Actual Quotes from OBAMA book

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."

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
"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.

I didn't claim as much. The Agnew case was an example you gave. I merely
filled in the blanks missing from the article. As far as I'm concerned the
Agnew case was an excellent example of how the implied immunity argument
failed. Agnew tried it and abandoned it. If the argument had any merit, he
most certainly would not have.

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.

Hardly. A McIntosh and a Granny Smith may have two different flavors, but
they are both apples. An indictment and an information are both formal
charges of a crime and are merely two different flavors of the same thing.
An impeachment is a formal charge of official misconduct and can only lead
to removal from office. It has nothing to do with criminal law and can only
be described as an orange compared to the other two. Just because the two
have parallel processes doesn't mean they are the same or even close to
being the same. The rules of evidence mean nothing in an impeachment. Case
law means nothing in an impeachment. The potential punishments stemming
from the two aren't even close. There's no right of appeal in an
impeachment. I could go on and on. It's apples and oranges.

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.

Example?

So it's OK for you to speculate that a sitting president can't be indicted
by using the Agnew case, but I can't speculate based on the same case that
he most certainly would have had he not cut a deal? You might want to be
more careful before you cry goose and gander.

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. :-)

Because this is not my assertion to prove or disprove in the first place and
I feel no obligation to do so.

The Burr case is probably less relevant. Burr was indicted by a state Grand
Jury many years before the 14th amendment was ever written.

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."

And who does the DOJ work for? Do you honestly expect them to write an
opinion that says their boss can be indicted expecially during a time when
they may be indicted? That would be kind of like your own lawyer selling
you out.

There's lots of problems with the Bork opinion. It wouldn't hold much water
if ever tested. Bork also presided over the Saturday Night Massacre around
the same time. I regard his opinions as highly as I would the village
idiot's. Furthermore Ken Starr concluded he COULD indict Clinton while
still in office, although he never tested that. Numerous law professors
agreed. There may have been a few that went the other way, but I never saw
any.

A sitting president could pardon himself even before an indictment. So the
utility of an indictment before or after impeachment is the same.

"Mike" wrote in news:XfPsk.830$lf2.338@trnddc07:

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
"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/fullpage.html?res=
9D03E7D6173BF935A3575
1C 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.

I didn't claim as much. The Agnew case was an example you gave. I
merely filled in the blanks missing from the article. As far as I'm
concerned the Agnew case was an excellent example of how the implied
immunity argument failed. Agnew tried it and abandoned it. If the
argument had any merit, he most certainly would not have.

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.

Hardly. A McIntosh and a Granny Smith may have two different flavors,
but they are both apples. An indictment and an information are both
formal charges of a crime and are merely two different flavors of the
same thing. An impeachment is a formal charge of official misconduct
and can only lead to removal from office. It has nothing to do with
criminal law and can only be described as an orange compared to the
other two.

Not so, it could also, and more accurately, be described as an apricot.


Bertie