| |
What is actually meant by "High crimes and misdemeanors"? Is it
a grandiose crime that is considered a felony? Or is it a crime by
an official in a high office ... Like the President?
Should there be two sets of laws? You or I would be prosecuted
for doing something that Clinton did. From your tone of your
response, I would have to agree with you.
Beaker wrote:
> I do see your point. I think we actually agree on everything except
> whether the crime meets the standard of 'high crimes and misdemeanors'
> ... I respect your opinion, and note your concern for the future of the
> presidency, but I cannot get around my personal belief that a public
> official believing he is above the law constitutes a high crime in and
> of itself. It is an abuse of public trust and undermines the notion
> that our elected officials are public servants. Whether it's Bill
> Clinton lying on the stand or a traffic cop turning on his lights to run
> a traffic light he doesn't want to wait for, it's an abuse of a trust
> that makes our government rather unique and precious.
>
> / _ _ / _ _ Don't like it? Direct all flames to
> ()(-(//((-/ miotch@havoc.gtf.gatech.edu
> ============= Jim Baker -- Weather Weasel Extraordinaire ==============
--
Lee Jorgensen, Programmer/Analyst - Bankoe Systems, Inc.
mailto://jorgensen@bankoe.moc <-- reverse moc
mailto://ljorgensen@NOSPAM.uswest.ten <-- reverse ten
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Impeachment
|
| (...) The latter. high is a modifier of "crimes and misdemeanors" and refers to the office held by the alleged perpetrator. See the Federalist Papers. Once, long ago, I even posted a URL to an online version. The other parsing doesn't make much (...) (28 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Impeachment
|
| Also sprach Lee Jorgensen: : What is actually meant by "High crimes and misdemeanors"? Is it : a grandiose crime that is considered a felony? Or is it a crime by : an official in a high office ... Like the President? Here's a point: Clinton's crime (...) (28 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Impeachment
|
| Also sprach John Cromer: : I would not say "testimony under oath must be truthful" is a throw-away : issue. It is not, however, in my opinion, the cornerstone that underpins : our legal system. I am convinced that people lie under oath every day in (...) (28 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
16 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
