parados wrote:Oral sex was SPECIFICALLY REMOVED from the definition used. Even Lewinsky's lawyers agree that the definition didn't include it. Kind of hard to lie about something that the questioner even felt didn't include. If the person asking the question and the person answering both felt that oral sex wasn't part of the question then where is the lie?
The term "sexual relations" was defined. There were no such restrictive definitions for "sexual relationship" and "sexual affair", which Clinton also denied.
And while I'm thinking of it, there was no restrictive definition of "alone" when Clinton lied and said he and Lewinsky was never alone.
parados wrote:Perjury requires more than testimony of one witness. . . . No perjury charges can be brought on testimony of one witness without cooberating evidence of some kind.
Where does it say that?
parados wrote:Currie testified that Lewinsky asked Currie to come get the gifts.
And Lewinsky said that she made no such call.
parados wrote:No one ever testified that Clinton ordered Currie to do it.
Lewinsky said that Currie called and said "I understand you have something to give me." Or, "The President said you have something to give me" -- [Something] [a]long those lines.
parados wrote:Cite the law that would cover it.
My guess is that they were referring to:
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 73 - OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
Sec. 1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant
parados wrote: oralloy wrote:And Curry's testimony about what Clinton said when he tried to coach her to lie.
He tried to coach her? LOL. That is a stretch. No one testified he coached her. He asked her a question, that doesn't equate to coaching.
He asked her to confirm a series of untrue statements, in a way that could only imply that he wanted her to use the untrue version of events in her testimony.
parados wrote:Your standard seems to be one person's word against another proves perjury but many people's words doesn't prove anything when it comes to Bush.
I've not seen many people provide testimony that Bush committed perjury. Not even one person, in fact.
parados wrote:ROFLMAO.. The govt has to be the victim in order for impeachment?
If the impeachment is about a high crime, yes.
parados wrote:That is too rich ORalley,
Who is ORalley?
parados wrote:How is the govt the victim in a civil lawsuit?
Perjury is a crime against justice, not a crime against a person.
parados wrote:And now the govt isn't the victim if Bush violates the law?
That depends on the law.
parados wrote:If they aren't covered by Geneva than there is no legal document that covers holding them until the end of the war. Geneva is the document that allows for holding people until the end of hostilities.
The customary laws of war would apply where there is no written treaty.
And some of the detainees fall under Geneva 4, and can be held under that document as a type of unlawful combatant.
parados wrote:And this definition can be found where? Unless you have a supreme court ruling in hand , there is no definition that defines them as they are used in the Constitution.
That is incorrect. The definition can be had simply by doing a little research into it.
The Democrats did such research back in 1974:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/watergatedoc.htm
parados wrote:And when Bush went around the FISA court and didn't get the warrants required by the law he undermined the court and the legislature. Gee, Both the court and the legislature are government entities.
Had Bush got the FISA court to issue warrants by misleading them, I can see how that would count as undermining their proceedings.
But by simply breaking the law he did not undermine the court or the legislature.
parados wrote:oralloy wrote:Joe Nation wrote:So this particular case is a two step: not only did he violate the laws on intelligence gathering without warrants (Amd IV and the Foreign Intelligence Security Act)
The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit reasonable searches.
Unless you've got a Supreme Court ruling in hand to the effect that these searches are unreasonable, there is no violation of the Fourth Amendment.
False argument. The Courts have ruled that govt can't invade privacy without a warrant. The reverse is actually true. The law enforcement agency is the one that has to prove that there was probable cause.
That is incorrect. The courts allow searches without warrants. Mandatory breathalyzer checkpoints to catch drunk drivers are one example of warrantless searches.
parados wrote:You aren't familar with the Geneva convention it seems. There is no uniform requirement in Geneva. It only requires an insignia for regular troops. Citizens that take up arms when an opposing army invades does NOT require any insignia. When the US invaded Afghanistan ALL persons whether they had insignia or not would have been covered under that section.
That is incorrect. "Citizens who take up arms as the enemy approaches" only covers people who stay at home and who only fight when the war reaches their doorstep.
If people go to join a group of irregulars, Geneva 3 requires that they wear a proper uniform in combat.
snood wrote:But the problem with you "seeing evidence" oralloy, is that if George Bush walked up and peed on your leg, you wouldn't see evidence of anything but that it was a little damp out that day.
I hope you start making reasonable arguments again soon.
Brandon9000 wrote:Roxxxanne wrote:Brandon, trying to reasons with cultists is a waste of time.
You present your case, and then simply insult anyone who disagrees. No matter how you spin it, it's improper debate, and not very good behavior.
I see you noticed that too.....
oralloy wrote:parados wrote:Oral sex was SPECIFICALLY REMOVED from the definition used. Even Lewinsky's lawyers agree that the definition didn't include it. Kind of hard to lie about something that the questioner even felt didn't include. If the person asking the question and the person answering both felt that oral sex wasn't part of the question then where is the lie?
The term "sexual relations" was defined. There were no such restrictive definitions for "sexual relationship" and "sexual affair", which Clinton also denied.
Lets just pretend that the transcript doesn't remove oral sex. Then lets pretend that the lawyers for Jones didn't agree that oral sex wasn't in the definition. Hate to tell you this but it doesn't work that way in perjury law. If Jones' lawyers think oral sex was removed there is NO WAY it can be perjury. (I meant Jones lawyers in my earlier post.) Perjury law states if the question is confusing then it can't be perjury. The simple fact that Jones attorney's think oral sex was removed from the definition make it impossible for it to be perjury.
Quote:parados wrote:Perjury requires more than testimony of one witness. . . . No perjury charges can be brought on testimony of one witness without cooberating evidence of some kind.
Where does it say that?
US Attorney's handbook..
Quote:The "two witness" rule, derived from common law, governs the proof required for a perjury conviction under Section 1621. Weiler v. United States, 323 U.S. 606, 609 (1945). The rule means that a perjury conviction may not rest solely on the uncorroborated testimony of one witness. United States v. Hammer, 271 U.S. 620, 626 (1926). The two witness rule, however, does not require two witnesses to every perjurious statement. The falsity of the perjurious statement may be established either by the testimony of two independent witnesses or by one witness and independent corroborating evidence that is inconsistent with the innocence of the accused. Weiler, 323 U.S. at 610. Also, the second witness need not fully corroborate the first, but must substantiate the other's testimony concerning the defendant's perjurious statement. United States v. Chaplin, 25 F.3d 1373, 1381-82 (7th Cir. 1994).
Quote:parados wrote:Currie testified that Lewinsky asked Currie to come get the gifts.
And Lewinsky said that she made no such call.
Quote: The same principle applies here too. 2 people with different testimony is impossible to charge.
Quote:parados wrote:No one ever testified that Clinton ordered Currie to do it.
Lewinsky said that Currie called and said "I understand you have something to give me." Or, "The President said you have something to give me" -- [Something] [a]long those lines.
Meaningless from a standpoint of showing Clinton obstructed Justice. No cooberating evidence with 2 different recollections from the only 2 people involved.
parados wrote:Cite the law that would cover it.
Quote:My guess is that they were referring to:
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 73 - OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
Sec. 1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant
And perhaps you should read the law. Obviously Clinton didn't threaten bodily harm or death so the first half doesn't apply. This is the second half
Quote:(b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly
persuades another person, or attempts to do so,
parados wrote: oralloy wrote:And Curry's testimony about what Clinton said when he tried to coach her to lie.
He tried to coach her? LOL. That is a stretch. No one testified he coached her. He asked her a question, that doesn't equate to coaching.
He asked her to confirm a series of untrue statements, in a way that could only imply that he wanted her to use the untrue version of events in her testimony.
And this met the standard of "attempted to persuade" how? Clinton never asked her to lie. Currie never stated she was pressured to lie. It doesn't meet the standard of the law. "coaching" is not Currie's words. She never stated she felt coached. Unless the witness felt some pressure there can be no obstruction.
parados wrote:Your standard seems to be one person's word against another proves perjury but many people's words doesn't prove anything when it comes to Bush.
I've not seen many people provide testimony that Bush committed perjury. Not even one person, in fact.
You were complaining about people saying Bush lied. Trying to weasel out of it now doesn't change the fact that you have a different standard for Bush than you do for Clinton.
Interesting. The research in 1974 doesn't say at all what you claimed.
It states..
Quote:The "first and principal" high misdemeanor, according to Blackstone, was "mal-administration of such high officers, as are in public trust and employment," usually punished by the method of parliamentary impeachment
Mal-administration? You mean like not running the govt well? Hmm... Seems to be the exact thing that was listed here earlier that you took issue with.
oralloy wrote:
But by simply breaking the law he did not undermine the court or the legislature.
I am curious as to why if one person breaks the law it undermines the court and if another breaks the law it in no way undermines the court.
One little problem here Oralloy, Bush took an oath to uphold the law. You have just admitted he broke the law but you are willing to let a President break the law. The entire argument during the Clinton impeachment was President was not above the law. Now you are arguing the the President IS above the law?
Breaking the law is maladministration. There can be little question of that.
This is from the legal definition of maladministration when applied to lawyers
Quote:failure to follow procedures or the law
failure to provide information
inadequate record-keeping
failure to investigate
failure to reply
misleading or inaccurate statements
inadequate liaison
inadequate consultation
broken promises
parados wrote:Lets just pretend that the transcript doesn't remove oral sex. Then lets pretend that the lawyers for Jones didn't agree that oral sex wasn't in the definition. Hate to tell you this but it doesn't work that way in perjury law. If Jones' lawyers think oral sex was removed there is NO WAY it can be perjury. (I meant Jones lawyers in my earlier post.) Perjury law states if the question is confusing then it can't be perjury. The simple fact that Jones attorney's think oral sex was removed from the definition make it impossible for it to be perjury.
The term you are talking about them removing oral sex from was "sexual relations".
What does that have to do with Clinton denying that he engaged in a "sexual relationship" or a "sexual affair"?
parados wrote:US Attorney's handbook..
Quote:The "two witness" rule, derived from common law, governs the proof required for a perjury conviction under Section 1621. Weiler v. United States, 323 U.S. 606, 609 (1945). The rule means that a perjury conviction may not rest solely on the uncorroborated testimony of one witness. United States v. Hammer, 271 U.S. 620, 626 (1926). The two witness rule, however, does not require two witnesses to every perjurious statement. The falsity of the perjurious statement may be established either by the testimony of two independent witnesses or by one witness and independent corroborating evidence that is inconsistent with the innocence of the accused. Weiler, 323 U.S. at 610. Also, the second witness need not fully corroborate the first, but must substantiate the other's testimony concerning the defendant's perjurious statement. United States v. Chaplin, 25 F.3d 1373, 1381-82 (7th Cir. 1994).
OK, I'll concede that point.
parados wrote:oralloy wrote:My guess is that they were referring to:
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 73 - OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
Sec. 1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant
And perhaps you should read the law. Obviously Clinton didn't threaten bodily harm or death so the first half doesn't apply. This is the second half
Quote:(b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly
persuades another person, or attempts to do so,
I would consider Clinton's actions to fall under "corrupt persuasion".
parados wrote:oralloy wrote:parados wrote:He tried to coach her? LOL. That is a stretch. No one testified he coached her. He asked her a question, that doesn't equate to coaching.
He asked her to confirm a series of untrue statements, in a way that could only imply that he wanted her to use the untrue version of events in her testimony.
And this met the standard of "attempted to persuade" how? Clinton never asked her to lie.
He never verbally requested her to lie, but his series of inaccurate questions was clearly a "read between the lines" type of attempt to make such a request.
parados wrote:Currie never stated she was pressured to lie. It doesn't meet the standard of the law. "coaching" is not Currie's words. She never stated she felt coached. Unless the witness felt some pressure there can be no obstruction.
Simply asking someone to lie wouldn't amount to obstruction?
parados wrote:You were complaining about people saying Bush lied. Trying to weasel out of it now doesn't change the fact that you have a different standard for Bush than you do for Clinton.
I accept that all politicians lie. However, the allegation that "Bush was lying when he said the UK had learned Saddam was trying to buy uranium" is false, because the UK claims that they had learned that.
parados wrote:
Interesting. The research in 1974 doesn't say at all what you claimed.
It states..
Quote:The "first and principal" high misdemeanor, according to Blackstone, was "mal-administration of such high officers, as are in public trust and employment," usually punished by the method of parliamentary impeachment
Mal-administration? You mean like not running the govt well? Hmm... Seems to be the exact thing that was listed here earlier that you took issue with.
Maladministration would fall under "high misdemeanor". Those aren't crimes exactly.
My point about "being against the state" was in relation to "high crimes", as I was dealing with a claim that the violation of the FISA statute was a high crime.
Another high misdemeanor (abuse of power) has been alleged here, but I've yet to see any evidence to back it up.
parados wrote:I am curious as to why if one person breaks the law it undermines the court and if another breaks the law it in no way undermines the court.
It has to do if the crime actually interferes with the court fulfilling its functions.
parados wrote:One little problem here Oralloy, Bush took an oath to uphold the law. You have just admitted he broke the law but you are willing to let a President break the law. The entire argument during the Clinton impeachment was President was not above the law. Now you are arguing the the President IS above the law?
No, I am just arguing that the remedy for breaking the FISA law is not impeachment because it isn't a high crime.
parados wrote:Breaking the law is maladministration. There can be little question of that.
This is from the legal definition of maladministration when applied to lawyers
Quote:failure to follow procedures or the law
failure to provide information
inadequate record-keeping
failure to investigate
failure to reply
misleading or inaccurate statements
inadequate liaison
inadequate consultation
broken promises
That is interesting. The Framers replaced "maladministration" with "high crimes and misdemeanors" because they thought "maladministration" was too broad a term. Yet maladministration would seem to be part of "high crimes and misdemeanors".
I'll have to think about that one a little bit.
parados wrote:But somehow Brandon fails to address the cited laws at the top of the page after he spent so much time demanding that we cite them.
This morning, on my way to work, is the first time I've seen them. After being here for awhile, I leave A2K and go about my life, you know. And, furthermore, one should cite evidence for one's assertions whether I ask for it or not.
You have exerpted a statute here. Now it would be helpful if you would describe the violation of it which you are alleging. What was it that the president did, and what part of what you exerpted did it violate?
Brandon,
Are you asking whether Bush has admitted to wiretapping US persons without a warrant? He has admitted to it. There is no other way to interpret his statements or the legal arguments made by the AG to congress.
The law states precautions must be put in place to prevent US person's communications from being intercepted without a warrant. It is hardly a precaution to prevent it if Bush does it deliberately with executive order. There can be little question that Bush failed to follow FISA. The administration has laid out its argument to go around FISA. FISA doesn't cease to exist because the administration went around it. They ignored the law. They broke it.
In case you need help on the law. I bolded the portions that apply.
In the law, US person is defined as anyone residing in the US legally. It isn't restricted to US citizens. The Bush adminisrtation has claimed to have wiretapped US citizens without a warrant in the case of lyman Faris.
parados, I nominate you to receive the first annual A2k Patience of Job Award.
ORalloy,
So, let me see if I have your argument correct. The President can't be impeached if he goes out and personally shoots 12 people in cold blood because the crime would not be against the government. Does that sum up your argument? We do know if a President did shoot 12 people he couldn't be indicted while he was President. So your argument would mean a President could shoot 12 people on the day of his innaguration and the country would have no recourse or ability to remove him. That assumes none of the 12 people work for the government. If he shot a single Senator however then he could be impeached. Am I getting your argument correct here?
Sorry, I don't buy it. If the President breaks the law with intent to do so he can be impeached. Plain and simple. Bush may have been given bad legal advice which would mitigate impeachment circumstances but his continued insistance that the law doesn't apply reduces that mitigation.
parados wrote:Brandon,
Are you asking whether Bush has admitted to wiretapping US persons without a warrant? He has admitted to it. There is no other way to interpret his statements or the legal arguments made by the AG to congress.
The law states precautions must be put in place to prevent US person's communications from being intercepted without a warrant. It is hardly a precaution to prevent it if Bush does it deliberately with executive order. There can be little question that Bush failed to follow FISA. The administration has laid out its argument to go around FISA. FISA doesn't cease to exist because the administration went around it. They ignored the law. They broke it.
In case you need help on the law. I bolded the portions that apply.
In the law, US person is defined as anyone residing in the US legally. It isn't restricted to US citizens. The Bush adminisrtation has claimed to have wiretapped US citizens without a warrant in the case of lyman Faris.
Thank you. I know a little about it, but clearly must investigate further.
The good news for George, the bad news for us.
Kabuki Congress 9NYT 3/6/2006 (EMPHASIS MINE)
Imagine being stopped for speeding and having the local legislature raise the limit so you won't have to pay the fine. It sounds absurd, but it's just what is happening to the 28-year-old law that prohibits the president from spying on Americans without getting a warrant from a judge.
It's a familiar pattern. President Bush ignores the Constitution and the laws of the land, and the cowardly, rigidly partisan majority in Congress helps him out by rewriting the laws he's broken.
In 2004, to take one particularly disturbing example, Congress learned that American troops were abusing, torturing and killing prisoners, and that the administration was illegally detaining hundreds of people at camps around the world. The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, John Warner, huffed and puffed about the abuse, but did nothing. And when the courts said the detention camps do fall under the laws of the land, compliant lawmakers simply changed them.
Now the response of Congress to Mr. Bush's domestic wiretapping scheme is following the same pattern, only worse.
At first, lawmakers expressed outrage at the warrantless domestic spying, and some Democrats and a few Republicans still want a full investigation. But the Republican leadership has already reverted to form. Senator Arlen Specter, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has held one investigative hearing, notable primarily for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's refusal to answer questions.
Mr. Specter then loyally produced a bill that actually grants legal cover, retroactively
Mr. Specter's bill at least offers the veneer of judicial oversight from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. A far more noxious proposal being floated by Senator Mike DeWine, Republican of Ohio, would entirely remove intelligence gathering related to terrorism from the law on spying, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Let's call this what it is: a shell game. The question is whether the Bush administration broke the law by allowing the National Security Agency to spy on Americans and others in the United States without obtaining the required warrant. The White House wants Americans to believe that the spying is restricted only to conversations between agents of Al Qaeda and people in the United States. But even if that were true, which it evidently is not, the administration has not offered the slightest evidence that it could not have efficiently monitored those Qaeda-related phone calls and e-mail messages while following the existing rules.
In other words, there is not a shred of proof that the illegal program produced information that could not have been obtained legally, had the administration wanted to bother to stay within the law.
The administration has assured the nation it had plenty of good reason, but there's no way for Congress to know, since it has been denied information on the details of the wiretap program. And Senator Pat Roberts, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, seems bent on making sure it stays that way. He has refused to permit a vote on whether to investigate the spying scandal.
There were glimmers of hope on the House side. Representative Heather Wilson, the New Mexico Republican who heads one of the subcommittees supervising intelligence, called for a "painstaking" review of the necessity and legality of the spying operation. But the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Peter Hoekstra, is turning that into a pro forma review that would end with Congress rewriting the foreign-intelligence law the way Mr. Bush wants.
Ms. Wilson still says that the House needs to get the facts before it rewrites the law, and we hope she sticks to it. But she's facing a tough race this fall, and her staff has already started saying that, well, she never called for "an investigation," just "an oversight review."
Putting on face paint and pretending that illusion is reality is fine for Kabuki theater. Congress should have higher standards.
====
So what we have here is a Presidential pardon, only this time it's the President who is being pardoned. Thanks Congress, thanks for standing up for those principles you guys always talk about in your re-election commercials.
Joe(Hey, can you fix a parking ticket?)Nation
Oralloy isn't a name. Oralloy was America's World War II codeword for weapons-grade uranium. It was short for Oak Ridge Alloy, also a codeword for weapons grade uranium.
Today it is no longer a secret code, but oralloy is still used as a term for U-235 enriched to 93.5%.
I find nuclear weapons fascinating, and so adopted oralloy for my ID.
parados wrote:So, let me see if I have your argument correct. The President can't be impeached if he goes out and personally shoots 12 people in cold blood because the crime would not be against the government. Does that sum up your argument?
Pretty much.
parados wrote:We do know if a President did shoot 12 people he couldn't be indicted while he was President. So your argument would mean a President could shoot 12 people on the day of his innaguration and the country would have no recourse or ability to remove him.
He could be charged upon leaving office.
parados wrote:That assumes none of the 12 people work for the government. If he shot a single Senator however then he could be impeached. Am I getting your argument correct here?
Perhaps not even then. It would depend on why he shot the Senator.
parados wrote:Sorry, I don't buy it. If the President breaks the law with intent to do so he can be impeached. Plain and simple.
Well, there is nothing to prevent Congress from impeaching a president simply for wearing a blue tie. However, if they impeached him for something other than high crimes and misdemeanors, they'd be violating the Constitution.
Joe Nation wrote:The good news for George, the bad news for us.
When Congress helps the President fight al-Qa'ida, that is good for us.
Joe Nation wrote:In 2004, to take one particularly disturbing example, Congress learned that American troops were abusing, torturing and killing prisoners, and that the administration was illegally detaining hundreds of people at camps around the world.
Not quite. The torture and abuse is illegal. Detaining enemy combatants is just fine.
Joe Nation wrote:Mr. Specter then loyally produced a bill that actually grants legal cover, retroactively
Good. But the traitor who exposed the program still needs to be caught, prosecuted, and executed.
Joe Nation wrote:the administration has not offered the slightest evidence that it could not have efficiently monitored those Qaeda-related phone calls and e-mail messages while following the existing rules.
Probable cause would get in the way of doing it legally.
Joe Nation wrote:Fold up the Constitution before George uses it as a placemat.
Joe
Too late, Joe. George already used it to wipe his butt and has flushed it down the toilet.
