Actual Quotes from OBAMA book

Next, you simply assume Clinton DID lie under oath. No such thing has
ever been proven despite a monumental effort to do so. So perhaps you
think you can succeed when much more qualified people have failed, but I
don't share your optimism. The legal case against Clinton failed. The
political case against Clinton failed. The popular opinion case against
Clinton failed. Perhaps in your own mind you succeeded, but I doubt you
had a high opinion of Clinton to lose in the first place. Furthermore the
price for those failures was equivalent of wiping your arse with the US
Constitution. Congratulations.

Many things failed during this process, not the least of which was our legal
system. When our president can lie on national television AND in the
courtroom, and not get punished in any way (in fact, in the long run he
profited from the affair) it's safe to say that our legal system has failed
utterly.

It's apparent that you hold the Presidency in lower regard than many of us,
and that you are happy to game the system so that it's perfectly fine for
lecherous old married men to pound on sweet young employees in the Oval
Office. The halls of power have always been filled with such men, enabled
by folks like you -- but I had hoped that we had moved beyond such things,
driven (not surprisingly) by the women's movement over the past 100 years.

In the end, the greatest irony of this whole thing is the deafening silence
emanating from the descendents of that same women's movement in the face of
Clinton's sexual abuse of a subordinate in the workplace -- precisely what
that movement has spent many decades fighting against. Stranger still how
many of these same women would later become supporters of Clinton's
cuckolded wife in her run for the presidency -- this the same humiliated
wife who behaved in precisely the same meek, door-mat style that the women's
movement has advocated against.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
Ercoupe N94856
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Mike" wrote in news:emlsk.633$Ro1.455@trnddc04:

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:UWhsk.257146$TT4.104264@attbi_s22...
Um, even if it did I think I have enough sense not to base an entire
8 year presidency on that single act. I didn't really care that
much when I heard Gingrich cheated on and then dumped his
hospitalized wife either, other than the hypocrisy was interesting
to note. So unlike some I apply those standards equally.

Cheating on Hillary was never the offense. Using the power of his
position to gain sexual favors from an employee *was*. Having sex
was never the offense, despite how desperately the Left has tried to
make it the salient point of the discussion.

You're kidding right? Do you honestly believe Clinton coerced the
chubby intern?


There was no perjury. Clinton was never convicted or even so much
as indicted for any such crime, or any other crime for that matter.
If you're not familiar with the facts of the situation, you should
better educate yourself before you comment.

Lying under oath is perjury.

I thought I had already told you that you might want to better educate
yourself before you continue to demonstrate your ignorance.


You might as well tell a goldfish he should read a book about flying
before he tries it next time.

Or tell Jay to read a book about flying next time he tries it for that
matter.


Bertie

Mike wrote:

There was no perjury. Clinton was never convicted or even so much as
indicted for any such crime, or any other crime for that matter. If
you're not familiar with the facts of the situation, you should better
educate yourself before you comment.


To say he wasn't indicted is somewhat misleading. He was never indicted
because you can't indict a sitting President or Vice President. The vote
by the house to impeach was the indictment. To think that Starr couldn't
have taken what he had and gotten an indictment from any grand jury in
the land shows a huge level of misunderstanding how grand juries work.
As has been said a good prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich. Getting
a conviction is another thing entirely. I remember when either the Starr
Report was published. I read through and there was one place where a
crime had clearly been committed and where there should have been a
conviction. There was testimony from Clinton's secretary that Clinton
told her to lie to the grand jury and it was very specific.

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
Mike wrote:

There was no perjury. Clinton was never convicted or even so much as
indicted for any such crime, or any other crime for that matter. If
you're not familiar with the facts of the situation, you should better
educate yourself before you comment.


To say he wasn't indicted is somewhat misleading. He was never indicted
because you can't indict a sitting President or Vice President. The vote
by the house to impeach was the indictment. To think that Starr couldn't
have taken what he had and gotten an indictment from any grand jury in
the land shows a huge level of misunderstanding how grand juries work.
As has been said a good prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich. Getting
a conviction is another thing entirely. I remember when either the Starr
Report was published. I read through and there was one place where a
crime had clearly been committed and where there should have been a
conviction. There was testimony from Clinton's secretary that Clinton
told her to lie to the grand jury and it was very specific.


First Mike defends FAA Management goons while belittling the
FAA workers who keep those tubes of people from becoming a
pink mist and THEN he defends Bill Clinton!?!?!?!?

Fess up Mike are you a closet Weenie Puffer??
San FAGcisco Rump Ranger perhaps??
Fess up boy

"FREEDOM-OF-SPEECH" wrote in message
...
Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
Mike wrote:

There was no perjury. Clinton was never convicted or even so much as
indicted for any such crime, or any other crime for that matter. If
you're not familiar with the facts of the situation, you should better
educate yourself before you comment.


To say he wasn't indicted is somewhat misleading. He was never indicted
because you can't indict a sitting President or Vice President. The vote
by the house to impeach was the indictment. To think that Starr couldn't
have taken what he had and gotten an indictment from any grand jury in
the land shows a huge level of misunderstanding how grand juries work. As
has been said a good prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich. Getting a
conviction is another thing entirely. I remember when either the Starr
Report was published. I read through and there was one place where a
crime had clearly been committed and where there should have been a
conviction. There was testimony from Clinton's secretary that Clinton
told her to lie to the grand jury and it was very specific.


First Mike defends FAA Management goons while belittling the FAA workers
who keep those tubes of people from becoming a pink mist and THEN he
defends Bill Clinton!?!?!?!?

You're an idiot.


Fess up Mike are you a closet Weenie Puffer??
San FAGcisco Rump Ranger perhaps??
Fess up boy

Are you looking for a date?

Freud said hostility towards homosexuality is simply a defense mechanism
against the subject's own homosexual desires.

It's amazing how much you reveal about yourself, isn't it, GW?

"Gig 601Xl Builder" wrote in message
...
Mike wrote:

There was no perjury. Clinton was never convicted or even so much as
indicted for any such crime, or any other crime for that matter. If
you're not familiar with the facts of the situation, you should better
educate yourself before you comment.


To say he wasn't indicted is somewhat misleading. He was never indicted
because you can't indict a sitting President or Vice President.

False.

The vote by the house to impeach was the indictment.

False. Impeachment and subsequent trial in the Senate can never result in
criminal penalties.

To think that Starr couldn't have taken what he had and gotten an
indictment from any grand jury in the land shows a huge level of
misunderstanding how grand juries work.

You think a sitting president can't be indicted and you pretend to be an
expert on grand juries?

As has been said a good prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich.

And you think that's what makes a "good" prosecutor?

They can also get disbarred for prosecutorial misconduct, sued, and in some
cases even held criminally responsible for their actions as I'm sure Ken
Starr well understood. Try looking up the name Michael Nifong sometime.

Getting a conviction is another thing entirely. I remember when either the
Starr Report was published. I read through and there was one place where a
crime had clearly been committed and where there should have been a
conviction. There was testimony from Clinton's secretary that Clinton told
her to lie to the grand jury and it was very specific.

False.

If you really think there was a criminal case against Clinton, consider how
the entire matter was closed on Clinton's last day of office. Independent
Counsel Robert Ray dismissed all charges in exchange for Clinton's admission
that he had made misleading statements during the Paula Jones deposition
(Which Clinton had already done during the GJ proceedings) and a 5 year
suspension of his law license (that he had no intention of using anyway and
still hasn't renewed to this day). So the sum total of the entire
Independent Counsel investigation which lasted the better part of a decade
and cost $100 million amounted to exactly squat, and that doesn't even count
the numerous congressional investigations. No major administration officials
were ever so much as indicted as a result. Think about that for a moment
and consider everything alleged in those investigations. Whitewater,
Travelgate, FBI files, Vince Foster, and destroying evidence. Then ask
yourself if you can honestly and rationally say Clinton wasn't the victim of
a term long witch hunt. Anything Clinton did wrong pales in comparison to
what was done to him by the other side. That was the travesty of the whole
affair and that was the blight on American politics.

There are those who believe the Clintons were guilty of all the allegations
against them. There are other looneys who believe the Clintons murdered
Vince Foster(and at least 33 other people), murdered the children at Waco,
was responsible for the OKC bombing, the TWA 800 bombing, and thousands of
other equally whacky bits of nonsense. Believe what you want to believe,
just don't start thinking you can convince others who are more rational when
the facts tell a different story.

"Mike" wrote:
"Gig 601Xl Builder" wrote:
He was never
indicted because you can't indict a sitting President or Vice
President.

False.

I thought that was still being debated by constitutional scholars? Has
any sitting President or Vice President ever been indicted? Not even
Agnew was indicted while he was VP:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...C0A96F9582 60

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
"Mike" wrote:
"Gig 601Xl Builder" wrote:
He was never
indicted because you can't indict a sitting President or Vice
President.

False.

I thought that was still being debated by constitutional scholars? Has
any sitting President or Vice President ever been indicted? Not even
Agnew was indicted while he was VP:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...C0A96F9582 60

In effect, Agnew was indicted. The web page you referenced states Agnew
wasn't indicted and received an information instead, however the only way a
person can be charged by an information is if they waive their right to a
Grand Jury. What the story doesn't say is that Agnew tried to use the
argument that he couldn't be indicted per the Constitution, and he KNEW that
argument was going to fail. He also knew the Grand Jury was going to indict
him as the case against him was overwhelming. To say Agnew wasn't indicted
is very misleading.

"Mike" wrote:
"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
"Mike" wrote:
"Gig 601Xl Builder" wrote:
He was never
indicted because you can't indict a sitting President or Vice
President.

False.

I thought that was still being debated by constitutional scholars?
Has any sitting President or Vice President ever been indicted? Not
even Agnew was indicted while he was VP:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...73BF935A35751C
0A96F958260

In effect, Agnew was indicted.

Hmmm. Not sure how I could have presented any clearer evidence except by
one who was intimately familiar with the sequence of events. He does not
appear to have been indicted while sitting as VP.

The web page you referenced states
Agnew wasn't indicted and received an information instead, however the
only way a person can be charged by an information is if they waive
their right to a Grand Jury.

An observation irrelevant to the issue of indictment. The same reasoning
you use that denies any relation, even as possible analogs, between
indictment and impeachment would seem to deny any relation between an
information and an indictment. To do otherwise would be an exercise in
special pleading.

What the story doesn't say is that Agnew
tried to use the argument that he couldn't be indicted per the
Constitution, and he KNEW that argument was going to fail. He also
knew the Grand Jury was going to indict him as the case against him
was overwhelming. To say Agnew wasn't indicted is very misleading.

Prognostication is no substitute for facts and actual events. I'm mildly
surprised you used the "misleading" line as that is an appeal you've
shown no quarter when made by others.

All that said, since Aaron Burr was indicted while still VP for the
murder of Alexander Hamilton (in two states, no less), that argument
appears to have been settled for some time. ;-) Not sure why you didn't
bring Burr up sooner as a counterpoint to my mention of Agnew. The Agnew
case was ambiguous - Burr wasn't. :-)

Ah - but can a sitting president be indicted? Even if he could be, the
constitution grants him the power of pardon - so he could pardon himself!
You should note that the constitution explicitly excludes pardons for
impeachments, so that appears to make it clear that indictment of a
sitting president is a concept void of utility. He first has to be
removed by impeachment. The DoJ argued similarly in 2000 in this long
analysis:

http://www.justice.gov/olc/sitting_president.htm

"Our view remains that a sitting President is constitutionally immune
from indictment and criminal prosecution."

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:6Zcsk.256820$TT4.147231@attbi_s22:

You know what I feel about him, How???

Because your response is typical and I've seen it dozens of times
from those who try to "condemn" the man based on one act that had
practically zip to do with the job.

Um, it doesn't bother you that a seated (and married, sort of)
president used his power and influence to bop a cute (if slightly
plump) little intern in the Oval Office? If your school board
president was caught doing this, he'd be in prison right now. Yet the
president of the United States is above all that because he "otherwise
did a good job"?

What kind of standard is *that*?




One better than the standard that allows you to support a mass murderer.


Bertie