Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sea_biscuit who wrote (86228)	10/26/2007 10:22:59 AM
From: one_less	Respond to of 93284

You are lying ... again. "Clinton was proven innocent." Clinton’s legacy is muddled not by one but by numerous allegations of abuse of authority, a tendency to dishonor with regards to personal character, a wit and cleverness that was most noted when expressed in subtle deceit, violations of oath and of personal loyalties, promotion of elitism and entitlement at the expense of principle. I generally try to avoid comments on the personal characteristics of politicians but clinton made his personal life an issue for judgment in the public courts and for all of us through his attempts at collusion of citizenry. Had we agreed to look the other way when he used his office to destroy the lives of citizens we would be guilty as accomplices ... actually those of you who tried to get us to look the other way are. That women swooned, the media fawned, or the world embraced him is no surprise and not necessarily a compliment to any of them/you. Clinton lied, was found guilty of lying by Judge Write in a summary judgment, and he admitted his guilt. All this was a matter of formal court proceeding. Summary judgments do not require the scenario presented by you. Although Judge Wright decided to find Clinton in civil contempt, she seemed to be saying that Clinton should be prosecuted for criminal contempt. Her language would have justified the ASCCPC citing Rule 8.4(b) in the disbarment petition. The court did address it thus: ”This is not to say that the Court considers other instances of possible Presidential misconduct in this case unworthy of the Court's attention. In fact, the Court fully considered addressing all of the President's possible misconduct pursuant to the criminal contempt provisions set forth in Fed.R.Crim.P. 42, but determines that such action is not necessary at this time for two primary reasons. ... ” Was it criminal? It was obviously criminal to all reasonable persons. Was that made clear in court? Yes it was. Was it necessary to prosecute it? No, the court was tasked with disbarment and it would have been beyond the scope of necessary evidence. If we look only at Judge Write's judgment we see that the nature and consequence clearly qualifies as criminal. Sanctions for contempt may be criminal or civil. If a person is to be punished criminally, then the contempt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but once the charge is proven, then punishment (such as a fine or, in more serious cases, imprisonment) is imposed unconditionally. The civil sanction for contempt (which is typically incarceration in the custody of the sheriff or similar court officer) is limited in its imposition for so long as the disobedience to the court's order continues: once the party complies with the court's order, the sanction is lifted. The contemnor is said to "hold the keys" to his or her own cell, thus conventional due process is not required. The burden of proof for civil contempt, however, is a preponderance of the evidence, and punitive sanctions (punishment) can only be imposed after due process. Clinton was not punished consistent with civil sanctions he was punished consistent with criminal contempt. Bottom line, however, is ask any reasonable man if lying in court is perjury, serious, and criminal. Test of reasonable man, they aren't confused about what the meaning of 'is' is or what 'sexual relations' is. That probably excludes you. Clinton lied in court and was caught. You are defending him for his unethical behavior because you lie too.