Actual Quotes from OBAMA book

Gosh, you are a singularly unpleasant twit, aren't you?

So it's OK for you to analize what I believe, but you can't handle
reciprocation? One of the concepts I learned as a young lad was, "don't
dish it out if you can't take it." You would do well to learn that
lesson, especially since you have a tough time facing the truth.
Furthermore I never engaged in name calling, so try taking a good hard
look in the mirror sometime. You might be surprised at what you find.

I've seen reading comprehension problems here before, but it's not normally
associated with what you, yourself, wrote. Let's see: You didn't engage in
"name calling" when you accused me of "rampant stupidity" (to quote one of
your milder dings)? Somehow your definition of name calling seems to
differ from mine -- as if that's a surprise, coming from someone who can't
understand that lying under oath is wrong.

It's always sad to see someone who held such fleeting promise resort to
personal attacks when their logical house of cards collapses. Fleeing the
field when you can no longer play is so...Bertie-ish. Hmmm... Could you
be....? Nah.

Sorry -- "singularly unpleasant" is about as good as it's going to get for
you, I'm afraid. And "twit" is just too polite.

Back to flying!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
Ercoupe N94856
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote:
[In response to Mike...]
Let's see: You
didn't engage in "name calling" when you accused me of "rampant
stupidity" (to quote one of your milder dings)?

I looked up-thread and that insult came only after you wrote "... 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...."

I may be arguing with Mike also, but he's made some reasonably sound legal
points (in the opinion of this legal lay person). You appear to have been
the party that fully opened the gates to irrelevant character attacks.

Somehow your
definition of name calling seems to differ from mine -- as if that's a
surprise, coming from someone who can't understand that lying under
oath is wrong.

Your definition of name calling differs from mine too - the "game the
system" quote constituted name calling in my book. Plus, Clinton was not
found guilty of lying under oath. If you want to believe he lied under oath
- fine - your _opinion_ was made clear a while back. But you went beyond
that to impugn the character of someone who doesn't accept your opinion as
established fact.

Have fun flying!

"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.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:lVKsk.314241$yE1.254747@attbi_s21...
Gosh, you are a singularly unpleasant twit, aren't you?

So it's OK for you to analize what I believe, but you can't handle
reciprocation? One of the concepts I learned as a young lad was, "don't
dish it out if you can't take it." You would do well to learn that
lesson, especially since you have a tough time facing the truth.
Furthermore I never engaged in name calling, so try taking a good hard
look in the mirror sometime. You might be surprised at what you find.

I've seen reading comprehension problems here before, but it's not
normally associated with what you, yourself, wrote. Let's see: You
didn't engage in "name calling" when you accused me of "rampant stupidity"
(to quote one of your milder dings)? Somehow your definition of name
calling seems to differ from mine -- as if that's a surprise, coming from
someone who can't understand that lying under oath is wrong.

I simply suggested a reason why you keep repeating the same nonsense over
and over despite being told otherwise. A google search on
Lewinsky+infatuation yields over 19,000 results and I can only assume you're
smart enough to do that. If I'm mistaken, let me know and I'll provide more
assistance, or if you have another explanation I'd be glad to hear it.
Furthermore, I clearly explained I was leaning towards another explanation
and I was only referencing only one aspect of your replies, not you as a
whole. Any slight you may have felt was richly deserved.

English is a wonderful language. You should learn how to use it.

Next, I never claimed lying under oath wasn't wrong, so why do you feel the
need to lie? Are you really that desperate to try and convince yourself
you're right?

It's always sad to see someone who held such fleeting promise resort to
personal attacks when their logical house of cards collapses. Fleeing the
field when you can no longer play is so...Bertie-ish. Hmmm... Could you
be....? Nah.

Please, you were making personal attacks several steps up the thread before
I ever described your behavior. If you truly believe this your argument
fell apart quite some time ago and that's giving you the benefit of the
doubt that you had one to begin with. Again I'll suggest you go find a
mirror.


Sorry -- "singularly unpleasant" is about as good as it's going to get for
you, I'm afraid. And "twit" is just too polite.

You have me confused with someone who really cares what you think of me.
From the pictures on your web site you run a 3rd rate hotel(at best) that's
obviously seen better days, and since you'd rather fiddle with a GPS than
spend time flying an airplane I can only guess your flying skills rate about
the same. So why should I or anyone else care about your grade school
insults?

"Englebert" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in
:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:WKxsk.258222$TT4.86817@attbi_s22:

Nothing. Hence, the "OT" (Off Topic) subject heading.

IOW just another way for you to spam.

OMG! Is that a Bertie post accusing someone of spamming this group
by discussing politics!? ROTFLMAO!


Nope, i amm accusing you of spamming because you contiually
advertise your
flea pit hotel in every poast you make, you fjukkkwit.


Bertie

Ok, so I'm accusing you of spamming cuz you won't shut the **** up.
Spamwit.


Which makes you an idiot.


Bertie

John Smith wrote in
:

In article ,
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

I notice that people who take an interest in where other people stick
their jiggly parts are themselves fairly interesting.

Why, thank you... I think? :-))



You're welcome.


No prob.

I alos think that people who live in cardboard boxes are of note.

Bertie

"Wilhelm" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in
:


"Mike" wrote in message
news:Telsk.632$Ro1.589@trnddc04...

Major bull**** snip -

Find a legal reference and do a little research. Perjury is lying
under oath, regardless of it's relevance to a specific crime or
hearing.

Furthermore, you don't have to be indicted or convicted to be guilt of
a crime. If you did it, you did it and you are guilty, Regardless how
the judicial process might later rule and punish you. Lots of guilty
people are found innocent every day, and vice versa.


Yeh, right fjukkktard.



Now apply that criterion to the gang of socipaths you helped elect.



Bertie

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:HvFsk.258755$TT4.202838@attbi_s22:

I find it rather funny how you regard the chubby intern. First she
was "cute", now it's "sweet". Obviously you view young women as just
an object of your own desire and yet you want to preach women's
rights in the same breath. You've been told numerous times that
Lewinsky was no victim, yet you refuse to believe it despite the
overwhelming evidence presented publically for months. So what's the
reason for this? Ignorance can not explain it anymore. It's either
rampant stupidity or perhaps you have one or two fantasies in which
you just can't quite let go. I'm beginning to suspect the latter.
You are more like Clinton than you realize, but you just don't have
the charisma to act on your urges, and perhaps that's what bothers
you the most.

Gosh, you are a singularly unpleasant twit, aren't you?


sense a soulmate?


Bertie

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:lVKsk.314241$yE1.254747@attbi_s21:

Gosh, you are a singularly unpleasant twit, aren't you?

So it's OK for you to analize what I believe, but you can't handle
reciprocation? One of the concepts I learned as a young lad was,
"don't dish it out if you can't take it." You would do well to learn
that lesson, especially since you have a tough time facing the truth.
Furthermore I never engaged in name calling, so try taking a good
hard look in the mirror sometime. You might be surprised at what you
find.

I've seen reading comprehension problems here before, but it's not
normally associated with what you, yourself, wrote. Let's see: You
didn't engage in "name calling" when you accused me of "rampant
stupidity"


Merely a statement of fact.


Bertie

"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