuming under the desk of a State Farm agent in Little Rock.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Re: Re: God, you are thick

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
No he wasn't. He was never found guilty of perjury. When was he found guilty of perjury? Pray tell.

He was sanctioned by the Federal District Court in the Jones case, and settled by voluntarily accepting suspension of his license to practice law as a condition of the special prosecutor not moving for an indictment.

Clinton was found not guilty. Under U.S. law, he's innocent. Make you so mad, doesn't it?

As innocent as Nixon.

Impeachment and conviction do not address "guilt" of any charge, or "innocence" - they are solely limited to continuance in office or removal from office, so you're both wrong.

Funny, since every legal scholar will tell you Congress ACQUITTED him.

Get a better dictionary, Chris. That 1928 copy must be REALLY bad.

Let's not split too many hairs - a majority of the Senate found Clinton guilty on two of four Articles of Impeachment, but not the two-thirds majority necessary to remove him from office.

Clinton was in fact determined by the trial judge in Jones v. Clinton to have committed perjury and was sanctioned by that court - not a criminal conviction, but an uncontested finding of law and fact by a Federal District Court that led to Clinton's disbarment.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


War crimes.

Such as?

[Boris Godunov]

Re: Re: Re: God, you are thick

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
He was sanctioned by the Federal District Court in the Jones case, and settled by voluntarily accepting suspension of his license to practice law as a condition of the special prosecutor not moving for an indictment.

Which was after impeachment, yes?

As innocent as Nixon.

Impeachment and conviction do not address "guilt" of any charge, or "innocence" - they are solely limited to continuance in office or removal from office, so you're both wrong.

Actually, this supports me, since I was the one arguing that the Congressional impeachment did not constitute any sort of criminal conviction against Clinton. Thanks, MtG!

To say Clinton deserved impeachment because he was criminally guilty of perjury is incorrect, as he was criminally guilty of nothing when he was impeached.

Let's not split too many hairs - a majority of the Senate found Clinton guilty on two of four Articles of Impeachment, but not the two-thirds majority necessary to remove him from office.

The Constitution sets the bar, so he was by definition acquitted in the Senate. The number by which he was acquitted is not an issue.

Clinton was in fact determined by the trial judge in Jones v. Clinton to have committed perjury and was sanctioned by that court - not a criminal conviction, but an uncontested finding of law and fact by a Federal District Court that led to Clinton's disbarment.

Again, after the fact of impeachment. And as you say, not criminal.

Thanks for the insights, MtG.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Such as?

Hiroshima & Nagasaki.

Off-topic extraordinaire.

Back to Lott:

Bush's statements are surprising. Will it change anything with Lott's situation?

[MichaeltheGreat]

I thought you said war crimes? Not liberal revisionist BS.

The war crime would have been not dropping the bombs.

Bush & Co. have to repudiate Lott's statements to prevent the Dems from trying to make a party-wide issue with minorities. They don't dare stand by him. Lott will be left in the national media frying pan a little longer (good lesson to teach that boy not to run his mouth), there'll be a little more come-to-Jesus show of contrition, then it'll all go away like a fart in a hurricane.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
I thought you said war crimes? Not liberal revisionist BS.

Funny, I wouldn't refer to Eisenhower and MacArthur and many others of the military top brass as liberal revisionists. But whatever floats your boat.

The war crime would have been not dropping the bombs.

Accepting surrender is a war crime? Weird!

Bush & Co. have to repudiate Lott's statements to prevent the Dems from trying to make a party-wide issue with minorities. They don't dare stand by him. Lott will be left in the national media frying pan a little longer (good lesson to teach that boy not to run his mouth), there'll be a little more come-to-Jesus show of contrition, then it'll all go away like a fart in a hurricane.

Yeah, sounds 'bout right. Would that this could cost him his leadership.

Of course, Daschle should have lost his leadership position over the elections, but that hasn't happened either. Must be like moving mountains.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Funny, I wouldn't refer to Eisenhower and MacArthur and many others of the military top brass as liberal revisionists. But whatever floats your boat.

Both supported use of the bomb. MacArthur wanted to make the Chinese glow. Eisenhower authorized the superbomb project, and more development of new throw weight, delivery vehicles, delivery platforms and weapons types than any President in history. So please cite any primary authority source where either described the use of the bombs as a war crime.

Accepting surrender is a war crime? Weird!

Please cite any reference to a surrender offer broadcast from national command authority of the Japanese empire to any representative of the government of the United States prior to either August 6, or August 9, 1945? What? There is none?

What few civilian leaders (de facto with token power at best) suggested surrender were immediately subject to a number of assassination plots, and several were assassinated, in the exact same vein as Ni-Ni-Roku nine and a half years before. There were also two distinct conspiracies against the person of the emperor (one to assassinate, one to simply kidnap and hold under "reliable" military control) to prevent him ordering surrender after the two bombs had been dropped. In addition, there were attempts to intercept the message from the emperor, to assassinate members of the imperial household staff involved with communications from the emperor, etc.

Japanese forces in the field were actively operating and resisting to the limits of their abilities given their numerical, transport and supply situation. There wasn't one single externally visible indication of an intent or desire to surrender, and prior to the atomic bombings, the real authorities in control of the country leaned more to a fight to the death and extinction of the Japanese nation rather than surrender.

My ex-brother-in-law was ten years old at the end of the war, and was being trained as a spearman with a bamboo yari to be part of the home defense. They were intended to be used as spearmen, since real weapons were too scarce, and indoctrinated with the notion of the "glory" of sacrificing themselves for the emperor.

BTW, I lived in Nagasaki for four months, in sight of ground zero out my bedroom window. I've seen and talked to survivors, been to both museums, and had a friend whose father was a doctor in Hiroshima and survived several bouts of cancer. Knowing the subject (and the results) better than most, had I been in Truman's position with the knowledge available to the US at the time, the only thing I would have changed in retrospect was giving LeMay authorization to use the second bomb on his own initiative. I would have given the Japanese a few extra days to see the light, so to speak, and if they didn't, (which they probably wouldn't have, since they initially dismissed the Hiroshima bomb reports as hysteria), I'd have ordered the second bomb dropped a few days after the ninth.

Yeah, sounds 'bout right. Would that this could cost him his leadership.

Of course, Daschle should have lost his leadership position over the elections, but that hasn't happened either. Must be like moving mountains.

The entire Democratic Party should be purged and we all start over. The results sure as hell couldn't be worse.

[Carver]

Dear Imran,

1. Yes, many African-Americans mean it when they call Clinton the first black president. It's a black thing, you wouldn't understand.

2. Sen. Byrd didn't say n____r on the Senate floor, it was during a Fox News interview. I'm sure it blended in well with the usual insults they spew at peachy white Fox.

3. Miss. has the highest percentage of African-American voters, so Miss. senators should damn well have plenty of African-Americans on their staff.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Re: Re: Re: Re: God, you are thick

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
To say Clinton deserved impeachment because he was criminally guilty of perjury is incorrect, as he was criminally guilty of nothing when he was impeached.

Now you're sounding like Floyd. Somebody has a right to resist arrest and kill cops because they're wrongfully being arrested, since they're innocent until proven guilty, but that can't happen until after they're arrested, but they have the right to resist arrest yadda yadda blah blah blah.

Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding, it is a political proceeding to determine if an Article I or Article III officer of the United States should be removed from office.

You can play all the semantic games you want, the fact is that Clinton lied under oath in deposition, and felt his legal position vis-a-vis a perjury indictment was so poor that he voluntarily gave up his right to practice law.

The Constitution sets the bar, so he was by definition acquitted in the Senate. The number by which he was acquitted is not an issue.

For semanticists and apologists, no. The fact that more than half of the Senate of the United States felt that there was reason to commit the gravest political action possible under our Constitution suggests there was a bit of a substantive issue, regardless of semantics.

Again, after the fact of impeachment. And as you say, not criminal.

Thanks for the insights, MtG.

Any time. Besides, the real crime has never been addressed - Clinton could have had virtually any woman he wanted under the table, why that SPCA reject?

[asleepathewheel]

Another interesting article on the Lott issue


Many things I didn't know such as:

Opposed creation of MLK day-said there were people more deserving (who is more deserving than MLK???)
Actually stated about the integration of Ole Miss "Yes, you could say that I favored segregation then"
Tried to keep his fraternity segregated
campaigned for Jefferson Davis's citizenship
gave an interview to Southern Partisan magazine

I'm sure that many of you already knew of these incidents, however I did not.

Are these incidents relevant to what has happened recently, or are they too far in the past? do they create a pattern that continues today, or has he reformed and just forgotton to take a 22 year old joke out of his repertoire? Is using a 22 year old joke itself a crime, shouldn't the Senate Majority Leader be creative enough to make new jokes?