Impeachment hearings: The White House prepares for the worst

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The Bush administration is bracing for impeachment hearings in Congress.

"A coalition in Congress is being formed to support impeachment," an administration source said.

Sources said a prelude to the impeachment process could begin with hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee in February. They said the hearings would focus on the secret electronic surveillance program and whether Mr. Bush violated the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Administration sources said the charges are expected to include false reports to Congress as well as Mr. Bush's authorization of the National Security Agency to engage in electronic surveillance inside the United States without a court warrant. This included the monitoring of overseas telephone calls and e-mail traffic to and from people living in the United States without requisite permission from a secret court.

Sources said the probe to determine whether the president violated the law will include Republicans, but that they may not be aware they could be helping to lay the groundwork for a Democratic impeachment campaign against Mr. Bush.

"Our arithmetic shows that a majority of the committee could vote against the president," the source said. "If we work hard, there could be a tie."

The law limits the government surveillance to no more than 72 hours without a court warrant. The president, citing his constitutional war powers, has pledged to continue wiretaps without a warrant.

The hearings would be accompanied by several lawsuits against the administration connected to the surveillance program. At the same time, the Electronic Privacy Information Center has filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit that demands information about the NSA spying.

Sen. Arlen Specter, Senate Judiciary Committee chairman and Pennsylvania Republican, has acknowledged that the hearings could conclude with a vote of whether Mr. Bush violated the law. Mr. Specter, a critic of the administration’s surveillance program, stressed that, although he would not seek it, impeachment is a possible outcome.

"Impeachment is a remedy," Mr. Specter said on Jan. 15. "After impeachment, you could have a criminal prosecution. But the principal remedy under our society is to pay a political price."

Mr. Specter and other senior members of the committee have been told by legal constitutional experts that Mr. Bush did not have the authority to authorize unlimited secret electronic surveillance. Another leading Republican who has rejected the administration's argument is Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas.

On Jan. 16, former Vice President Al Gore set the tone for impeachment hearings against Mr. Bush by accusing the president of lying to the American people. Mr. Gore, who lost the 2000 election to Mr. Bush, accused the president of "indifference" to the Constitution and urged a serious congressional investigation. He said the administration decided to break the law after Congress refused to change the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

"A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government," Mr. Gore said.

"I call upon members of Congress in both parties to uphold your oath of office and defend the Constitution,” he said. “Stop going along to get along. Start acting like the independent and co-equal branch of American government that you are supposed to be under the constitution of our country."

Impeachment proponents in Congress have been bolstered by a memorandum by the Congressional Research Service on Jan. 6. CRS, which is the research arm of Congress, asserted in a report by national security specialist Alfred Cumming that the amended 1947 law requires the president to keep all members of the House and Senate intelligence committees "fully and currently informed" of a domestic surveillance effort. It was the second CRS report in less than a month that questioned the administration's domestic surveillance program.

The latest CRS report said Mr. Bush should have briefed the intelligence committees in the House and Senate. The report said covert programs must be reported to House and Senate leaders as well as the chairs of the intelligence panels, termed the "Gang of Eight."

Administration sources said Mr. Bush would wage a vigorous defense of electronic surveillance and other controversial measures enacted after 9/11. They said the president would begin with pressure on Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Mr. Bush would then point to security measures taken by the former administration of President Bill Clinton.

"The argument is that the American people will never forgive any public official who knowingly hurts national security," an administration source said. "We will tell the American people that while we have done everything we can to protect them, our policies are being endangered by a hypocritical Congress."

http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/impeachment.htm

[Crushaholic]

I'll be the first to admit the Republicans went fishing for anything to pin on Clinton. This is the same type of deal with the Democrats. The federal government is not eavesdropping on the average American. They are listening in on suspected Al-Quaida members. The government isn't going to listen in on every single telephone conversation in America. That's ridiculous just on principle alone. They are targeting SPECIFIC people. Bin Laden has already threatened another attack on American soil. I want the government to have the ability to stop it in the planning stages. Those "planning stages" are usually conducted via phone conversations...

[enjolras]

I'll be the first to admit the Republicans went fishing for anything to pin on Clinton. This is the same type of deal with the Democrats. The federal government is not eavesdropping on the average American. They are listening in on suspected Al-Quaida members. The government isn't going to listen in on every single telephone conversation in America. That's ridiculous just on principle alone. They are targeting SPECIFIC people. Bin Laden has already threatened another attack on American soil. I want the government to have the ability to stop it in the planning stages. Those "planning stages" are usually conducted via phone conversations...

Prove it. Prove to me that they are only spying on suspected Al-Qeada members.

You can't. You can't because the president wilfully and purposesly side stepped the checks and balances designed to INSURE that they only truly spied on the right people.

If they where really only targetting Al-Qeada members, then should obtaining a warrant really have been any kind of issue at all?

[W*GS]

On the other hand, since LABF always smears the sources others use (e.g., calling them propaganda organs and the like), "Insight" is owned by the Washington Times, which is in turn controlled by the Moonies.

Take those facts into account when seeing "Insight" as a source for LABF's fantasies.

[Crushaholic]

Prove it. Prove to me that they are only spying on suspected Al-Qeada members.

You can't. You can't because the president wilfully and purposesly side stepped the checks and balances designed to INSURE that they only truly spied on the right people.

If they where really only targetting Al-Qeada members, then should obtaining a warrant really have been any kind of issue at all?

You're right. I can't prove that the federal government is not listening in on conversations to a friend. I rely on common sense. Common sense tells me that Bush doesn't care about spying on typical everyday conversations between U.S. citizens. Common sense tells me they are doing this to stop terrorist activity. Why in the hell would the government NEED to listen in on someone making a date for the weekend, for example? This is for the purpose of stopping activity which could harm hundreds, maybe thousands of U.S. citizens. Common sense tells me this.

As far as the warrant is concerned, we're at war with these people. They started this and I would hope the United States will finish this. They don't intend to play nice with us, and I'm not going to play nice with them. I don't mind the rules being thrown out the window if they catch these people in time. the last thing I want is for the government to ignore suspects again and we have another 9/11.

[alkemical]

Why are 80,000 people on the do not fly list?

Why does the FBI list 'defenders of the constitution' as people who are terrorists?

[Garcia Bronco]

I thought it was lame when they did it to Clinton...I think it's lame now as well.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I thought it was lame when they did it to Clinton...I think it's lame now as well.

Unlike Clinton, Bush has violated the Constitution and the law.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Prove it. Prove to me that they are only spying on suspected Al-Qeada members.

You can't. You can't because the president wilfully and purposesly side stepped the checks and balances designed to INSURE that they only truly spied on the right people.

If they where really only targetting Al-Qeada members, then should obtaining a warrant really have been any kind of issue at all?

Bingo.

If Bush just wanted to spy on al Qaeda then the law couldn't have made it any easier for him.

Instead, Bush chose to break the law, and now the WH has mounted another BS promo campaign to whitewash Bush's actions with still more lies and specious arguments.

[Antilles]

As far as the warrant is concerned, we're at war with these people. They started this and I would hope the United States will finish this. They don't intend to play nice with us, and I'm not going to play nice with them. I don't mind the rules being thrown out the window if they catch these people in time. the last thing I want is for the government to ignore suspects again and we have another 9/11.

I assume you mean temporarily throwing the rules out the window, all though I suppose I could be wrong. Of course, the trouble with throwing the rules out the window until the end of the "war" is that it presupposes an end to that war. When does this "war" end? When we catch Osama? When Al Queda is completely eradicated? Don't you think that there are literally hundreds of would-be terrorist organizations that will spring up to fill the void? I am sure you can already think of a few. Terrorism is an idea, not a nation-state and thus cannot be defeated in the span of years, or even decades. I mean, does it not concern you that the war on terrorism has existed, in one form or another, since roughly the beginning of time? Ignoring suspects is one thing (btw, I don't think anyone is advocating this). A permanent extension of executive powers is quite another. I know the quote has been getting a ton of play the past few days, but this is EXACTLY what Franklin feared when he said that those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

[Garcia Bronco]

Unlike Clinton, Bush has violated the Constitution and the law.


Clinton broke the law when he purgered himself in the Paula Jones suit. That's neither here nor there. This country needs to stop trying to remove elected officials from office.

[Crushaholic]

I assume you mean temporarily throwing the rules out the window, all though I suppose I could be wrong. Of course, the trouble with throwing the rules out the window until the end of the "war" is that it presupposes an end to that war. When does this "war" end? When we catch Osama? When Al Queda is completely eradicated? Don't you think that there are literally hundreds of would-be terrorist organizations that will spring up to fill the void? I am sure you can already think of a few. Terrorism is an idea, not a nation-state and thus cannot be defeated in the span of years, or even decades. I mean, does it not concern you that the war on terrorism has existed, in one form or another, since roughly the beginning of time? Ignoring suspects is one thing (btw, I don't think anyone is advocating this). A permanent extension of executive powers is quite another. I know the quote has been getting a ton of play the past few days, but this is EXACTLY what Franklin feared when he said that those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

The war on terrorism is MUCH bigger than catching Bin Laden. This is an unconventional war, like you stated. Terrorism is an idea, not a nation-state. I agree with you on that. However, they have their eyes trained on the United States and the ideals to which we stand. They HATE us. Because this is an unconventional war, this calls for unconventional means. We need to know NOW what these guys are planning, rather than wait for the court bureaucracy to spit out a warrant. Keeping tabs on the bad guys is the only way to keep innocent Americans alive. I shudder to think that the next president could reverse Bush's efforts and let the bad guys continue to plot against the United States. Even if the government wiretapping MY conversations, I have nothing to hide. It's the people who DO have something to hide that makes this action necessary...

[Hogan11]

You're right. I can't prove that the federal government is not listening in on conversations to a friend. I rely on common sense. Common sense tells me that Bush doesn't care about spying on typical everyday conversations between U.S. citizens. Common sense tells me they are doing this to stop terrorist activity. Why in the hell would the government NEED to listen in on someone making a date for the weekend, for example? This is for the purpose of stopping activity which could harm hundreds, maybe thousands of U.S. citizens. Common sense tells me this.

As far as the warrant is concerned, we're at war with these people. They started this and I would hope the United States will finish this. They don't intend to play nice with us, and I'm not going to play nice with them. I don't mind the rules being thrown out the window if they catch these people in time. the last thing I want is for the government to ignore suspects again and we have another 9/11.

Common sense tells me to never trust the goverment.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Clinton broke the law when he purgered(sic) himself in the Paula Jones suit.

Clinton didn't perjure himself in the suit (which, BTW, turned out to be just another dry hole in the GOP's eight-year fishing expedition.)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Because this is an unconventional war, this calls for unconventional means. We need to know NOW what these guys are planning, rather than wait for the court bureaucracy to spit out a warrant. Keeping tabs on the bad guys is the only way to keep innocent Americans alive.

No sane person of any political persuasion disputes this, but this isn't the issue.

The issue is that Bush chose to violate the constitution and the law when it would have been just as easy for him to do what he wanted to do legally.

I shudder to think that the next president could reverse Bush's efforts and let the bad guys continue to plot against the United States.


C'mon now - you don't really believe anyone on either side of the political divide wants this to happen, do you?

Your whole argument erroneously assumes that Bush (or any other president) can't protect the country without breaking the laws of the land and violating the constitution.

Even if the government wiretapping MY conversations, I have nothing to hide. It's the people who DO have something to hide that makes this action necessary...

Once again, this isn't the issue.

The issue is that Bush needs a warrant to wiretap your conversations. Period.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Because this is an unconventional war, this calls for unconventional means. We need to know NOW what these guys are planning, rather than wait for the court bureaucracy to spit out a warrant. Keeping tabs on the bad guys is the only way to keep innocent Americans alive.

But the president doesn't have to wait.

The warrant can be issued retroactively.

That is, Bush can act immediately and get the warrant after the fact.

Still, he chose to circumvent this law/procedure.

[alkemical]

The war on terrorism is MUCH bigger than catching Bin Laden. This is an unconventional war, like you stated. Terrorism is an idea, not a nation-state. I agree with you on that. However, they have their eyes trained on the United States and the ideals to which we stand. They HATE us. Because this is an unconventional war, this calls for unconventional means. We need to know NOW what these guys are planning, rather than wait for the court bureaucracy to spit out a warrant. Keeping tabs on the bad guys is the only way to keep innocent Americans alive. I shudder to think that the next president could reverse Bush's efforts and let the bad guys continue to plot against the United States. Even if the government wiretapping MY conversations, I have nothing to hide. It's the people who DO have something to hide that makes this action necessary...


Well tell me something(s):

Name one country who has won against a prolonged war against an enemy who used 'terrorist' tactics. Infact, i think this country won it's independence from GB using such tactics.


Buy giving up your inalienable rights in the name of saftey you are giving up what the consitution states is ours by birthright.

You trust the current admin doing these things, what happens when an admin you don't like starts doing the same things, and then you realize it's no good and it's far too late to turn back?

How long has the war on drugs been going on?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

If Bush only wanted to spy on al Qaeda or others suspected of terrorist activities, then why wouldn't he do it the legal way - particularly when the law couldn't make it any easier for him?

[Garcia Bronco]

Clinton didn't perjure himself in the suit (which, BTW, turned out to be just another dry hole in the GOP's eight-year fishing expedition.)



He lied about his relationship with his Whitehouse intern. I find it amusing that you curse the Paula Jones suit..yet oppose tort reform.

[W*GS]

Unlike Clinton, Bush has violated the Constitution and the law.

Clinton never violated the Constitution?

Do tell.

[gunns]

Bingo.

If Bush just wanted to spy on al Qaeda then the law couldn't have made it any easier for him.

Instead, Bush chose to break the law, and now the WH has mounted another BS promo campaign to whitewash Bush's actions with still more lies and specious arguments.


Of course they are going to say it was only those who would try to commit another 9/11. It's been the dancing mantra of the Bush admin since 9/11. Put fear in the hearts of Americans and they will follow like sheep....and allow anything Bush says is right.....even if it's wrong.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

He lied about his relationship with his Whitehouse intern.

That he did.

However, he didn't commit perjury.


I find it amusing that you curse the Paula Jones suit..yet oppose tort reform.

That suit was just another fishing expedition by the GOP that led to another dry hole.

And I don't oppose tort reform - I just oppose the corporatist swindle the Corrupt Old Party tries to pawn off on the American people as "tort reform."

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/orwell-monkey-man.gif

[Garcia Bronco]

That he did.

However, he didn't commit perjury.



That suit was just another fishing expedition by the GOP that led to another dry hole.

And I don't oppose tort reform - I just oppose the corporatist swindle the Corrupt Old Party tries to pawn off on the American people as "tort reform."


Look sad little man, he he lied under oath...They settled out of court for 150k I believe. It was a lame lawsuit....but he lied...and he got caught in that lie.

[enjolras]

This country needs to stop trying to remove elected officials from office.

THIS I do agree with. I don't think Bush needs to be impeached, particularly in light of the fact that he was re-elected. We have made their decision, and now we have to live with it. We as a people, by and large, care less about issues and more about emotional ties to one part or another. We care less about finding a president who can apply sound judgement and reasoning, than we do what church he goes to.

In short.. our own biases and ignorance elected a bad president. Twice. Impeachment is meant to be a rarely used weapon, not because we are unhappy with a choice but because a leader has become so corrupt that we have no choice but to remove him.

His actions are wrong, bad, and immoral (particularly in light of the concept of Americanism), but impeaching him isn't the answer. We can't afford to have a revolving door government in which leadership lasts only so as long as a presidents decisions are popular.

Bush likely did break the law, but that needs to be dealt with in other ways that stop short of impeachment.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Look sad little man, he he lied under oath...

No, he didn't.

But you're doing a good W*GS imitation here.

Same old song and dance - when GeeDubya commits a crime, change the subject to Clinton's zipper.

[Hogan11]

Same old song and dance - when GeeDubya commits a crime, change the subject to Clinton's zipper.

I tend to agree with this statement, as I'm seeing a lot of it around (not just here) it's amazing to me to see how far people will go to defend "their guy" even if he's grossly wrong (as W is here).......sure Clinton lied under oath, yup it's a crime no doubt..... but somehow, someway I find wiretapping and secret suvelliance a much more serious breech of the Constitution than someone lying under oath about committing adultry.

[Garcia Bronco]

No, he didn't.

But you're doing a good W*GS imitation here.

Same old song and dance - when GeeDubya commits a crime, change the subject to Clinton's zipper.


He testified that he had not had sexual contact with Monica and he did...and it was proven. You're being dumb and foolish. It's okay sad little man....you can admit it.

[Garcia Bronco]

I tend to agree with this statement, as I'm seeing a lot of it around (not just here) it's amazing to me to see how far people will go to defend "their guy" even if he's grossly wrong (as W is here).......sure Clinton lied under oath, yup it's a crime no doubt..... but somehow, someway I find wiretapping and secret suvelliance a much more serious breech of the Constitution than someone lying under oath about committing adultry.


I think they're both lame...but to each his own.

[W*GS]

But you're doing a good W*GS imitation here.

Same old song and dance - when GeeDubya commits a crime, change the subject to Clinton's zipper.

Don't you ever get tired of getting caught in this same lie time and again?

Provide the URL(s) of my posts to prove your above claim.

Thanks.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

He testified that he had not had sexual contact with Monica....

And, according to the definition of sexual relations he was given by the prosecutors, he was correct.

You're being dumb and foolish. It's okay sad little man....you can admit it.

You have it bass-ackwards again:

Your ignorance re: how these kinds of legal procedings work is the problem here.

But continue making a fool of yourself and deflecting attention from the boy king's crimes if you must.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I tend to agree with this statement, as I'm seeing a lot of it around (not just here) it's amazing to me to see how far people will go to defend "their guy" even if he's grossly wrong (as W is here).......sure Clinton lied under oath, yup it's a crime no doubt..... but somehow, someway I find wiretapping and secret suvelliance a much more serious breech of the Constitution than someone lying under oath about committing adultry.

That's W*GS' and Garcia's job:

When the dry drunk commits a crime, divert our attention to Clinton's wiener.

[Rascal]

Does somebody actually have the court records of Clinton's trial available?

[defenseman]

Look at www.historyplace.com ....look under impeachments and of course Pres. Clinton.....lots of good information here....including whitewatergate..dman

[W*GS]

That's W*GS' and Garcia's job:

When the dry drunk commits a crime, divert our attention to Clinton's wiener.

Don't you ever get tired of getting caught in this same lie time and again?

Provide the URL(s) of my posts to prove your above claim.

Thanks.

[Garcia Bronco]

And, according to the definition of sexual relations he was given by the prosecutors, he was correct.



LMAO Sad Little Man...he's still guilty dumbass...take your head from between your legs.

[Garcia Bronco]

But continue making a fool of yourself and deflecting attention from the boy king's crimes if you must.


Already told ya is was a lame witch hunt...in fact the only thing people are proving by chasing the current President is that they're just as stupid as the other guys. Congrats Sad Little Man.

[Rigs11]

LMAO Sad Little Man...he's still guilty dumbass...take your head from between your legs.

And he how is it that he threatened our civil liberties with his wiener again?This should be good.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LMAO Sad Little Man...he's still guilty dumbass...take your head from between your legs.

Guilty of what? Not perjury, as you claim.

And is the sort of name-calling you're engaging in really appropriate for a mod?

...in fact the only thing people are proving by chasing the current President is that they're just as stupid as the other guys. Congrats Sad Little Man.

If you don't understand the difference between what Bush has done and what Clinton was accused of doing then you are most certainly the sad one here.

How you can go through life simply denying incontrovertable facts is beyond me.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/war-on-comp4.gif

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/touch-monkey3.gif

[Garcia Bronco]

Guilty of what? Not perjury, as you claim.

.

He lied under Oath....he had sexual contact with M Lewinski...which is why congress drew up articles of impeachment and he was tried in congress.....it happened Sad Little Man. You can admit it.


If you would like me to moderate this forum...I'll be glad too. Would you like me to moderate this forum?

[Spider]

LOL GB you are getting abused

[Garcia Bronco]

LOL GB you are getting abused


LOL...him being a lair and you swearing to it. Don't join the Sad Little Man club.

[Spider]

LOL...him being a lair and you swearing to it. Don't join the Sad Little Man club.
I look at this way , some guy gets a hummer off my sister and lying about it , or some guy cvomming into my house and going through my stuff .......... seriously how can you compare the 2 is beyond me , but what ever helps you through this

[Spider]

LOL , the place you reach to defend Bush ............

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

He lied under Oath....he had sexual contact with M Lewinski...which is why congress drew up articles of impeachment and he was tried in congress.....it happened Sad Little Man. You can admit it.

You can't seem to wrap your brain around the way the legal system works, can you?

Before Clinton answered any questions, the prosecutors had to provide a definition of sexual relations.

According to the established definition, Clinton didn't lie when he gave his answers.


If you would like me to moderate this forum...I'll be glad too. Would you like me to moderate this forum?

I'd like to see you act like a mod, i.e., ixnay on the name-calling (especially since I haven't called you any names here.)

..which is why congress drew up articles of impeachment and he was tried in congress....

He was acquitted by the U.S. Senate.

Further, legal experts, law panels, and constitutional scholars from all across America testified that his actions didn't rise to the level of an impeachable offense.

Clinton should have been censured.

Bush should be impeached for crimes that do rise to the level of impeachable offenses.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Educate thyself, GB:

Myth: Clinton committed perjury.

Fact: Clinton’s answers were legally accurate.

Summary

Perjury is knowingly telling a lie under oath, about something that is important to the case. To prosecute a false statement, the government needs to prove somehow that the witness intended to lie, rather than he was mistaken or confused over the facts. To eliminate ambiguity, confusion and opportunities for lying, lawyers often reject common-sense definitions in favor of legal definitions, which are more carefully defined. A witness who answers a legal definition accurately, in spite of what common sense says, is not committing perjury. The only requirement for a defendant is to answer questions accurately; he is not obligated to help the prosecution bring himself down, and has a constitutional right to fight vigorously in his defense. In Clinton’s case, no accusation of perjury survives these observations.

Argument

Many believe that Clinton committed perjury – that is, he lied under oath – during the Paula Jones deposition (January 17, 1998) and the Grand Jury (August 17, 1998). However, the term "perjury" has been thrown around so loosely that it is important to go over its definition.

Perjury occurs when a person takes an oath to tell the truth and then says something he knows to be false. The mere existence of error in someone’s testimony is not enough to prove perjury. The government must prove that the person intended to lie, rather than he was simply mistaken or confused over the facts. The law requires either another witness or some other evidence that supports the accusation of lying under oath. Furthermore, not all lying under oath is perjury. The lie must be material – that is, important or relevant to the case. A murder suspect who falsely testifies that he ate cereal in jail that morning cannot be prosecuted for perjury over that irrelevant lie.

Definitions of lying

It is also important to clarifying what "lying" is, as opposed to "evading," "misleading," or "incomplete answers." In the following examples, let's assume the respondent knows the full truth. Here is an example of a lie:

Q. What color is white?
A. It’s the color of apples.

Here is an evasion:

Q. What color is white?
A. I think it’s six o’clock.

Here is a misleading answer:

Q. What color is white?
A. It’s a reflection of all colors. (Scientifically true, but evoking images of red, blue and yellow in the questioner’s mind does not lead him to the answer he was seeking.)

And here is an incomplete answer:

Q. What color is white?
A. It’s the color of bunnies. (Generally true, but not all bunnies are white.)

Only the first example, the lie, is genuinely deceptive. Evasive, misleading and incomplete answers are all technically true.

The law requires witnesses only to give technically true answers to questions under oath. Indeed, the Supreme Court has ruled that a wily defendent who gives evasive answers is not guilty of perjury. Furthermore, the 5th Amendment guarantees witnesses the right not to incriminate themselves. They are not obligated to volunteer more information than the questioner asks for, or to help the prosecution prove its case against them, or to offer unsolicited clarifications to ambiguous questions. Defendants have a constitutional right to fight vigorously for their defense; their only requirement is to answer the question accurately. It is up to prosecutors to fill in any gaps or dispel any confusion by asking follow-up questions.

In other words, our justice system is based on the adversarial process, in which it is up to prosecutors to prove their case, and defendants to prove theirs (namely, that the prosecution hasn't proven its case). Defendants are not obligated to help prosecutors, and prosecutors are not obligated to help defendants. So if a defendant resorts to evasive, misleading or incomplete answers, that is his right. Prosecutors must overcome any such attempts by asking follow-up questions.

Some might argue, "But the oath says ‘to tell the whole truth.’ An incomplete answer is not the whole truth." True, but no answer is the whole truth. You can describe a hundred things about even the simplest event, like putting down a book. What time of day did you put the book down? What was the book’s title? Where did you lay the book? Was it upside down? Why did you do so? How many pages had you finished? And so on, infinitely. Obviously, you cannot be expected to cram an infinite number of details into one answer. That is what follow-up questions are for.

Problems with prosecuting Clinton for perjury

There are four problems with the charges that Clinton committed perjury.

First, Starr never provided convincing evidence that it was Clinton’s intention to lie, rather than he was mistaken, confused, or honestly believed his interpretation of the court’s definitions.

Second, many of the alleged perjury charges were immaterial (irrelevant) to the case, and cannot be prosecuted.

Third, many of Clinton’s answers were technically true.

Fourth, the Republicans have taken the odd position that where Clinton and Lewinsky’s testimony differ, it must be Clinton who is lying. They conveniently neglect the possibility that Lewinsky might be lying, mistaken, confused, exaggerating the level of her romance, or coerced into her testimony by Starr’s heavy threats of prosecution. We know that Lewinsky entertained highly unrealistic fantasies, like Clinton would leave his wife for her. She also told her friends, family and therapist stories that were either clear lies or fantasies, like she and Clinton had sex in the Oval Office without any clothes on, that the president invited her to accompany him to Martha's Vineyard while the first lady was out of the country, and that the Secret Service took the president to her apartment for a tryst. Her testimony is therefore far from certain.

Perjury and legal definitions

Another common misperception is over the role of legal definitions. A famous example is the definition of "sexual relations." Many people are outraged that Clinton does not consider oral sex to be sex. Obviously, people have a common-sense definition of sex. As one Clinton critic wrote: "Sex is sex is sex is sex. I know sex when I see it."

But although everyone has a "common-sense" definition of sex, few of these definitions agree. In a survey of 600 college students, 60 percent said they would not have "had sex" if the activity were oral-genital contact. (2) This statistic alone is an argument-stopper.

And the more you think about it, the more ambiguous the term "sex" becomes. There is a vast spectrum between an innocent kiss good-by and sexual intercourse. Where do you draw the line? For men who grew up in the 50s and 60s, a common analogy was the baseball diamond: the challenge was to get to first base, second base, third base, and then a home run. No one considered first base to be sex, but fourth base was clearly sex. And what about the differences between fondling, light petting, heavy petting, and sexual intercourse? Or a light hug, a prolonged hug, a romantic embrace and a passionate embrace? Or a platonic massage, a full-body massage and a sexual massage? If sex involves contact with the erogenous zones, then what about people with erogenous zones in unusual places, like their feet, earlobes or the back of their shoulders? Must clothes be on or off? Is lap-dancing "sex"? Is phone sex "sex"? Can you have sex with someone a thousand miles away, even though that person is arousing you? What about passionate encounters that don’t result in orgasm? What about unintentional encounters that do?

The ambiguity of common-sense definitions is what causes lawyers to agree to legal definitions. Legal definitions clearly state what a behavior is and is not. Far from obfuscating and confusing the issue, legal definitions are like dictionaries that clarify meaning and draw lines between concepts. They allow a person to know exactly what he’s talking about. And they not only protect defendants from accidental perjury charges, but allow prosecutors to see perjury more clearly and prosecute it more successfully.

The trick, of course, is to craft good legal definitions. The lawyers for Paula Jones badly bungled their definition of sexual relations, coming up with one that did not include oral sex performed on Clinton. (More on this below.) Clinton answered absolutely truthfully; according to that legal definition of "sexual relations," he did not have sex with Ms. Lewinsky.

Many critics have exploded with rage over this, accusing the president of perjury. Oral sex is obviously sex, they claim. However, their argument is based on the common-sense definition of sex, which both teams of lawyers explicitly rejected. They agreed to a legal definition instead. One cannot simultaneously reject a common-sense definition of sex and then use it to disparage Clinton’s answer.

Other critics point to the illogical implications of Clinton’s answer, namely, that Ms. Lewinsky would have been having sex with him, but not he with her. This would indeed be impossible in the real world of common sense, but it would not be impossible in the theoretical world of legal definitions. (Although such a paradox implies the definition was badly crafted.) Again, it is unfair to judge Clinton’s answers by any other standard than the one he agreed to, and that standard was a legal definition.

Examination of specific perjury claims

The links below examine specific claims of Clinton's perjury. Before delving into these accusations, a quick background is necessary. Clinton is accused of perjury on two occasions:

1. The Paula Jones deposition on January 17, 1998.
2. Starr's Grand Jury hearing on August 17, 1998.

Here is the background to these two events:

In 1994, Paula Jones filed a lawsuit against Bill Clinton, claiming that he had sexually harassed her three years earlier. The Paula Jones case led to a deposition in January 1998, in which the Jones lawyers questioned witnesses about possible sexual activity and sexual harassment involving Bill Clinton. Clinton himself testified before the deposition on January 17, 1998. During this deposition, he denied having "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky, as the court defined the term. His answers convinced his enemies that he had committed perjury. Because Vernon Jordan was involved in both the Whitewater scandal and a job search for Ms. Lewinsky, Ken Starr expanded his Whitewater investigation into the Monica Lewinsky affair. On April 1, 1998, Judge Susan Webber Wright threw out the Jones case, arguing that even if the charges were true, they did not constitute sexual harassment. However, Ken Starr held a Grand Jury hearing on August 17, 1998, in which Bill Clinton was questioned about alleged perjury in his deposition testimony. Clinton's enemies thought his answers in this second round of testimony produced new examples of perjury, and both his testimonies were presented in the Starr Report as grounds for impeachment.

[Garcia Bronco]

I look at this way , some guy gets a hummer off my sister and lying about it , or some guy cvomming into my house and going through my stuff .......... seriously how can you compare the 2 is beyond me , but what ever helps you through this

Him getting a hummer isn't the problem...more power to him.....but if he's asked if he got a hummer in a court of law under oath...he has to be honest. Bill Clinton wasn't honest...and he ruined his legacy in the process. He was the first President I voted for....

When it's proven in a court of law that the administration has done something illegal...I'll be happy to agree with it...but until then...it's nothing but the same finger pointing that's been going on since the democrats lost the election in 2000, and they're no better than the republicans they cursed during Bill Clinton's years in office.

[Garcia Bronco]

"Perjury occurs when a person takes an oath to tell the truth and then says something he knows to be false."

Bill Clinton had sexual contact with ML and he knew he did...ergo...his answer that he didn't was perjury under you own post. He lied under oath...and arguing semantics isn't going to change that. Everybody knew it....I'm glad you can admit it.

[Antilles]

You can't seem to wrap your brain around the way the legal system works, can you?

Before Clinton answered any questions, the prosecutors had to provide a definition of sexual relations.

According to the established definition, Clinton didn't lie when he gave his answers.

He was acquitted by the U.S. Senate.

Further, legal experts, law panels, and constitutional scholars from all across America testified that his actions didn't rise to the level of an impeachable offense.

Clinton should have been censured.

Bush should be impeached for crimes that do rise to the level of impeachable offenses.

You are correct that he didn't "technically" lie, but he certainly mislead the tribunal. Nevertheless, impeachment was not the proper remedy - Henry Hyde admitted as much when he retired. he said that the only reason he voted for the Clinton impeachment was in retaliation for the Nixon impeachment and, if given the choice again, he would have voted against it.

[Rascal]

Educate thyself, GB:

Myth: Clinton committed perjury.

Fact: Clinton’s answers were legally accurate.

Summary

Perjury is knowingly telling a lie under oath, about something that is important to the case. To prosecute a false statement, the government needs to prove somehow that the witness intended to lie, rather than he was mistaken or confused over the facts. To eliminate ambiguity, confusion and opportunities for lying, lawyers often reject common-sense definitions in favor of legal definitions, which are more carefully defined. A witness who answers a legal definition accurately, in spite of what common sense says, is not committing perjury. The only requirement for a defendant is to answer questions accurately; he is not obligated to help the prosecution bring himself down, and has a constitutional right to fight vigorously in his defense. In Clinton’s case, no accusation of perjury survives these observations.

Argument

Many believe that Clinton committed perjury – that is, he lied under oath – during the Paula Jones deposition (January 17, 1998) and the Grand Jury (August 17, 1998). However, the term "perjury" has been thrown around so loosely that it is important to go over its definition.

Perjury occurs when a person takes an oath to tell the truth and then says something he knows to be false. The mere existence of error in someone’s testimony is not enough to prove perjury. The government must prove that the person intended to lie, rather than he was simply mistaken or confused over the facts. The law requires either another witness or some other evidence that supports the accusation of lying under oath. Furthermore, not all lying under oath is perjury. The lie must be material – that is, important or relevant to the case. A murder suspect who falsely testifies that he ate cereal in jail that morning cannot be prosecuted for perjury over that irrelevant lie.

Definitions of lying

It is also important to clarifying what "lying" is, as opposed to "evading," "misleading," or "incomplete answers." In the following examples, let's assume the respondent knows the full truth. Here is an example of a lie:

Q. What color is white?
A. It’s the color of apples.

Here is an evasion:

Q. What color is white?
A. I think it’s six o’clock.

Here is a misleading answer:

Q. What color is white?
A. It’s a reflection of all colors. (Scientifically true, but evoking images of red, blue and yellow in the questioner’s mind does not lead him to the answer he was seeking.)

And here is an incomplete answer:

Q. What color is white?
A. It’s the color of bunnies. (Generally true, but not all bunnies are white.)

Only the first example, the lie, is genuinely deceptive. Evasive, misleading and incomplete answers are all technically true.

The law requires witnesses only to give technically true answers to questions under oath. Indeed, the Supreme Court has ruled that a wily defendent who gives evasive answers is not guilty of perjury. Furthermore, the 5th Amendment guarantees witnesses the right not to incriminate themselves. They are not obligated to volunteer more information than the questioner asks for, or to help the prosecution prove its case against them, or to offer unsolicited clarifications to ambiguous questions. Defendants have a constitutional right to fight vigorously for their defense; their only requirement is to answer the question accurately. It is up to prosecutors to fill in any gaps or dispel any confusion by asking follow-up questions.

In other words, our justice system is based on the adversarial process, in which it is up to prosecutors to prove their case, and defendants to prove theirs (namely, that the prosecution hasn't proven its case). Defendants are not obligated to help prosecutors, and prosecutors are not obligated to help defendants. So if a defendant resorts to evasive, misleading or incomplete answers, that is his right. Prosecutors must overcome any such attempts by asking follow-up questions.

Some might argue, "But the oath says ‘to tell the whole truth.’ An incomplete answer is not the whole truth." True, but no answer is the whole truth. You can describe a hundred things about even the simplest event, like putting down a book. What time of day did you put the book down? What was the book’s title? Where did you lay the book? Was it upside down? Why did you do so? How many pages had you finished? And so on, infinitely. Obviously, you cannot be expected to cram an infinite number of details into one answer. That is what follow-up questions are for.

Problems with prosecuting Clinton for perjury

There are four problems with the charges that Clinton committed perjury.

First, Starr never provided convincing evidence that it was Clinton’s intention to lie, rather than he was mistaken, confused, or honestly believed his interpretation of the court’s definitions.

Second, many of the alleged perjury charges were immaterial (irrelevant) to the case, and cannot be prosecuted.

Third, many of Clinton’s answers were technically true.

Fourth, the Republicans have taken the odd position that where Clinton and Lewinsky’s testimony differ, it must be Clinton who is lying. They conveniently neglect the possibility that Lewinsky might be lying, mistaken, confused, exaggerating the level of her romance, or coerced into her testimony by Starr’s heavy threats of prosecution. We know that Lewinsky entertained highly unrealistic fantasies, like Clinton would leave his wife for her. She also told her friends, family and therapist stories that were either clear lies or fantasies, like she and Clinton had sex in the Oval Office without any clothes on, that the president invited her to accompany him to Martha's Vineyard while the first lady was out of the country, and that the Secret Service took the president to her apartment for a tryst. Her testimony is therefore far from certain.

Perjury and legal definitions

Another common misperception is over the role of legal definitions. A famous example is the definition of "sexual relations." Many people are outraged that Clinton does not consider oral sex to be sex. Obviously, people have a common-sense definition of sex. As one Clinton critic wrote: "Sex is sex is sex is sex. I know sex when I see it."

But although everyone has a "common-sense" definition of sex, few of these definitions agree. In a survey of 600 college students, 60 percent said they would not have "had sex" if the activity were oral-genital contact. (2) This statistic alone is an argument-stopper.

And the more you think about it, the more ambiguous the term "sex" becomes. There is a vast spectrum between an innocent kiss good-by and sexual intercourse. Where do you draw the line? For men who grew up in the 50s and 60s, a common analogy was the baseball diamond: the challenge was to get to first base, second base, third base, and then a home run. No one considered first base to be sex, but fourth base was clearly sex. And what about the differences between fondling, light petting, heavy petting, and sexual intercourse? Or a light hug, a prolonged hug, a romantic embrace and a passionate embrace? Or a platonic massage, a full-body massage and a sexual massage? If sex involves contact with the erogenous zones, then what about people with erogenous zones in unusual places, like their feet, earlobes or the back of their shoulders? Must clothes be on or off? Is lap-dancing "sex"? Is phone sex "sex"? Can you have sex with someone a thousand miles away, even though that person is arousing you? What about passionate encounters that don’t result in orgasm? What about unintentional encounters that do?

The ambiguity of common-sense definitions is what causes lawyers to agree to legal definitions. Legal definitions clearly state what a behavior is and is not. Far from obfuscating and confusing the issue, legal definitions are like dictionaries that clarify meaning and draw lines between concepts. They allow a person to know exactly what he’s talking about. And they not only protect defendants from accidental perjury charges, but allow prosecutors to see perjury more clearly and prosecute it more successfully.

The trick, of course, is to craft good legal definitions. The lawyers for Paula Jones badly bungled their definition of sexual relations, coming up with one that did not include oral sex performed on Clinton. (More on this below.) Clinton answered absolutely truthfully; according to that legal definition of "sexual relations," he did not have sex with Ms. Lewinsky.

Many critics have exploded with rage over this, accusing the president of perjury. Oral sex is obviously sex, they claim. However, their argument is based on the common-sense definition of sex, which both teams of lawyers explicitly rejected. They agreed to a legal definition instead. One cannot simultaneously reject a common-sense definition of sex and then use it to disparage Clinton’s answer.

Other critics point to the illogical implications of Clinton’s answer, namely, that Ms. Lewinsky would have been having sex with him, but not he with her. This would indeed be impossible in the real world of common sense, but it would not be impossible in the theoretical world of legal definitions. (Although such a paradox implies the definition was badly crafted.) Again, it is unfair to judge Clinton’s answers by any other standard than the one he agreed to, and that standard was a legal definition.

Examination of specific perjury claims

The links below examine specific claims of Clinton's perjury. Before delving into these accusations, a quick background is necessary. Clinton is accused of perjury on two occasions:

1. The Paula Jones deposition on January 17, 1998.
2. Starr's Grand Jury hearing on August 17, 1998.

Here is the background to these two events:

In 1994, Paula Jones filed a lawsuit against Bill Clinton, claiming that he had sexually harassed her three years earlier. The Paula Jones case led to a deposition in January 1998, in which the Jones lawyers questioned witnesses about possible sexual activity and sexual harassment involving Bill Clinton. Clinton himself testified before the deposition on January 17, 1998. During this deposition, he denied having "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky, as the court defined the term. His answers convinced his enemies that he had committed perjury. Because Vernon Jordan was involved in both the Whitewater scandal and a job search for Ms. Lewinsky, Ken Starr expanded his Whitewater investigation into the Monica Lewinsky affair. On April 1, 1998, Judge Susan Webber Wright threw out the Jones case, arguing that even if the charges were true, they did not constitute sexual harassment. However, Ken Starr held a Grand Jury hearing on August 17, 1998, in which Bill Clinton was questioned about alleged perjury in his deposition testimony. Clinton's enemies thought his answers in this second round of testimony produced new examples of perjury, and both his testimonies were presented in the Starr Report as grounds for impeachment.

link?

[Rascal]

I look at this way , some guy gets a hummer off my sister and lying about it , or some guy cvomming into my house and going through my stuff .......... seriously how can you compare the 2 is beyond me , but what ever helps you through this

Yeah I would rather have some guy go through my stuff...I guess you don't like your sister :)

[Broncos Rule]

re: Clinton's perjury - quick question Biff - if Clinton did not commit perjury, why was he disbarred by the state of Arkansas?

re: Bush's illegal wire taps: From what I'm reading, the case for impeachment is pretty solid - and willfully subverting FISA perhaps THOUSANDS of times is a far better ovrall reason to pursue impeachment than lying about a blowjob.

[Garcia Bronco]

re: Clinton's perjury - quick question Biff - if Clinton did not commit perjury, why was he disbarred by the state of Arkansas?

re: Bush's illegal wire taps: From what I'm reading, the case for impeachment is pretty solid - and willfully subverting FISA perhaps THOUSANDS of times is a far better ovrall reason to pursue impeachment than lying about a blowjob.


If he's using the taps for political gain....then he needs to be impeached without question, but if it's for homeland security..I've got no problem with it at all.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

If he's using the taps for political gain....then he needs to be impeached without question, but if it's for homeland security..I've got no problem with it at all.

If he is tapping thousands of Americans without using warrants as required he needs to be held accountable. No ONE has the right to illegaly spy on Americans, including him, no matter what he tells his lemmings.

[Mile High Shack]

If he is tapping thousands of Americans without using warrants as required he needs to be held accountable. No ONE has the right to illegaly spy on Americans, including him, no matter what he tells his lemmings.

but you'd be the first to bitch if something like 9/11 happened again and somethign could've been done to stop it, but he didn't

[alkemical]

Not me, i'd rather take that gamble than be treated like a prisoner and wipe the constitution on your ass

[Mile High Shack]

Not me, i'd rather take that gamble than be treated like a prisoner and wipe the constitution on your ass

I'm just saying some people want the best of both worlds

they want to criticize people for not doing enough pre-9/11 then when people try to be pro-active, they bitch about that

it just gets old

it's not like the CIA was listening to me call my mom in montana

[Hogan11]

it's not like the CIA was listening to me call my mom in montana

Are you really 100% sure about that?

I wouldn't trust the goverment as far as I can throw it.

[alkemical]

I'm just saying some people want the best of both worlds

they want to criticize people for not doing enough pre-9/11 then when people try to be pro-active, they b**** about that

it just gets old

it's not like the CIA was listening to me call my mom in montana


Prove they didn't.

I'm not going to argue the politics point, because if a D was in the office doing the same thing, you righties would be throwing your hands up.

My point is, if you have a secret court, with secret warrants, prove that it isn't happening.

[defenseman]

Here's the deal:

-there are provisions for wiretapping "without a warrant" , simple as that. I'm sure there will be groups that entertain the possibility that he wiretapped for "political gain" , I say to them, show me proof. If he did that, I will be the first to recommend impeachment, NO president should do that, ever. However , if he wiretapped as part of a no-kidding belief of the law as written wrt "wiretapping w/o a warrant" , based on his understanding of "FISA and NSA regulations" , and the goal of the taps were to capture information wrt terrorists and their operations? First , I hope he got ALL the information he needed, ANY bit of information wrt the terrorists is valuable, however miniscule. Second, the reason for the requested "tapping" would be one supporting the protection of our own people, even though there is a group of individuals in this country who believe NO ONE should be wiretapped, "they'll believe that right up until someone sticks an AK-47 up their collective a$$es and pulls the trigger", to them I say, find a way to get the info????Can't do it???? Sorry, we need to protect our country. Stand aside, we'll do our best to fall within the bounds of the law, and we are going to find out what the bad guys are doing. I fully support abiding to the rules as written, however, I'm not ready to crucify someone for collecting necessary information on terroristic activities if thats what they were doing, and not politically driven as has been "insinuated". Yeah, fix the problem and move one, but impeachment for trying to collect info on terrorist , assuming thats the reason, no, that doesn't wash. Politically driven? I'd personally be right there with the liberals and calling for his head....dman

[defenseman]

How about,,,you prove they did?????? You dig up hard evidence and show all of us it occurred. If you can't do that, this discussion is nothing more than conjecture and fables...dman

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Bill Clinton had sexual contact with ML and he knew he did...ergo...his answer that he didn't was perjury under you own post. He lied under oath...and arguing semantics isn't going to change that. Everybody knew it....I'm glad you can admit it.

:pity:

Still experiencing those pesky reading comprehension difficulties, eh?

Trying one more time:

All that counts in a legal deposition is the definition of "sexual relations" provided by the prosecutor.

Given the agreed-upon definition, Clinton's answers were legally accurate.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

re: Clinton's perjury - quick question Biff - if Clinton did not commit perjury, why was he disbarred by the state of Arkansas?

BS Rule: Please show where Clinton was convicted for the crime of perjury and/or that Clinton was disbarred for committing perjury.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Here's the deal: there are provisions for wiretapping "without a warrant" , simple as that.

Not when it comes to domestic surveillance.

Were that not the case, then Bush wouldn't be in hot water right now and the WH wouldn't be putting forth one specious argument after another in an attempt to justify his actions.

[Rascal]

:pity:

Still experiencing those pesky reading comprehension difficulties, eh?

Trying one more time:

All that counts in a legal deposition is the definition of "sexual relations" provided by the prosecutor.

Given the agreed-upon definition, Clinton's answers were legally accurate.
I've asked before and I'll ask again...does anybody have the actual court record so that this can actually be determined?

[alkemical]

How about,,,you prove they did?????? You dig up hard evidence and show all of us it occurred. If you can't do that, this discussion is nothing more than conjecture and fables...dman


Dman,

So is tracking vegans part of the terrorists? Or is cordoning off 'free speech zones' for terrorists?

My point is not the political gains side, but how can you have checks and balances if it's all under executive order and done in secret? How can we say that no abuses will happen?

[defenseman]

I'm thinking you may be incorrect, somewhat. IF the source is from out of the country to a domestic "source" inside of the country, I'm thinking it's ok...if ya know what I mean..dman

[Garcia Bronco]

If he is tapping thousands of Americans without using warrants as required he needs to be held accountable. No ONE has the right to illegaly spy on Americans, including him, no matter what he tells his lemmings.


Not if it's done with the utmost good faith to protect the country and it's citizens...but if it's proven that it was done for purely politcal gain. That's where the rubber meets the road as far as I'm concerned.

[Rascal]

Dman,

So is tracking vegans part of the terrorists? Or is cordoning off 'free speech zones' for terrorists?

My point is not the political gains side, but how can you have checks and balances if it's all under executive order and done in secret? How can we say that no abuses will happen?

Personally I can't stand the idea that there is a secret court where they can do this in the first place, and I hope one of the fall outs of this is that practice is eliminated. Who installed that practice anyway?

[alkemical]

I'm thinking you may be incorrect, somewhat. IF the source is from out of the country to a domestic "source" inside of the country, I'm thinking it's ok...if ya know what I mean..dman


I know what you mean dman, but the point is with the classifications of what an 'enemy combatant of the state' is a person 'an enemy combantant'.

If i were to disagree with the status quo, and resist the 'motion of the tide' - how do i know i wouldn't be listed as such?

My point is, it's a slope that i'm unwilling to negotiate on. If it's 'outside' i can make a consession on that, but anything internal to me is a slope i'm unwilling to step near.

[Garcia Bronco]

:pity:

Still experiencing those pesky reading comprehension difficulties, eh?

Trying one more time:

All that counts in a legal deposition is the definition of "sexual relations" provided by the prosecutor.

Given the agreed-upon definition, Clinton's answers were legally accurate.


And that's what I mean when I tell you ...You can't sell that ****. He lied. And the definition for the day doesn't matter. If you want to play that way...your definition dejour was "Perjury occurs when a person takes an oath to tell the truth and then says something he knows to be false." It's a joke that you would try to use an LD debate like tactic to justify your position. Bill did the wrong thing and though trival he got called to the mat.....It happened....and we don't need more of it unless it's completely utterly justfied.

[defenseman]

I absolutely do not believe in secret courts.....agree to the hilt on this one....dman

*Kind of tied up a bit, will get back soon. I'd tell you about my day, however, no one would believe it. Truth is stranger than fiction if you know what I mean.

[alkemical]

I absolutely do not believe in secret courts.....agree to the hilt on this one....dman

*Kind of tied up a bit, will get back soon. I'd tell you about my day, however, no one would believe it. Truth is stranger than fiction if you know what I mean.


No problemO dman - do tell about your day - mine was also a bit twilight zone-ish as well -

[enjolras]

I'm just saying some people want the best of both worlds

they want to criticize people for not doing enough pre-9/11 then when people try to be pro-active, they b**** about that

The problem before 9/11 was not intelligence, but rather the inability to use that intelligence effectively (The whole sharing information problem).

The problem had nothing to do with the fact that the government wasn't trampling on constitutional rights, but rather that it was (and continues to be) so bloated and incongruent that it simply couldn't spot the pattern.

[defenseman]

It doesn't matter to a point. Near the end, his credibility was pretty much shot...dman

[enjolras]

And yes.. Clinton is absolutely a liar. If he perjured himself is up to a highly technical debate, but it doesn't change the fact the man simply lied in a court of law.

[alkemical]

you know if clinton would have came out and said i smoked herb and got my knob slobbed - no one would have really cared

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

but you'd be the first to b**** if something like 9/11 happened again and somethign could've been done to stop it, but he didn't

I can't believe you and so many of your fellow right-wingers are trying to work this specious argument.

If Bush needs to act immediately on some legitimate threat then the law allows him to get a retroactive warrant. That is, he can do whatever survelliance he needs to do and get the warrant after the fact.

Couldn't be easier. Still, he chose to ignore the law.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Not if it's done with the utmost good faith to protect the country and it's citizens...but if it's proven that it was done for purely politcal gain. That's where the rubber meets the road as far as I'm concerned.
And just how would you know who he's spying on if there are no warrants, accountability or checks and balances to prevent abuse?

[Antilles]

Here's the deal:

-there are provisions for wiretapping "without a warrant" , simple as that.

Actually, no. It is not as simple as that. Under current law, at least as I was taught it, you can wiretap without a warrant ONLY in an emergency situation (such as incriminating evidence about to be destroyed or lives in immediate danger). Even then, the attorney general must get court approval within 72 hours after the fact or cease surveillance activity. Bush believes that he has the authority to unilaterally by-pass the warrant requirement based upon his expanded war powers -i.e. as long as we are "at war" with terrorists, every situation is a never-ending emergency. Therefore the issue of whether he was tapping to prevent terrorism or for political gain misses the bigger point. Maybe the Courts will agree with him, and this all goes away. If not, he has by definition, usurped the Constitution regardless of how altruistic his motives may have been.

[Antilles]

Besides, its not like warrants are hard to get. Christ, the fact that someone is making an international call in arbic is probably enough for some judges and the damn secret court has no transparacy anyway. How hard is it to at least make a SHOW of respect for checks and balences?

[defenseman]

Semantics. Here we go again...define sex, define emergency situation. We need the facts on exactly what was done, and how it was accomplished. The "war powers" clause, believe it or not, is a very strong argument for successful intelligence gathering. I'm thinking they are abiding, for the most part with the "written" part of the statuate, however, if a judge were to delay a warrant, and valuable information is lost, who do you blame? The gov because they weren't convincing enough to some judge? Do you blame the judge for being an idiot if the evidence is overwhelming? Do you blame the gov for not blowing off the judge/warrant and collecting said information because it is the right thing to do for our country? Who do you blame? I don't know, my take is , if it is valuable info which can save lives, screw the court, get it and ask for forgiveness later. But, be ready to back your decision to move on without a warrant. Second, if it is ever proven, and I do mean proven, politics was at the root of this whole thing, impeach the man and send him to prison as far as I'm concerned...dman

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

How hard is it to at least make a SHOW of respect for checks and balences?

This is the real issue, IMO.

Bush and his enablers are actively attempting to eliminate such checks and balances and to dismantle the tripartite system of government that has served us for 200 years.

[Antilles]

Semantics. Here we go again...define emergency situation.

I thought I did: emergency situation = incriminating evidence is about to be destroyed or lives are immediately at risk... For the record, "immediately at risk," which is not adequately defined either, means closer to "in the next five minutes" than in the "next five days." At least, it used to.

As for get the evidence now and ask for forgiveness later... THAT'S WHY THE WARRANTS CAN BE GRANTED RETROACTIVELY.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

We need the facts on exactly what was done, and how it was accomplished.

The law is the law, regardless of the specifics of what was done.


The "war powers" clause, believe it or not, is a very strong argument for successful intelligence gathering.

Not according to the law. Further, the congress expressly denied Bush such special powers when it gave him the authorization to take military action in Iraq.

[Broncos Rule]

"We need the facts on exactly what was done, and how it was accomplished."
- dman

You mean , like a congressional hearing?

Cool - glad we're on the same page.

[alkemical]

"Hank, you and your worms are fishing in the past in the days of black and white televisions and a democratically elected congress" - dale from king of the hill

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LOL at the idea of a congressional hearing while the Corrupt Old Party controlls the congress.

That would assume that the house repubs are capable of putting country before party.

The GOP-controlled congress has degenerated into nothing more than a rubber stamp for King George's edicts.

[Broncos Rule]

BS Rule: Please show where Clinton was convicted for the crime of perjury and/or that Clinton was disbarred for committing perjury.


You're freakin' hopeless.. You honestly don't know your boy was disbarred?

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/10/01/scotus.clinton/


but, of course - CNN is nothing but an "organ of the administration".

pathetic.

[Broncos Rule]

And yes Bif - I think the Repube congress will impeach your Boy King -

they will have no choice. His actions in this matter are beyond the pale. Even for them.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You're freakin' hopeless.. You honestly don't know your boy was disbarred?

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/10/01/scotus.clinton/


but, of course - CNN is nothing but an "organ of the administration".

pathetic.

tsk tsk

There you go with your usual distortions.

You asked "if Clinton didn't commit perjury then why was he disbarred?"

(The implication being that the disbarrment somehow constitutes proof that Clinton committed perjury.)

I called you on this erroneous implication, and now you're deflecting.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

And yes Bif - I think the Repube congress will impeach your Boy King -

they will have no choice. His actions in this matter are beyond the pale. Even for them.

I like your optimism, BS Rules, but I will need to see some action before I believe.

Hope you're right.

[Antilles]

I like your optimism, BS Rules, but I will need to see some action before I believe.

Hope you're right.


I don't think Bush will be impeached. Al Gonzales is a very, very bright person as is just about everyone at WH counsel. They aren't going to recommend/endorse a course of action that BLATENTLY violates the constitution. Anything Bush has done will be in an area that is grey enough that there will be a plausable defense argument. Has he violated the spirit (and probably letter of the law)? Certainly. But there will be a shred of an argument left for his ardent supporters to hang their hats... and that's all he needs.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I don't think Bush will be impeached. Al Gonzales is a very, very bright person as is just about everyone at WH counsel. They aren't going to recommend/endorse a course of action that BLATENTLY violates the constitution. Anything Bush has done will be in an area that is grey enough that there will be a plausable defense argument. Has he violated the spirit (and probably letter of the law)? Certainly. But there will be a shred of an argument left for his ardent supporters to hang their hats... and that's all he needs.

I, for one, don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell that the domestic spying matter will ever be prosecuted in any court of law.

We basically have Al Capone for president right now.

[ak1971]

Twins detained for loincloth outrage
HARARE (Reuters) - Zimbabwean twins who became media celebrities for appearing in public wearing nothing but traditional African goatskin loincloths have been detained pending trial for indecent exposure.

ADVERTISEMENT



Yes No

Yes No

Yes No



Harare magistrate Mishrod Guvamombe also ordered the 22-year-old brothers, dubbed the "Terrible Twins" by local newspapers, to undergo psychiatric evaluation, the official Herald newspaper said Friday.

The men, Tafadzwanashe and Tapiwanashe Fichani, raised eyebrows last month when they went to an upscale Harare shopping mall clad only in brief loincloths -- leading several shocked shoppers to call the police.

The twins said they were making
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060127/od_nm/zimbabwe_twins_dc;_ylt=AnQm0inxocjLLPuXnAfV7YPtiBI F;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Twins detained for loincloth outrage
HARARE (Reuters) - Zimbabwean twins who became media celebrities for appearing in public wearing nothing but traditional African goatskin loincloths have been detained pending trial for indecent exposure.

ADVERTISEMENT



Yes No

Yes No

Yes No



Harare magistrate Mishrod Guvamombe also ordered the 22-year-old brothers, dubbed the "Terrible Twins" by local newspapers, to undergo psychiatric evaluation, the official Herald newspaper said Friday.

The men, Tafadzwanashe and Tapiwanashe Fichani, raised eyebrows last month when they went to an upscale Harare shopping mall clad only in brief loincloths -- leading several shocked shoppers to call the police.

The twins said they were making
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060127/od_nm/zimbabwe_twins_dc;_ylt=AnQm0inxocjLLPuXnAfV7YPtiBI F;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

:spamattac

[Spider]

Yeah I would rather have some guy go through my stuff...I guess you don't like your sister :)
Be pissed@ your sister for doing it ..........I guess you dont realize the damage someone can do to you if they get your SS#