OT: What constitutes a "High Crime or Misdemeanor"?

Which is worse? Getting a little nookie on the side in the Oval Office or blatantly violating a law that was specifically passed to protect the rights
of the American people?
--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Glenn Ashmore wrote:

What's most important is what they BOTH did - LIE to the American public. What will they LIE about next, etc., etc.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this
2005 18:24:10 -0500 in rec.crafts.metalworking :

    And where they did the lieing. Democrats seem all upset about a President not telling them everything in public, but not at all about Presidents suborning false testimony in a legal case.
    Hey, if they'll lie about sex, even under oath, what else will they lie about?
toodles pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich.
as an explaination for the decline in the US's tech edge, James
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

or
rights
A lie is a lie, right? So you right wingers decided that you could never believe Clinton again because you caught him in a lie. Bush has been caught in lies too. So how come you still believe him? I guess to you guys what matters is who it is that's telling the lie, not the fact that they are lying.
Hawke
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this
21:54:24 -0800 in rec.crafts.metalworking :

    And lying under oath seems to be perfectly acceptable to the Democrats. So what is their sudden problem with the President not telling them everything?
    Lying under oath, lying in court, lying on TV - all the same, to Democrats. And they couldn't get enough of it, when the lies being told served their cause.
    So why don't you guys tell us once again how the troops were only going to be in Bosnia till Christmas. Oh wait, that wasn't quite a lie, as the President didn't say _which_ Christmas.
    But don't worry, the Osama bin Ladins just fear the Republicans.
tschus pyotr
-- pyotr filipivich TV NEWS: Yesterday's newspaper read to the illiterate.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 18:24:10 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm,

Right. Gettin' head in the Ovulatin' Office wasn't the problem in the former offense. The offenses were lying about it under oath AND allowing tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to be wasted proving it.
And now we have trillions of our dollars wasted over another nothing. Hell, I'm much less comfortable with the world Shrub has given to us than I ever was of Hussein or bin Laden. The farce called "security" at the airport was only the first straw. Bend over, my fellow Americans. More is coming, especially if he pushes the billion plus Muslim population into critical mass. <shudder>
--
Action is eloquence. --William Shakespeare (1564-1616)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Glenn Ashmore wrote:

To answer your heading, any wrongdoing that you can get 1/2 of the house and 2/3 of the senate to agree on.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

rights
It's questionable whether breaking that law is what could get Bush in hot water. If a court determined that Congress had exceeded its authority in limiting the President (I believe the law is questionable in that regard), it would be all over for prosecution under the law.
Where Bush could be in trouble is over violation of the Constitution. I've been trying to dig into Cheney's assertions of Bush's authority today, specifically his role as Commander in Chief, and I don't yet see what they're getting at. He's Commander in Chief of the armed forces, not of the people. He's President of the people, and he has no authority to abrogate the protection against unreasonable searches, no matter what Congress says.
Cheney must have something up his sleeve here but we'd have to see the legal opinions of the Justice Dept. My gut feeling is that they're reaching 'way over the top, trying to justify something close to war powers to spy on US citizens. If the Court followed normal precedent, I don't think they'd get away with it.
But you'd need a Constitutional lawyer for that one. In fact, you'd need several: two to argue with each other, and a third one to tell us what's going on. <g>
-- Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sensible Americans would refer to "our commander in chief" with exactly the same reverence as they refer to "our chauffeur". One is hired to drive our limo, the other is hired to command our military. But the Republicans have tried very hard to sell the alternate implication of "our commander in chief", namely "the person we answer to".
They will not change their tune until "our commander in chief" is ever named Hillary or Barak instead of Dubya.
-- TP
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Politics were set aside when bush's lies only got what 50 somthing % of the vote. The crime started when the sandbox excuse was falsely perpetrated to line the pockets of the family of friends. Correct your mistakes. Impeach him now... vote for someone like Michael Moore! Then find Osama not by accident.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ed Huntress wrote:

The administration is alleging that Congress granted Bush this authority in their use of force resolution regarding Afghanistan. They are sighting a resolution as though it were the act of Congress that was never proposed - a declaration of war. This twisted legal opinion has just been delivered by no less a constitutional scholar than Harriet Meyers herself and Alberto Gonzales. Ali G ain't got nothin' on these guys....
--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In 1972 the Federal Court said the President couldn't spy on US citizens without a warrant.
In 1978 Congress set up the special secret court to rapidly grant warrants. They also required that if the executive branch did have to spy first that the executive branch had to go to the court within 72 hours.
The court has rejected less than one tenth of one percent of the warrants requested (2002-2004).
So if it was so important to listen in, why not just do it and get the warrant within 72 hours? Its been now what 39 months??

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Howard wrote:

The key is they don't want to leave any record of how BROAD the surveillance is. They have hardware that is listening to virtually ALL overseas phone traffic, and attempting to key analysts in on those calls that may have "paydirt" in them.
Jon
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

in
Meyers
The sheer gall of it surprises me.
-- Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ed Huntress wrote:

Ed, It's spectacular for many reasons. Bush has recently been alleged to have disparaged the Constitution to his staff. He has always shown an inclination to act on the belief that he is 100 percent correct in his assessments and judgments. He has exercised himself in the past ( Schiavo ) in an end run around due process and states rights. And he has now publicly admitted the commission of multiple felonies and made direct statements that he would continue to do so while thumbing his nose at the constitution, the Law, the oath of office he swore, and the other two branches of our government all seemingly without the slightest pretext. FISA allows immediate surveillance without consent and you don't get quicker than that. He will, however, gain something very valuable, plausible deniability. Under FISA, it takes a signed document either before or after the fact to get a warrant. That document, and any warrant issued, would bear both the appropriate administration signatures as well as the names of those to be surveilled. It should surprise absolutely no one when the misuse of Bush's executive order comes to light, and we both know it will. Bush and the rest will be able to claim that their ignorance renders them legaly harmless for any such act and they will be correct in that. The manner of their harmlessness is quite another matter. It'll be interesting to see whether our elected representatives take the oath they all swore seriously or not. IOW, are they serious defenders of American freedoms or unprincipled poseurs? That is the only real question on the table.
Absent real concequences for these acts, George Walker Bush has finished the job begun by Osama Bin Laden ad he did it in record time without the necessity of further terrorist attacks inside the continental United States.
Anyone calling themselves an American Patriot ought to have been stopped dead in their tracks with this latest revelation and the administrations attitude regarding and their defense of these acts.
--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
John R. Carroll wrote:

That's a real easy one to answer. Unprincipled poseurs, ... just wait and see.

Osama didn't begin it. It was the result of the crumbling of the US Global Empire. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance8.html )
I have said it many times; the real enemy lies within, not on the outside. It happened to the Roman Empire, The Mongol Empire, The Byzantine Empire, The Ottoman Empire, The Austro-Hungarian Empire, The British Empire, and now ..... elementary Watson, elementary.
Abrasha http://www.abrasha.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Abrasha wrote:

Those who learn from history are condemned to watch others repeat it. --Henry Kissinger
--
Fred R
________________
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<snip>

states
felonies
the
This is why I've cast a wary eye on the neocons ever since the early '70s. The goals of their program is one thing. Their way of thinking and operating is another.
'Way back when Irving Kristol was writing the original apologia for neoconism, it had the scent of admiration for "strongman" politics -- aka, the precursors to dictatorial assumptions of power. They tip their hat to democracy but their real sympathies are with the totalitarian swashbucklers and neofascists who just take power any way they can. You see some of this in their academic idol, Leo Strauss. Under his smooth and calm posturing, Cheney is one of those. And, of course, Rumsfeld and Wolfie. And Bush's Brain, Karl Rove.
Now Bush is running up against the limits to where you can go with this attitude in present-day America. It would have worked better back in the middle of the last century. It appears he may have gone to the well with his "base" once too often. There are a lot of flavors of conservatives, but a substantial segment of them have a libertarian bent, and take Constitutional protections very seriously. I think he senses that enough Republicans in the Senate, and maybe in the House, take them seriously enough that he could lose up-or-down votes over the spying thing. Thus, his recent "humility."
-- Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<snip>

states
felonies
the
I just read a news report that suggests you're being a little harsh with the president. He does seem to be getting it:
=============================== BUSH TO WORLD: MY BAD Vows Never to Make Decision Based On Intelligence Again
Days after admitting that his decision to go to war in Iraq was based on faulty intelligence, President George W. Bush issued a two-word statement to the world: "My bad."
Appearing in front of a giant blue-and-gold placard with the words "My Bad" emblazoned on it, the president lashed out at the faulty intelligence that led to his decision to go to war two years ago.
"Faulty intelligence got us into this mess," Mr. Bush said. "But I have learned my lesson, and I will never make another decision based on intelligence again..."
================================= Full story at: http://www.borowitzreport.com/archive_rpt.asp?rec 82&srch Today's top story has to be encouraging, too:
================================= TERROR SUSPECTS TO RECEIVE FREQUENT FLIER MILES New Program Makes Rendering Rewarding, Condi Says
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice today acknowledged that the United States often flies terror suspects to foreign countries to be interrogated by means not allowed in the U.S., but said that the government was instituting a new program by which the suspects would receive frequent flier miles for their journeys.
Insiders say that the government's new Terror RewardsT program may be intended to make the practice of rendering - by which suspects are shuttled from country to country for the purpose of interrogation and torture - more palatable to the international community...
================================== Full story at: http://www.borowitzreport.com/default.asp
-- Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ed Huntress wrote:

LOL That's funny! I watched the Cheney interview last night. It wasn't. These guys are true believers. Their behavior is acceptable because it's them doing this stuff. I can't believe how many are buying in to that nonsense.
--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.