Posted on 02/16/2007 5:27:21 PM PST by Chi-townChief
Thus, a man can be indicted (impeached) for an alleged perjury in a civil trial over private sexual behavior (usually meriting only a civil punishment), and he could be deposed if two-thirds of the Senate accepted the evidence
***Baloney. Perjury would be punishable by jail time for an ordinary mortal.
I hope they actually try this crap. Of course, it's really for all the moonbats in their base. Such a move would go nowhere and only expend capital.
Nobody's talking impeachment except this bird.
Alleged?
(usually meriting only a civil punishment)
Tell that to Martha Stewart who served time for lying about a legal (no insider trading) stock trade.
By the way...since when is perjury a civil offense? Even in civil proceedings? I'd really like to know that.
I hope they push for impeachment. They'll lose and it will help us next election
Ironic, some want to impeach the man who will someday be on Mount Rushmore.
this what you mean.....
http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec98/albright_11-12.html
http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml
on clinton
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/
Hillary Clinton: No regret on Iraq vote
Completely hypothetical and correct me if I am wrong here:
If President Bush were impeached, and he was removed from office by the Senate, that would put Vice President Cheney in as President unless he was also impeached and removed from power.
Would that put Nancy Pelosi as President?
I'm not entirely sure how succession goes in that case.
After...
"Thus, a man can be indicted (impeached) for an alleged perjury in a civil trial over private sexual behavior" ...
all I saw was blah, blah, blah, yaddah, yaddah, yaddah, more of the same lib crap, blah, blah, blah, yaddah, yaddah, yaddah, more of the same lib crap,...
:O)
P
I want to heartily thank the 9 Senate rats who could have changed history by changing their vote to convict Clinton in 1998.
If these 9 would have done that, Gore would have immediately become president, would have won the next election in 2000. Gore would have then tried to nogotiate "peace" with Osama following the attacks on the WTC. Saddam would be in power, North Korea would be continually threatening us.
Again, my endless thanks to those 9 rats who refused to buck the party line and vote for conviction.
At the time in 1998, we were all upset about Clinton getting away with perjury by lying under oath.
God works in mysterious ways.
Great post. Thanks.
"Would that put Nancy Pelosi as President?"
No.
A new veep would be selected within moments after Cheney became Prez.
Well it would put to rest that bigger jet she wants
Thanks for that post.
I know a few libs who are getting these quotes in their e-mail.
Nope, not valid. They are lies, and everyone in Congress knows it.
Really? Wouldn't any of us go to jail for it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.