there is no god
i'm not saying anyone has more credibility... i am saying that he was impeached because of what he told Starr about what he said to the grand jury.. all the links to the actual sources and the actual reports are at the bottom of the essay. Your story is correct in the votes etc. but it isn't completely accurate. It is a summaryOriginally Posted by Comic_Peddler
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
Poster
Just to make it clear, we agree that he was in fact impeached, and Biggles is a doo doo head. :-P
there is no god
yes he was impeached..then aquitted....i just wanted to set the record straight about the history of it.
As for Biggles i will not agree with you rather let him make his own response
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
Poster
impeachment won't happen when the president is supported by a majority in congress.
unfortunately the impeachment process wasn't designed as well as it probably should have been. it's basically a parliament-style vote of confidence, conducted under the pretense of being a proper criminal trial. for example: virtually any u.s. president could be properly removed from office for accepting bribes, since doling out political favors in exchange for campaign donations is just a polite form of bribery, right? but does every president get impeached? no, 'cause it's not necessarily about whether he's done wrong or whether he takes bribes or tells lies. it's about his popularity among the congressmen, who are responsible for starting the impeachment process and deciding its outcome.
ideally the congressmen should act as impartial investigators and jurors. but in the realistic absence of impartiality, the impeachment process runs a high risk of amounting to little more than a vote of confidence preceded by a bit of lawyerly posturing. you'd expect the votes, then, to split along party lines or political allegiances... which is what happened, apparently, with the bill clinton impeachment.
that's not to say that the clinton impeachment was more or less frivolous than any other impeachment would be. i mean that impeachment is based on a defective premise: that the trial can be started & decided fairly by a jury which is almost certainly biased, which almost certainly has a conflict of interest, and that it will be essentially different from a vote of confidence.
Last edited by 3RA1N1AC; 11-21-2004 at 05:15 AM.
I'm everything you want
The vote in the house impeached him: he was impeached no matter if it was right or not.
The vote in the Senate on if he were to be charged failed due to "lack of evidence" or actually the lack of republicans.
Thus he finished out his term.
EDIT: nvm, you guys are pretty fast...
Last edited by spinningfreemanny; 11-21-2004 at 05:24 AM.
Do you know everything? do you know 3% of everything? Could it be that what you don't believe in is in the other 97%?
Poster
yeh. and if bush were to be subjected to an impeachment, it'd be a political circus rather than a criminal investigation, and he'd prolly get off by a slim margin due to a shortage of democrats.
Poster
you crack me up
Looking for loopholes
The arcane intricacies of the US impeachment system hold limited interest to me. However, the man is still feted in US society in a way Nixon was not.
As to being a doo doo head - well my kids tell me this all the time, so it must be true.
Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum
I Need Sex
n00b
The same stupid shit, no sense in trying to teach the death to hear.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
you crack me up
The arcane intricacies of the US impeachment system hold limited interest to me. However, the man is still feted in US society in a way Nixon was not.
Bookmarks