Subject:
|
Re: Impeachment
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 31 Dec 1998 23:28:17 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
beaker@pobox.[spamless]com
|
Viewed:
|
309 times
|
| |
|
|
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 *is* a felony ... he lied to a federal
grand jury. There are no federal-level misdemeanors.
/ _ _ / _ _ The early buyer gets the bugs.
()(-(//((-/
============= Jim Baker -- Weather Weasel Extraordinaire ==============
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Impeachment
|
| Jim, I do find your argument fairly convincing, at least in the abstract. We shouldn't lie under oath. We should be punished for lying under oath. That assumption should hold. (...) I guess this is a point where we disagree. I would argue based on (...) (26 years ago, 2-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Impeachment
|
| 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 (...) (26 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
|
|
|
|
