inauguration

Originally posted by telerion
Ha ha ha. That second part is really funny.

Don't laugh. They went after Clinton with perjury charges. They are now going after "W" with war crime charges. The trend would indicate that charges will inevitably be brought against Obama at some point for something. In my opinion, such cases are not brought against Presidents to win, rather, simply to smear. That is the main goal. That is the state of American politics currently.

Originally posted by StarValleyWy
If an elite doesn't have to then why should I?

Ask a straightforward simple question and receive a straightforward answer.

Because maybe you're not elite? Maybe?

Originally posted by FMF
"They had a kind of garbled oath," said Fox's Chris Wallace. "It's just conceivable that this will end up going to the courts," he speculated.

By that criteria I'm sure that these genii would claim that Di Spencer never actually married into Royalty. She apparently was marrying some Philip Charles Arthur George, rather than Charles Philip. I wonder what they would have made out of him not bestowing all his "worldly goods" on her, instead vowing only to bestow his "goods" on her.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/29/newsid_2494000/2494949.stm

Originally posted by whodey
Don't laugh. They went after Clinton with perjury charges. They are now going after "W" with war crime charges.

I think the accusations being levelled at Bush are somewhat more complicated and substantial than that. Bush may have committed high crimes and misdemeanors. His impeachable offenses include using lies and deceptions to drive the country into war in Iraq, deliberately and repeatedly violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) on wiretapping in the United States, and facilitating the mistreatment of US detainees in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the War Crimes Act of 1996. He also appears have personally authorized CIA abuse of detainees. He also made some extreme assertions of executive power which may have meant he was not upholding the constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that the Geneva Conventions apply to the treatment of detainees, and a federal judge ruled that the President could not legally ignore FISA. Even Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's recent announcement that the wiretapping program would from now on operate under FISA court supervision strongly suggests that Bush's prior claims that it could not were untrue. Etc. etc.

I think you'd agree these charges are rather more substantial than the ones Clinton faced. Moreover, they have a bearing on the future of the U.S.A., its constitution, and the way it is governed. I would have thought the Right would welcome the vindication that an unsuccessful move against Bush would bring.

Originally posted by FMF
I think the accusations being levelled at Bush are somewhat more complicated and substantial than that. Bush may have committed high crimes and misdemeanors. His impeachable offenses include using lies and deceptions to drive the country into war in Iraq, deliberately and repeatedly violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) on wiretapping in the t the Right would welcome the vindication that an unsuccessful move against Bush would bring.

I am not arguing whether he is guilty or not. What I am arguing is that once one has reached the level of political success that both Clinton and Bush have reached they become somewhat untouchable. For example, if you or I had perjured ourselves like Clinton we would have paid the consequence, however, with Clinton this was not so. It also brings to mind Obamas appointee who did not pay his taxes. If it had been you or I we would be looking at jail time or worse, but for the person in question more than likely nothing will happen to him. I suppose you could argue that Nixon was not "untouchable", however, he was ONLY forced to resign. Other than that all that happened was that they smeared his name which is all that can be hoped for here. You see, these people are above the law because they are the law or have contacts with people who are. In short, there is no accountability in government and it is why we are in such a predicterment as we are now.

Edit: Perhaps there should be a new law that mandates ALL politicians to go to trial after their terms are up. Perhaps they will be a little more careful about doing "bad" things while in office if they are forced to do so.

Originally posted by whodey
if you or I had perjured ourselves like Clinton we would have paid the consequence

Ordinary people are not taken to court and charged for fibbing about whether or not they had a blow job. The prosecution of Clinton on such a flimsy pretext was a complete embarrassment to America. If Bush's allegedly illegal and unconstitutional actions are not submitted to prosecutorial scrutiny on the flimsy pretext of 'unitary executive' it will be a complete embarrassment to America.

In short, there is no accountability in government and it is why we are in such a predicterment as we are now.

So you approve of charges being brought against Busha nd other figures from his administration?

Originally posted by FMF
Ordinary people are not taken to court and charged for fibbing about whether or not they had a blow job. The prosecution of Clinton on such a flimsy pretext was a complete embarrassment to America. If Bush's allegedly illegal and unconstitutional actions are not submitted to prosecutorial scrutiny on the flimsy pretext of 'unitary executive' it will be a complet ...[text shortened]... you approve of charges being brought against Busha nd other figures from his administration?

I would say that any prosecution against a President or former President is an embarrassment to the US. In addition, I would not say that perjury is a flimsy charge no matter the subject matter as to why someone perjured themselves. Don't get me wrong, I believe 100% that Clinton was set up, nonetheless, he took the bait and perjured himself. Had it been you or I facing such charges we would be toast.

As for whether I favor charges against Bush, I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, I believe it to be nothing more than mud slinging as was done with Clinton and it does nothing but embarrass the US on the world stage, however, on the other hand people need to be accountable. I suppose if I thought that people were not going after him for political reasons but really believed the man needed to brought to justice for "crimes" then I could probably get behind such charges. I have no such faith in any of these people though.

Mark my words, nothing will come of it other than mud slinging. If not, then simply count me as wrong about the whole affair. Only time will tell.