| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 07/19/2002 11:14:21 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Flame war. |
Posted on 07/10/2002 11:04:03 AM PDT by SierraWasp
12:57PM Halliburton responds to Judicial Watch lawsuit (HAL) by Michael Baron Halliburton (HAL) is off 30 cents, or 2.1 percent, to $13.82, in midday action. The company is out with a press release responding to a lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch, a Washington, D.C.-based legal watchdog group. The suit alleges fraudulent accounting practices at Halliburton took place during the period when current vice president Dick Cheney served as its chairman and CEO. Halliburton called the claims in the suit, "untrue, unsupported, and unfounded." The company continued: "We are working diligently with the SEC to resolve its questions regarding the company's accounting procedures. Halliburton has always followed and will continue to follow guidelines established by the SEC and GAAP, General Accepted Accounting Principles."
LOL! It's not even a word. (I swear, you will defend anything we criticize, no matter how ridiculous.)
Oh, my sides...
Do you know of any lawyers that do?
I might be mistaken, but doesn't the lawsuit say what JW thinks Cheney did wrong?
You're really going to continue to defend this?
How about waiting until a crime has been committed. That seems fair right?
Unfortunately, those "cheerleaders" included people like Trent Lott and other cowardly Republicans. These cowards sold out the House Impeachment managers, including Henry Hyde, who was clearly doing the right thing and putting his own political career on the line.
It is too bad that Ken Starr could not dig up more evidence on either Mena or Whitewater.
Even if the President was impeached, there is still room for criminal charges on either the state or federal level.
The murder thing wouldn't wash anyway; it's criminal.
Do you not remember all the discussion when the case went to the Supreme Court about whether Clinton COULD be sued while in office?
He lost that suit, i.e., was found guilty and he was NOT impeached for that because it didn't happen while he was in office.
I agree, that is fair. But since Cheney is in high office and defacto president, he'll be untouchable.
I'm positive it has to be high crimes while in office.
The House Impeachment Managers and Ken Starr went with Monica Lewinksy because of the dress. They had solid proof that Clinton had lied about this affair.
The House Managers and Ken Starr were also looking into Mena and Whitewater; they knew if they could find enough evidence on these two occurances, they would have a solid case for Impeachment. But they couldn't find enough evidence and went with just Lewinsky.
The Constitution says a President can be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors," but it doesn't define the term. Who decides what that means? Columbus, Ohio - 5/3/00
The Congress decides the definition: by majority vote in the House for impeachment, and by 2/3 vote in the Senate for conviction. The Framers of the Constitution deliberately put impeachment into the hands of the legislative branch rather than the judicial branch, thus transforming it from strictly a matter of legal definition to a matter of political judgment. Then Representative Gerald Ford put it into practical perspective in 1970, when he said an impeachable offense is "whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."
"High crimes and misdemeanors" entered the text of the Constitution due to George Mason and James Madison. Mason had argued that the reasons given for impeachment -- treason and bribery -- were not enough. He worried that other "great and dangerous offenses" might not be covered, and suggested adding the word "maladministration." Madison argued that term was too vague, so Mason then proposed "high crimes and misdemeanors," a phrase well-known in English common law. In 18th century language, a "misdemeanor" meant "mis-demeanor,"or bad behavior (neglect of duty and corruption were given as examples), while "high crimes" was roughly equivalent to "great offenses."
Lawyers and historians are still arguing about the exact meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors," dividing into three schools of thought about the appropriate definition: (1) serious criminality evidenced by breaking existing law; (2) an abuse of office, and (3) the Alexander Hamilton standard (Federalist 65) of "violation of public trust."
In our most recent experience with presidential impeachment -- Watergate in 1974 -- the House Judiciary Committee strongly argued that the case for impeachment need not be limited to actual violations of criminal law. In its report, Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment, the Committee argued the definition should go beyond actual breach of law, citing Blackstone's phrase, "an injury to the state or system of government," Justice Joseph Story's phrase, "offenses of a political character," and Edmund Burke's statement at an impeachment trial that the official on trial should be judged "not upon the niceties of a narrow jurisprudence, but upon the enlarged and solid principles of morality." The Committee further stated that historically, Congress had issued Articles of Impeachment in three broad categories: (1) exceeding the constitutional bounds of the powers of the office; (2) behaving in a manner grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the office; and (3) employing the power of the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.
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.