|
|
 | | Re: High Crimes and Misdemeaners (was Impeachment)
|
| I think you're right, although it seems to imply that a president could be impeached for jaywalking. The upshot appears to be that whatever the House and Senate consider impeachable is impeachable. as evah, John C. (...) (26 years ago, 7-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Impeachment
|
| (...) I did some digging and I could not find it either. Well, somebody ELSE said it was, and I should have verified it before I alleged. But I'd be willing to bet (since you can't call me on it, they're all dead now) that what I outlined was what (...) (26 years ago, 6-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Impeachment
|
| Well ... we could go ad nausium on this subject ... it's getting old ... Now for something completely different ... What about the new Drudge report possibly linking Clinton to a 13-year old boy in Arkansas? (URL) for the whole story. (these guys (...) (26 years ago, 5-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Impeachment
|
| (...) Cool. Thanks for the site. But it does, to my mind, state clearly that lying under oath is perjury. Period. There's no way around it. So we're back to my original point: it's prosecuted so little in this country that turning it into an (...) (26 years ago, 5-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Impeachment
|
| (...) This, to me, is one of the worst things about this whole affair. Saying he didn't have sex with her - ok, that's a lie but I'll grant that it was simply a lie by a gutless adulterer trying to cover his ass. Actually saying things like, "well, (...) (26 years ago, 5-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
