SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Mr. Whist who wrote (167672)8/4/2001 3:53:32 PM
From: Lazarus_Long  Read Replies (2) of 769667
 
What have I said that constitutes a defense of Nixon? (As opposed to recounting the actual facts of the proceedings.)

You said:
"Paula Jone's case should have had to wait until Clinton left office."

I said:
"Should the legal actions against Nixon have waited until he was out of office?
What's the difference? "

You said:
"The difference between criminal charges and civil lawsuits."

I said:
"NONE- -not one- -of the legal actions brought against Nixon were criminal. Should they not have been blocked by your logic? "

You said:
"What legal actions? I don't remember any civil actions against Nixon."

I said:
"1. Impeachment is NOT a criminal proceeding. It is not even civil. Ultimately it is political. He could not be fined or imprisoned simply for being impeached and convicted. Nor could Clinton have been. Nor Johnson. All that would have happened to any of them as a direct result of conviction would be removal from the office of the Presidency.

2. The subpoenas for the tapes that was ultimately appealed to the USSC? That was a civil action.

3. Can you come up with a single criminal indictment against Nixon? "

You said:
"I love it. You're trying to defend Tricky Dicky a quarter-century later through Republican "legalese," i.e., "Can you come up with a single criminal indictment against Nixon?! Well, can you!?" Only a dipstick would argue that line today. "

Now if you consider looking at the facts to be a defense, I guess I'm guilty. Do you?

And back to the start: Why should Slick not have had to face the music? He made the mess. This is a republic; it is not a monarchy. The President is NOT above the law.
Apparently someone forgot to tell that to Slick.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News