jg-
<<or our governmental system may prove you wrong if it dismisses the impeachment.>>
It would do no such thing, jg. A verdict of "not guilty" does not mean the accused is innocent (check out OJ, or any textbook in criminal law). It simply means that the jury did not find the facts presented sufficiently persuasive to convict. In this case, there is a possibility, however remote, that the jury could be swayed by political considerations. So much for the logic of your arguments.
<<your need to belittle those who don't agree with you>>
Either I have not been clear, you are none too observant, or you are intentionally misleading. I do not belittle people simply because they disagree with me. I belittle, if you will, (criticize might be a less loaded term) when they engage in shoddy logic. Unlike the likes of Tomasso I state my reasons when I criticize someone's ideas. Borzou's post contained shoddy reasoning, to the point of stating, as I read it, that Clinton's little dalliance with Monica was insufficient grounds to remove a president. But that's not what Sleazebag Bill is being accused of in the articles of impeachment, so his reference was entirely off-base. It was nonsense.
<<It says a "grand jury" is the ultimate scale of justice, wherein if one lies, doesen't volunteer and confess everything one is guilty of crimes against the Constitution, the rule of law and society>>
How has anything I have said indicated I believe this nonsense? Please be specific. Or have you merely concocted some absurd caricature of what I and others have said in an effort to smear me?
<< the Republican right is pushing the law to its limit and beyond as a political weapon to attempt to unseat a popular President.>>
Perhaps you would be so kind as to justify your little smear against the motives of the "Republican right"? (Senator Lieberman, are you listening?) I suggest you might start by addressing the articulate comments by Andrew McCarthy that Zoltan posted in post 9770. If you come up with some good criticism, that would surely be of interest to this thread. Mouthing off about people "pushing the law to its limit and beyond" without attempting to justify your comments is simply engaging in malicious gossip. Is that what you do?
<< Those in the absolute camp "don't get it" regarding this significant sea change in democratic ideals. >>
Tell me, jg, do these new ideals mean the president is beyond the reach of the law? If so, it's not really new at all. They are called absolute monarchs, or emperors, and it's been tried already. The concept that the sovereign should be accountable to the law is actually much newer. Or would you deny that DOJ would go after a common citizen for doing what Clinton has done under oath? If so, please articulate your rationale, and cite legal precedent if possible. Or are you more comfortable evading that issue?
Please feel welcome to write back to me when you have something intelligent to say.
Larry |
