(plame) is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury; Signifying nothing.

William Shakespeare (1564–1616), British dramatist, poet. Macbeth, in Macbeth, act 5, sc. 5.

"And that, in a bizarre twist, really boils down to anger on the left that they failed to steal the Presidential election that year."

It's my recollection that the left won the popular vote and the presidency was awarded by the Supreme court. Exactly how did they try to "steal it". By having the most votes?

"It didn't take me any real effort at all to determine that Plame wasn't undercover and thus couldn't be "outed"".

Really? I've asked this before, and you've always ignored it, but I'll ask again: prove it. You say that Plame was known to be a CIA agent before Robert Novak's article. Prove it. Show me the article, blurb, etc. dated before Novak's article that states that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent. (And no, documents showing that Valerie Plame was Joe Wilson's wife do not count. This isn't the issue and you know it. Nor does hearsay count, no stories about someone hearing Wilson say something in the green room.)

You claim that it was easy to discover this, then surely you can enlighten me with this document. Let's see it, Mark. If you are right, then I will publicly apologize right here about the Plame issue. If not, then I would expect you to apologize for making s**t up.

Let's suppose, just for laughs, that you're right about the "Plame kerfluffle." You're not, in my opinion, but let's say that you are.

If, indeed, the whole matter boiled down to angry Democrats scapegoating poor, defenseless, innocent Karl Rove and that Scooter got busted not for actually doing anything wrong, but for LYING about not doing anything wrong, it reminds me of a story:

It's a story about a President who is investigated, unmercifully, by an overzealous prosecutor. He is viciously attacked for various made-up, imaginary acts of badness. A real estate deal is probed. Nothing comes of it. Travel staff is fired, the investigation yields nothing. A staff member commits suicide, the President is implicated in the death by his enemies and he is actually accused of murder by many of them. Turns out not to be true. None of it.

On and on it goes, investigation after investigations, millions of legal bills piling up until, at last, the prosecutor finds out that the President engaged in a dalliance with a young lady at the same time that he is being accused in a sexual harrassment case. The President is dragged into a dep and questioned under oath. The President does not tell the truth about his dalliance. And for this, and this alone, he is actually brought before the House of Representatives and impeached.

Not for any of the other "scandals" which are devoid of any merit. No, no. For the perjury, lying about a personal sexual encounter. THIS is worth removing a President from office.

But Scooter? He was railroaded. Poor guy. The outing of Plame, to distract from the yellowcake lies? Doesn't matter. The fact that the Niger documents were known to be forgeries before the State of the Union address? Who cares?

It's just a "kerfuffle." No big deal. Right?

Not for any of the other "scandals" which are devoid of any merit. No, no. For the perjury, lying about a personal sexual encounter. THIS is worth removing a President from office.

It was about committing perjury, under oath, by the Highest Constitutional Officer of the United States, and in so doing, violated the civil rights to due process of an ordinary citizen--a citizen whose rights he (Clinton) vowed to protect via his oath of office.

But then, since it was the rights of one of the "little people" in "flyover country"--that wouldn't matter to you libs, would it? After all, Bill Clinton is your Icon, and therefore to question his scruples is tantamount to heresy.

Remember, Nixon was driven out of office for lying, too--and for far less of an infraction, if you ask me.

cyber - Libby didn't get busted for "LYING". Two of his testimonies disagreed. They were about converstaions he'd had months previously and didn't consider all that important at the time. The charge against him is based on the presumption by the prosecuter that they WERE important to him in his mind and so he DOES remember them.

It's sad that you people can't see past your hatred to let an innocent man go free. You and your party of the most mean spirited and pathetic group of people in the country. No wonder the Klan was 99.99% Democrat.

Oh - and the Clinton sex lies were relevent because he was being accused by former employees of sexual harassment. No-one cared if he was getting BJ's in the White House. What they cared about was that many women who used to work for him said they had been presured for sex. Looking for a continuation of that pattern was (and is) legitimate.

But you guys had fun jumping on the accusers. Trailer trash, slut, what else did you call them? And yet, N.O.W. was OK with it. It's OK when a Democrat is a pig. It's OK to attack women in the press, if you're a DEmocrat. It's OK to pressure employees for sex - if you're a Democrat. It's OK to lie under oath about something that is obviously pretty damn important to you - if you're a Democrat.

The Democrats in the Senate who swore to vote on the facts broke that promise. Obviously Clinton had lied under oath and they chose to vote "not guilty." Well, you'll notrice that Clinton had to pay Paula Jones, was dis-barred, and called guilty by the courts. It was NOT about Lewinsky - it was about Jones.

Hypocrits.

Dontcha love the way the right-wing spin machine works? You have to admit, it's pretty funny:

When Clinton does it, he has committed perjury, under oath...and in so doing, violated the civil rights to due process of an ordinary citizen.

When Libby does it? Heeeey, relaaax. Two of his testimonies "disagreed." Big deal. Take a chill pill, dude.

Hilarious.

Nice three quarter pike, Cyber... (golf clap)

Try for a triple twist next time.

And yes, indeedy, the Democrats swore to vote on the facts. And what they said was, "Yes, Clinton committed perjury. But no, it does NOT rise to the level of 'high crimes and misdemeanors' that would justify removal from office." And, in case you didn't notice, the crucial votes to keep Clinton in office were cast by....

....Republicans.

Ooooh, dat's gotta hoit!

Psyche,
The Clintoistas are obsessed with sex; we already know that. Cyber is typical of the BDS crowd; no fact too big to ignore, no evidence to firm to twist, no conspiracy too absurd to be believed. You’ll note Cyber brought up the forged documents just as Joe Wilson did to prove his point. We all know the problem with those documents, but Cyber can’t or won’t accept the truth about Wilson’s lying and clings to this “evidence” as proof of the conspiracy.

Nixon, in my opinion, was a scoundrel, who was rightly driven from office (by the Republicans, btw). He spent the remaining years of his life admitting his personal and professional failures, and spoke of the character flaws and demons that pushed the “long national nightmare” that was Watergate. Clinton will never admit that the scandals (plural) were his doing; will never admit that Jim Guy tucker, the McDougals and all the other indicted and disgraced were victims of the serious misdemeanor on the part of the Clintons.

Cyber,
Just who was the citizen deprived of due process by Libby?

Cyber,
Maybe you can explain to the assemblage what a “high crime” is and how does a crime “rise” to that level.

You see, most of us already know the common law origin of that term, your repeating it as the democrats did during the impeachment implies (as does your previous statements) that you have not used any critical thinking and only regurgitate the left-wing talking points.

FYI, the term “high crime” from British Common Law means any crime committed by a person in high office.

Again… there should prosecutions!!! That is – prosecutions of an inept, deceitful and malicious prosecuting attorney!

His “MIS” treatment of reporters…
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20050707/ai_n14804944

His extreme LACK of investigative skills.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/05/opinion/main1967945.shtml

And especially… his willful abuse of powers.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5819

When someone gives disagreeing statements they are most likely not telling the truth. Simple as that.

"Remember, Nixon was driven out of office for lying, too--and for far less of an infraction, if you ask me."

Thats nuts. Nixon :Contempt of Congress,Abuse of Power,Obstruction of Justice vs. perjury. Nixon resigned to save his tail and was the only President to do so to this day.

"No wonder the Klan was 99.99% Democrat."

Not true Kahn. At one point it was primarily democratic but not nearly 99% as you boast. It switched very early to a Repuplican majority. So the KKK was "99.99%" Republican as well. Read up...

"The new Klan differed from the original one in that while the first Klan had been Democratic and Southern, this new Klan, although it still boasted members from the Democratic Party, was to a greater degree Republican and was influential throughout the United States, with major political influence on politicians in several states.

In the 1920s and 1930s a faction of the Klan called the Black Legion was very active in the Midwestern U.S. Rather than wearing white robes, the Legion wore black uniforms reminiscent of pirates. The Black Legion was the most violent and zealous faction of the Klan, and were notable for targeting and assassinating communists and socialists.

In addition, Klan groups also took part in lynchings, even going so far at to murder Black soldiers returning from World War I while they were still in their military uniforms.[46] The Klan warned Blacks that they must respect the rights of the white race "in whose country they are permitted to reside."[47]"

"the Klan helped elect sixteen men to the U.S. Senate (nine Republicans and seven Democrats) eleven Governors (six Republicans, five Democrats) and an unknown number of Congressman."[17]"

Bane:

>>FYI, the term “high crime” from British Common Law means any crime committed by a person in high office.

This, ladies and germs, is pure poppycock. If it were true, then a President could be impeached for a moving violation.

Bane, if you've got one shred of evidence to back up that ridiculous assertion, by all means, dredge it up. I can't wait.

"Any crime." What a joke.

Now, if you want to talk about, say, misleading a country into an unnecessary war, authorizing the torture of prisoners, violating the Geneva Conventions...these are pretty high crimes if you ask me.

Now, if you want to talk about, say, misleading a country into an unnecessary war, authorizing the torture of prisoners, violating the Geneva Conventions...these are pretty high crimes if you ask me.

Man Cyberactor--any other strawman DNC talking points that Howard Dean asked you to pass along???

Have a glass of Kool-Aid.

Can't pass THIS up:

"Clinton will never admit that the scandals (plural) were his doing; will never admit that Jim Guy tucker, the McDougals and all the other indicted and disgraced were victims of the serious misdemeanor on the part of the Clintons."

Two things: apart from Monica and Paula (which are separate from the actual "scandals" Starr was supposed to be investigating), what scandals were "his doing"?

Also, the phrase "the serious misdemeanor"? To what, exactly, are you referring? How was Jim Guy Tucker a victim of the Clintons?

(Here's why I love this: getting a GoOPer to explain Whitewater is a RIOT. Remember, folks, during the course of the Whitewater investigation, FIFTEEN people were indicted on Federal charges. And not ONE of the charges actually related to the Whitewater real estate deal. Now watch Bane do his thang!)

Morphie,
Clinton was charged with perjury and Obstruction of Justice. Both are crimes, both cost him his Bar Card. Neither Clinton nor Nixon should be exalted for breaking the law while in office. Both should have been removed from office by the Senate; Nixon ran from office rather than face the complete humiliation; Clinton wears disgrace like a badge of honor.

Thomas E Patterson, Harvard University, “The origins of the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" comes from English Common Law in 1386. The phrase not only referred to common criminal acts but also acts such as "maladministration" (i.e., incompetence) or other serious political offenses such as ‘misconduct in office.’”emphasis added

How about Hamilton: "Men in public trust will much oftener act in such a manner as to render them unworthy of being any longer trusted, than in such a manner as to make them obnoxious (subject) to legal punishment." Misdemeanor: behaving badly, like Clinton lying in a deposition to save his sorry ass from a lawsuit.

Jon Roland, constitutional society; “I have carefully researched the origin of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" and its meaning to the Framers, and found that the key to understanding it is the word "high". It does not mean "more serious". It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.”

That’s the end of the history lesson; if you want to research Starr, the Paula Jones case in which Clinton lied, obstructed justice and attempted too suborn perjury from a witness, do your own research. If you want to know about the testimony provided by Clinton in the case against Tucker and the McDougals, read it for yourself.

This thread is about your innate inability to accept the facts about Wilson/Plame.

Bane shoots and.....CLANK! No good!

His argument: “High crimes” include ANY CRIME committed by a person in high office.

His source: Thomas E Patterson, Harvard University.
The money quote: “The phrase not only referred to common criminal acts but also acts such as "maladministration" (i.e., incompetence) or other serious political offenses such as ‘misconduct in office.’”
Why it doesn’t work: Because it includes the word “serious.” Not “any.” Not “all.” But “serious.” That’s what makes them “high crimes.” Also, it refers to doing your job poorly and ‘misconduct in office’ (Clinton’s crime had nothing to do with his job.)

Next up:

His source: Alexander Hamilton.
The money quote: "Men in public trust will much oftener act in such a manner as to render them unworthy of being any longer trusted, than in such a manner as to make them obnoxious (subject) to legal punishment."
Why it doesn’t work: First, because it is completely unrelated to British Common Law. Second, because it doesn’t relate to the phrase “high crimes” in any fashion. Third, no one said Clinton should not be subjected to “legal punishment.” The point is, his crime was not an impeachable offense.

Next?

His source: Jon Roland, Constitutional Society.
The money quote: “I have carefully researched the origin of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" and its meaning to the Framers, and found that the key to understanding it is the word "high". It does not mean "more serious". It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.”
Why it doesn’t work: Where do I start? For the unfamiliar, Jon Roland is a NUTCASE. How do I know? Read for yourself. Here’s his bio: http://chnm.gmu.edu/digitalhistory/links/cached/chapter7/link7.45a.jonroland.html

Cuckoo! Cuckoo! I mean, I hate to shoot the messenger, but when the messenger is a screaming loon, well...you get out the old blunderbuss, you know?

I am also invited to: “ research Starr, the Paula Jones case in which Clinton lied, obstructed justice and attempted too suborn perjury from a witness, do your own research.”

Already have, big fella.

“If you want to know about the testimony provided by Clinton in the case against Tucker and the McDougals, read it for yourself.”

I did. Jimmy was a crook and he went to jail for it. But not, boys and girls, for Whitewater.

“This thread is about your innate inability to accept the facts about Wilson/Plame.”

Well, it USED to be...

Thanks Bane!

How funny when someone like Cyber makes a fool of him/her self by saying things like “that can’t possible be true – show me” when they’d be better off doing just a little research to find where it is in fact true. This just show lame their “arguments” are.

The Senate was charged with vting on the facts, NOT the charges. They disregarded their oaths.

Libby made a slight mistake in two testimonies. Clinton deliberately lied to cover his past actions in a Civil suit that was already underway.

But through hate colored glasses - it looks the same. Clinton was impeached - so burn Libby. Again, it is OBVIOUS NOW why the KKK was almost completely Democrat. Hate filled, blind to logic, mean.... you're still KKK at heart aren't you Cyberwipe?

Morphie - usually references have links or at least the name of the source.

The Democrats and the Klan ruled the south. Admit it. Cite your sources so we can investigate. Until then, its just unsubsatntiated gibberish.

For each of you here that are "apologists and also
rewriters of history", suggest you go over to the
Drudge Report, and click on the Dick Morris post,
and read it over and over again. Since Morris was
privvy to both the Clintons and that whole scenerio, maybe you will get it through your thick
heads, what your 'Idol-Clinton, Hillary' were all about. While you Demoncrats like to whitewash the
record, you should get you heads out of the sand,
and stop lookin for power and a return to office,
but rather, truth, by "one of Clinton's own"

"The Democrats and the Klan ruled the south. Admit it."

For a time yes they did, but things changed.

"Cite your sources so we can investigate. Until then, its just unsubsatntiated gibberish."

Must I do the research for you Kahn. Your statement is pretty bold. Of course it is, you don't want to hear the facts or see the whole truth. My source is Wikipedia, the same source Mark and Matt often use.

For Kahn

Domocrats - Party of Hate. Has been sinse the 1840's.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1424210/posts

"Democrat Senators organized the record Senate filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Included among the organizers were several prominent and well known liberal Democrat standard bearers including:
- Robert Byrd, current senator from West Virginia
- J. William Fulbright, Arkansas senator and political mentor of Bill Clinton
- Albert Gore Sr., Tennessee senator, father and political mentor of Al Gore. Gore Jr. has been known to lie about his father's opposition to the Civil Rights Act.
- Sam Ervin, North Carolina senator of Watergate hearings fame
- Richard Russell, famed Georgia senator and later President Pro Tempore

The complete list of the 21 Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 includes Senators:

- Hill and Sparkman of Alabama
- Fulbright and McClellan of Arkansas
- Holland and Smathers of Florida
- Russell and Talmadge of Georgia
- Ellender and Long of Louisiana
- Eastland and Stennis of Mississippi
- Ervin and Jordan of North Carolina
- Johnston and Thurmond of South Carolina
- Gore Sr. and Walters of Tennessee
- H. Byrd and Robertson of Virginia
- R. Byrd of West Virginia

Democrat opposition to the Civil Rights Act was substantial enough to literally split the party in two. A whopping 40% of the House Democrats VOTED AGAINST the Civil Rights Act, while 80% of Republicans SUPPORTED it. Republican support in the Senate was even higher. Similar trends occurred with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was supported by 82% of House Republicans and 94% of Senate Republicans. The same Democrat standard bearers took their normal racists stances, this time with Senator Fulbright leading the opposition effort.

It took the hard work of Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen and Republican Whip Thomas Kuchel to pass the Civil Rights Act (Dirksen was presented a civil rights accomplishment award for the year by the head of the NAACP in recognition of his efforts). Upon breaking the Democrat filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Republican Dirksen took to the Senate floor and exclaimed "The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing in government, in education, and in employment. It will not be stayed or denied. It is here!" (Full text of speech). Sadly, Democrats and revisionist historians have all but forgotten (and intentionally so) that it was Republican Dirksen, not the divided Democrats, who made the Civil Rights Act a reality. Dirksen also broke the Democrat filibuster of the 1957 Civil Rights Act that was signed by Republican President Eisenhower."

http://members.tripod.com/~GOPcapitalist/democratrecord.html

You're a hopeless partisan!
”Because it includes the word “serious.” Not “any.” Not “all.” But “serious.”
"The phrase not only referred to common criminal acts ..." Like perjury!
You must have missed that part.

"his crime was not an impeachable offense."
The articles of impeachment say otherwise. Clinton was impeached.

(Jo, Isn't it just like a Clintonista to re-write history to lop off the inconvenient parts?)

As far as the Clinton scandals, you brought up Whitewater! Not me. Are you not aware the articles of impeachment were the result of the Paula Jones/Monica Lewinski investigation? Are you not capable of reading? Are there too many investigations for you to keep track of? Are you stupid or don't care about facts?

Oh, and Morphie, Wikipedia is not sourced; it uses unqualified contributions from people with an agenda. Sometimes right, sometimes misleading. Better get another source; I'm not saying Wikipedia is wrong; just not the authority I'd quote were I you.

The Democrats stopped "being' racist when? When they were defeated. Then LBJ put the greatest fix of all time in - he addicted the blacks to free government money as part of his "great society" effort. Now, isn't it funny that these welfare laws were passed immediately on the heels of the Civil Rights Laws the Democrats opposed? Why?

LBJ made everyone forget that it was Republican minority with some Democrat defectors that passed Civil Rights Laws. he bought off the black vote. Now, whenever a Republican says " hey, maybe the Blacks should stand on their own" we're branded as racist. LBJ was brilliant if cynical.

Now back toi Libby. His case concerns ONLY him. Not Bush. Not Clinton. Not the KKK. He made two slightly different statements to the gramd jury about meetings he'd had a very long time before and did not consider important at the time (since he was not the source - Armitage was - get it?). For contradicting his own testimony, he was charged. What a bunch of crap. You question him about something he wasn't involved in then prosecute him for not having a photographic memory?

And Democrats - through their HATE colored glasses see none of this. Prosecute Libby because of Bush. Prosecute Libby because of Clinton. Prosecute Libby because of Rove. Stop the hatred.

Yes. It's easy to see your Democratic ancestors in you. I always wondered it took to be part of a lynch mob. Now, I see you posting right here. Wow. Get the rope! I don't care if he's guilty dammit, he's a Repoooblicaaaan!

Bane blows a gasket:

"As far as the Clinton scandals, you brought up Whitewater! Not me. Are you not aware the articles of impeachment were the result of the Paula Jones/Monica Lewinski investigation? Are you not capable of reading? Are there too many investigations for you to keep track of? Are you stupid or don't care about facts?"

Poor Bane. Two or three posts later and he forgets the whole thread. I didn't bring up Whitewater, big fella. You did:

"Clinton will never admit that the scandals (plural) were his doing; will never admit that Jim Guy tucker, the McDougals and all the other indicted and disgraced were victims of the serious misdemeanor on the part of the Clintons."

And I'm sorry to break it to you, but not ONE of the sources you have cited support the notion that "any crime" committed by a person in high office is a "high crime." You mention, for example, "maladministration." Didja know that that phrase was considered and dropped by the Framers? No? Didja know that the original phrase was "high crimes and misdemeanors against the state" but they dropped the last half of the phrase? Guess not. But if you try to argue that "maladministration" was the INTENT of the Framers, then you have to go along with the fact that "against the state" was the INTENT of the framers, too, even though neither phrase appears in the final text.

Keeping up, buddy? Follow the snaps...

It’s like talking to a post! Proving once again, that cyber is incapable of reading and digesting facts, off again on tangents that make no sense whatsoever.

You asked for proof of the origin of “high crimes” I gave it to you, I don’t give a $hit if you don’t believe it, like most neo-socialists you argue facts as though they are refutable. Do I have to write for a third grader so you can read it?

The origins of the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" comes from English Common Law in 1386. The phrase not only referred to common criminal acts but also acts such as "maladministration" (i.e., incompetence) or other serious political offenses such as ‘misconduct in office.

“the word "high". It does not mean "more serious". It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons’

Now, you’re either stupid, or intentionally thick, either way you’ve made a complete fool of yourself.

A president may be removed from office for the commission of any crime with which he is charged by the House of Representatives and convicted by the Senate; or the president may be removed for personal bad behavior if that behavior is un-Presidential charged by the House and confirmed by the Senate.

By today’s definition a "misdemeanor" is the lesser of two recognized levels of criminal behavior (felony or misdemeanor), in the framers time it’s more common definition was "any misbehavior or misconduct" or essentially "bad behavior."

In our judicial system there are no high crimes or low crimes or crimes that are “just right.” A crime is a crime, a president may be removed for any crime charged by the House and convicted by the Senate.

Meanwhile, why don’t you explain the relevance of the Niger documents, known to be forgeries, who was the citizen deprived of due process by Libby, and how does a crime “rise”?

cyberpimple - well, I can certainly see why we should ruin Mr. Libby's life based on your impressions of how (selling books and making millions) Bill Clinton was wronged.

Where IS that damn rope?

Cyber Actor(boy, is that name indicative of..a lot!!!!)
anyway, I haven't heard, Big Fella, used since the 1950's!!!!!

Bane: Yep, the Demoncrats do bring up ONLY parts of what they want to indoctrinate people with-lies
where they can insert into half statements. It's an old ploy....They can look right into a camera,
narrow eyes, pointed finger, and state quite emphatically: "I did not have sex with that woman-
(then realizing she could drown him with that kind
of statement) after he realized what he said, after the long pause, he added: Ms. Lewinsky.
He is the consumate politician that the Dems have
come to be known as.....Liars, Whinners, and Enemy
Enabling-Bush haters, who would rather see us lose
the War on Terror, than help our country take care of those who want to kill us.(Their words)
They want this war to fail, as it would be on Bush's watch, and YET, they did NOTHING to the many prior attacks on Americans, NOR, did they want to GET BIN LADEN. Ever wonder WHY, he tried
for the big bang on 9/11? These people are just
disgusting, vile and hateful with this constant badgering, and playing into the enemies' hands.
They are only concerned with their party getting back into power, and their personal careers. Leaks
are done by them, for the purpose of having our country fail, in fighting this war. Sad...really
pitifully sad......

I have NEVER, by the way, seen such vitriolic ranting in these last 5 years by Dems, who are so
power hungry, bitter, and full of themselves-the power to them, is like an aphrodisiac. Bill loved
it while in the Whitehouse, in his 8 years, that's
why he will say, do and act in ANY manner to improve his legacy, and push Hillary to run, thus,
getting them both back into the Whitehouse. God,
I am so sick of those two lying, theiving, cheating, at any cost, power mongers.

Let's all play the game of who was Cyberactor's username prior to the current one?

lopes,

Most people forget that the election was called for Bush, Gore was driving to make his concession speech and Bush was up by more than 100,000 votes in Florida with 98% reporting...within a couple minutes, Gore suddenly received 100,000 votes. Just where did those amazingly convenient votes come from?

Cyber,

Excellent changing of the subject, as we can see from comments...but you left out the fact that Clinton was impeached for perjury and suborning of perjury...and, also, that Clinton definitively lied under oath...it is far more questionable as to whether or not Libby lied. But, hey, if what you are saying is that we should pass a law against "procedural" indictments - ie, no indictments for perjury when no underlying crime can be proved - then I'm 100% with you...our prosecutors do get out of hand.

Meanwhile, though, the issue at hand is that you on the left slavishly believed the entire Plame lie...that Wilson had blown the whistle when he hadn't, that Bush had lied about yellowcake when he hadn't, that Plame was "outed" when she wasn't, and that Wilson was being persecuted when he wasn't. In service of this lie, you on the left participated in the slanderous attacks on President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Powell, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, Vice Presidential Chief of Staff Libby and White House Political Director Rove...all people entirely innocent of any wrongdoing, but dragged through the muck FOR YEARS in the public square.

In olden times, such things would call for pistols at dawn...

Why are we even still talking about this hmm?

It's all one big joke in a time where much more serious leaks are being done. (Assuming that Plame was "undercover" which I don't.) What was it, 18 months and all you got was one stupid inditement? A weak one at that?

Woo hoo! Way to go team! Such a huge waste of time and money. Personally I think the Clinton affair was a huge waste of time and money as well. We're to "litigation happy" in this country. Starting cases before we have a reason to and if it continues we're just going to make ourselves look even worse.

cyberactor, do yourself a favor before you embarrass yourself even more. Do an internet search on Whitewater. No, don't just tune in to Ranty Rhodes and take notes. Actually find out what you are talking about, just for a change

Now, maybe in Cyberworld, ot whatever planet you live on, it is possible for two people to be founding partners of a business which later is PROVED to be deeply and profoundly corrutt, one which indulges in so many illegal acts that NEARLY everyone connected with it is found guilty of some crime or another, one which commits a fraud which costs the governement millions of dollars, and to still believem that those two founding partners to be looked at only out of spite. Only on that planet could admissions of tax fraud on the part of one of those partners, in connection with that business, be totally overlooked in favor of belief in total innocence of any wrongdoing, and not indicative of a need to look deeper.

On our planet, thankfully, when everyone else in the business is convicted of crimes, and those two founding partners plead ignorance, defy efforts to find out the nature of their involvement with the business, force every inquiry to get subpeonas for every document produced, "loses" subpeonaed documents, goes to court to force court rulings to support every subpeona, and generally obstructs every query without ever cooperating with it, suspicion is raised.

You regurgitated nearly every talking point whining about the terrible terrible treatment the poor saintly Clintons recieved. Too bad it is all BS. You clearly need to put down the Kool Aid cup and do some independent research.

To ignore the Clintons' involvement in Whitewater would have been prosecutorial negligence. And to pretend the outrageous cost of their investigation was the fault of those who were only trying to do their job and not that of those who obdurately refused to cooperate is a form of delusional hyprocisy, which is, all too sadly, the hallmark of the Loony Left.

Gozer, that one wimpy indictment is for having a different memory than someone else had, ABOUT SOMETHING THAT WAS NEVER EVEN CONSIDERED A CRIME IN THE FIRST PLACE.

The only possible crime would have been revealing the identity of an undercover agent. This type of crime is clearly spelled out, and even if Libby HAD been the one to reveal her identity as a secret agent, he clearly did not fall under the definitions of that crime. Those who wrote the law all agreed to that.

But what is so shifty is that the so-called "investigator" knew all along that Libby had not revealed Plame's identity. As for her so-called secret status, Fitzgerald admitted that he never even bothered to ask if she was covert at all.

So there was never a crime, and Fitzgerald knew there was never a crime, and he just kept going on calling in Libby to ask him detailed questions about what he remembered, comparing it to what other people remembered, till he finally got a disrepancy he could hang an indictment on. An indictment for obstruction of justice, which has to be the funniest joke ever, as "justice" was never the goal or the result of the phony "investigation".

But whiners like the bad actor will still keep comparing this to the Whitewater investigation, which was a true and legitimate effort to look into a proven series of crimes and to determine the extent of the President's involvement in them.

steveGA seems to think that if there was not a formal written and published declaration of Plame's CIA identity, then it was never known to anyone. Anyone but Aldrich Ames, who shared it pretty widely, or anyone but the Washington press corps, or anyone who ever read Who's Who and looked up Joe Wilson's entry, or anyone who knew Plame/Wilson socially, or anyone who was ever introduced to Plame by Wilson and heard him describe her as "my CIA wife".

Cyberator in case you forgot...here is a list of those CONVICTED friends of Bill & Hillary:

VARIOUS ARKANSAS:

1) Roger Clinton: Bill Clinton brother; drug trafficking conviction (Wall Street Journal "The Foster Test" January 14, 1994)

2) Dan Lasater: governor Bill Clinton contributor and state contractor: drug trafficking conviction (Wall Street Journal "The Foster Test" January 14, 1994)

3) Dan Harmon: Arkansas Seventh Judicial District prosecuting attorney and Bill Clinton friend and political ally: five federal racketeering, extortion, and drug distribution convictions (Wall Street Journal "Arkansas Justice" June 13, 1997)

4) Bill McCuen: Bill Clinton political ally: former Arkansas Secretary of State; bribery, tax evasion, kickbacks convictions (Wall Street Journal: Whitewater: "The Prosecution Rests" May 7, 1996)

WHITEWATER:

5) Webster Hubbell: Bill Clinton friend and political ally; Hillary Clinton Rose Law Firm partner: embezzlement; fraud; two felony convictions (Wall Street Journal "Whither Whitewater?" October 18, 1995)

6) Jim Guy Tucker: fraud; three felony convictions (Wall Street Journal "Second-Term Stall" February 11, 1997; Associated Press "Tucker Pleads Guilty to Cable Fraud" February 20, 1998)

7) William J. Marks Sr.: Jim Guy Tucker business partner; one conspiracy conviction (Associated Press "Whitewater Defendant Pleads Guilty" August 28, 1997)

8) Jim McDougal: Bill and Hillary Clinton friend, banker, and political ally: eighteen felony convictions (Wall Street Journal "Immunize Hale" May 29, 1996)

9) Susan McDougal: Bill and Hillary Clinton friend; former wife of Jim McDougal: four felony convictions (Wall Street Journal "Immunize Hale" May 29, 1996)

10) David Hale: Bill and Hillary Clinton friend, banker, and political ally: two felony convictions of conspiracy and mail fraud (Wall Street Journal "The Arkansas Machine Strikes Back" March 19, 1996)

11) Chris Wade: Whitewater real estate broker; two felony convictions (Wall Street Journal "Hard Evidence From a Federal Investigator" August 10, 1995)

12) Stephen Smith: former Governor Clinton aide; one conviction (Wall Street Journal "Hard Evidence From a Federal Investigator" August 10, 1995)

13) Larry Kuca: Madison real estate agent; fraudulent loans (Wall Steet Journal "Hard Evidence From a Federal Investigator" August 10, 1995)

14) Robert Palmer: Madison appraiser; one conspiracy felony conviction (Wall Street Journal "Hale Predicts Hillary Conviction" October 21, 1996)

15) Neal Ainley: Perry County Bank president; embezzled bank funds for Clinton campaign; two misdemeanor convictions (Wall Street Journal "Arkansas Bank Shot" May 4, 1995)

16) John Latham: Madison Bank CEO; bank fraud conviction (Wall Street Journal "Smoke Without Fire" January 12, 1996)

17) John Haley: attorney for Jim Guy Tucker; misdemeanor guilty plea; tax fraud (Associated Press "Tucker Pleads Guilty to Cable Fraud" February 20, 1998)

18) Eugene Fitzhugh: Whitewater defendant, pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count of trying to bribe David Hale; is appealing a ten month prison sentence (The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, "Whitewater Defendants" February 22, 1998)

19) Charles Matthews: Whitewater defendant, pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor counts of bribery, served fourteen months of a sixteen month prison sentence (The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, "Whitewater Defendants" February 22, 1998)

ESPY:

20) Tyson Foods: guilty plea; $6 million federal court fines and investigative costs (Washington Post "Tyson Foods Admits Illegal Gifts to Espy" December 30, 1997)

21) Sun-Diamond Growers: $1.5 million fine for illegal campaign contributions to Espy's brother (Associated Press "A Look at Mike Espy Investigation" August 27, 1997)

22) Richard Douglas: former Sun-Diamond Growers official; several bribery convictions and guilty pleas(Washington Post "Tyson Foods Admits Illegal Gifts to Espy" December 30, 1997; Associated Press: "Lobbyist Pleads guilty in Espy Case" March 17, 1998)

23) James H. Lake: Sun-Diamond Growers lobbyist; three convictions regarding illegal campaign contributions to Espy's brother (Associated Press "A Look at Mike Espy Investigation" August 27, 1997)

24) Ron Blackley: Espy's chief of staff: financial fraud conviction; twenty-seven month prison sentence (Washington Post "Tyson Foods Admits Illegal Gifts to Espy" December 30, 1997; Associated Press: "Judge Sentences Espy Aide to Jail" March 18, 1998)

25) Smith Barney: improper payments to Espy; $1 million-plus fine (Associated Press: "A Look at Mike Espy Investigation" August 27, 1997)

26) Crop Growers Corporation: $2 million fine for money laundering to Henry Espy's campaign (Associated Press: "A Look at Mike Espy Investigation" August 27, 1997)

27) Brook Keith Mitchell Sr. (with his company Five M Farming Enterprises: four counts) for fraud (Associated Press: "A Look at Mike Espy Investigation" August 27, 1997)

28) Five M Farming Enterprises (with owner Brook Keith Mitchell: four counts) for fraud (Associated Press: "A Look at Mike Espy Investigation" August 27, 1997)

29) John J. Hemmingson, former head of Crop Growers Corporation: three counts relating to illegal campaign contributions to Henry Espy (Associated Press: "A Look at Mike Espy Investigation" August 27, 1997)

30) Alvarez T. Ferrouillet, Jr., Louisiana lawyer and Henry Espy campaign finance head: ten count conviction (Associated Press: "A Look at Mike Espy Investigation" August 27, 1997)

31) Municipal Healthcare Cooperative: Ferrouillet-related company; perjury, bank fraud, money laundering convictions (Washington Post: "Tyson Foods Admits Illegal Gifts to Espy" December 30, 1997)

32) Ferrouillet & Ferrouillet: Ferrouillet-related company; perjury, bank fraud, money laundering convictions (Washington Post: "Tyson Foods Admits Illegal Gifts to Espy" December 30, 1997)

CAMPAIGN FINANCE:

33) Michael Brown (Ron Brown's son): money laundering; misdemeanor conviction (Los Angeles Times, "Ron Brown's Son Pleads Guilty to Illegal Donation" August 29, 1997)

34) Eugene Lum: Clinton/Gore campaign contributor and colleague; felony conviction; money laundering (Los Angeles Times, "First Fund-Raising Sentences Meted Out" September 10, 1997)

35) Nora Lum: Clinton/Gore campaign contributor and colleague; felony conviction; money laundering (Los Angeles Times, "First Fund-Raising Sentences Meted Out" September 10, 1997)

36) Johnny Chung: Clinton/Gore campaign contributor and colleague; many visits to Clinton White House and Oval Office with mainland Chinese associates; several illegal campaign contributions, money laundering, tax fraud, and bank fraud guilty pleas (Associated Press: "Democrat Fund-Raiser Pleads Guilty" March 17, 1998)

37) Roger Tamraz: Clinton/Gore campaign contributor and colleague; many visits to Clinton White House and Oval Office; fugitive from Lebanon embezzlement convictions; target of French government financial investigation; BCCI connections (The Wall Street Journal: "Integrity of the Institutions" March 20, 1997, et. al.) CISNEROS:

38) Linda Jones: Henry Cisneros mistress; conspiracy, bank fraud, money laundering, and obstruction of justice federal felony guilty pleas; sentenced to three and one-half years in prison (Associated Press: "Cisneros Ex-Mistress Sentenced" March 25, 1998)

39) Patsy Jo Wooten: Linda Jones sister; one conspiracy guilty plea (Associated Press: "Cisneros Ex-Mistress Sentenced" March 25, 1998)

40) Allen Wooten: Linda Jones brother-in-law; one conspiracy guilty plea (Associated Press: "Cisneros Ex-Mistress Sentenced" March 25, 1998)

Mark N said: "Gore suddenly received 100,000 votes. Just where did those amazingly convenient votes come from?"

Well I suppose they came from people who voted for him. Do you have a more plausible suggestion for their origin?

Now, you’re either stupid, or intentionally thick, either way you’ve made a complete fool of yourself

Even worse Bane......It's an actor! Therefore the mystery is solved! Stupid...probably not! Intentionally thick......yep!

Oh come on Lopes! With all the cries from the rooftops "voter fraud, voter fraud, voter fraud". I can't Imagine all the fraud to be on the republican side...........can you?

BTW Cyberator in case you forgot...here's a lst of the DEAD associates of Bill:

James McDougal - Clinton's convicted Whitewater partner died of an apparent heart attack, while in solitary confinement. He was a key witness in Ken Starr's investigation.

Mary Mahoney - A former White House intern was murdered July 1997 at a Starbucks Coffee Shop in Georgetown. The murder happened just after she was to go public with her story of sexual harassment in the White House.

Vince Foster - Former White House counselor, and colleague of Hillary Clinton at Little Rock's Rose Law Firm. Died of a gunshot wound to the head, ruled suicide. He also had another 22 gunshot wound in the neck. The gunshot wound to the head was of larger caliber and found still in his hand!!

Ron Brown - Secretary of Commerce and former DNC Chairman. Reported to have died by impact in a plane crash. A pathologist close to the investigation reported that there was a hole in the top of Brown's skull resembling a gunshot wound. At the time of his death, Brown was being investigated, and spoke publicly of his willingness to cut a deal with prosecutors.

C. Victor Raiser II & Montgomery Raiser - Major players in the Clinton fund-raising organization. Died in a private plane crash in July 1992.

Paul Tulley - Democratic National Committee Political Director found dead in a hotel room in Little Rock, September 1992. Described by Clinton's a "Dear friend and trusted advisor".

Ed Willey - Clinton fund raiser, found dead November 1993 deep in the woods in Virginia of a gunshot wound to the head. Ruled a suicide. Ed Willey died on the same day his wife Kathleen Willey claimed Bill Clinton groped her in the oval office in the White House. Ed Willey was involved in several Clinton fund raising events.

Jerry Parks - Head of Clinton's gubernatorial security team in Little Rock. Gunned down in his car at a deserted intersection outside Little Rock. Park's son said his father was building a dossier on Clinton. He allegedly threatened to reveal this information. After he died the files were mysteriously removed from his house.

James Bunch - Died from a gunshot suicide. It was reported that he had a "Black Book" of people containing names of influential people who visited prostitutes in Texas and Arkansas.

James Wilson - Was found dead in May 1993 from an apparent hanging suicide. He was reported to have ties to Whitewater.

Kathy Ferguson - Ex-wife of Arkansas Trooper Danny Ferguson. Died in May 1994. She was found dead in her living room with a gunshot to her head. It was ruled a suicide although there were several packed suitcases, as if she was going somewhere. Danny Ferguson was a co- defendant along with Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones lawsuit. Kathy Ferguson was a possible corroborating witness for Paula Jones.

Bill Shelton - Arkansas State Trooper and fiancee of Kathy Ferguson. Critical of the suicide ruling of his fiancee, he was found dead in June, 1994 of a gunshot wound also ruled a suicide at the gravesite of his fiancee.

Gandy Baugh - Attorney for Clinton friend Dan Lassater. Died by jumping out a window of a tall building January, 1994. His client was a convicted drug distributor. One of Clinton's last duties as Governor of Arkansas was to pardon Dan Lassater convicted on over a hundred drug charges.

Florence Martin - Accountant sub-contractor for the CIA related to the Barry Seal Mena Airport drug smuggling case. Died of three gunshot wounds.

Suzanne Coleman - Reportedly had an affair with Clinton when he was Arkansas Attorney General. Died of a gunshot wound to the back of the head, ruled a suicide. Was pregnant at the time of her death.

Paula Grober - Clinton's speech interpreter for the deaf from 1978 until her death December 9, 1992. She died in a one-car accident.

Danny Casolaro - Investigative reporter. Investigating Mena Airport and Arkansas Development Finance Authority. He slit his wrists, apparent suicide in the middle of his investigation.

Paul Wilcher - Attorney investigating corruption at Mena Airport with Casolaro and the 1980 "October Surprise" was found dead on a toilet June 22, 1993 in his Washington D.C. apartment. Had delivered a report to Janet Reno 3 weeks before his death.

Jon Parnell Walker - Whitewater investigator for Resolution Trust Corp. Jumped to his death from his Arlington, Virginia apartment balcony August 15, 1993. Was investigating Morgan Guarantee scandal.

Barbara Wise - Commerce Department staffer. Worked closely with Ron Brown and John Huang. Cause of death unknown. Died November 29, 1996. Her bruised nude body was found locked in her office at the Department of Commerce.

Charles Meissner - Assistant Secretary of Commerce who gave John Huang special security clearance, died shortly thereafter in a small plane crash. Dr.

Stanley Heard - Chairman of the National Chiropractic Health Care Advisory Committee. Died with his attorney Steve Dickson in a small plane crash. Dr. Heard, in addition to serving on Clinton's advisory council, personally treated Clinton's mother, stepfather and brother.

Barry Seal - Drug running pilot out of Mena Arkansas, death was no accident.

Johnny Lawhorn Jr. - Mechanic, found a check made out to Clinton in the trunk of a car left in his repair shop. Died when his car hit a utility pole.

Stanley Huggins - Suicide. Investigated Madison Guarantee. His report was never released.

Hershell Friday - Attorney and Clinton fundraiser. Died March 1, 1994 when his plane exploded.

Kevin Ives & Don Henry - Known as "The boys on the track" case. Reports say the boys may have stumbled upon the Mena Arkansas airport drug operation. Controversial case where initial report of death was due to falling asleep on railroad track. Later reports claim the 2 boys had been slain before being placed on the tracks. Many linked to the case died before their testimony could come before a Grand Jury.

THE FOLLOWING SIX PERSONS HAD INFORMATION ON THE IVES / HENRY CASE:
Keith Coney - Died when his motorcycle slammed into the back of a truck July, 1988.

Keith McMaskle - Died of 113 stabbed wounds, November 1988.

Gregory Collins - Died from a gunshot wound January 1989.

Jeff Rhodes - He was shot, mutilated and found burned in a trash dump in April 1989.

James Milan - Found decapitated. Coroner ruled death due to natural causes.

Jordan Kettleson - Was found shot to death in the front seat of his pickup truck in June 1990.

Richard Winters - Was a suspect in the Ives / Henry deaths. Was killed in a set-up robbery July 1989.

THE FOLLOWING CLINTON BODYGUARDS ARE DEAD:
Major William S. Barkley Jr.
Captain Scott J. Reynolds
Sgt. Brian Hanley
Sgt. Tim Sabel
Major General William Robertson
Col. William Densberger
Col. Robert Kelly
Spec. Gary Rhodes
Steve Willis
Robert Williams
Conway LeBleu
Todd McKeehan

Lopes,

Perhaps you have heard of the electoral college??

Lopes,

Bearman hit it - but these things don't happen by accident.

6,000,000 votes were cast in FL in 2000 - Gore, having been told that he had lost FL by about 50,000 votes and with 98 or 99% of precincts reporting, Bush is leading by 100,000 votes, calls Governor Bush and conceeds the election and starts to drive over to his supporters to make his public concession speech.

All of a sudden, Bush's 100,000 vote lead shrinks to 1,000 votes and we're off to the contested result...its impossible that with 98% of the precincts reporting that Gore could have made up a 100,000 vote deficit. Even if the last 2% of precincts were in heavily Gore districts, that would still mean that 40% or so of the late reports would go for Bush...to make up a 100,000 vote deficit, 168,000 votes needed to be outstanding in FL at 2:30am, November 8th and Gore needed 60% of them to just make up the difference - and, thing is, some of the late reporting districts were in the Panhandle...

My guesstimate is that to ensure Gore catching up, you'd better have about 350,000 votes to count at 2:30am...or about 6% of the total votes cast...an impossibility when 98% of precincts had already reported. The ballot box was stuffed - not with enough to give Gore a clear victory, but enough to muddy the waters with the hopes that the Democratic machine, which had swung in to action 12 hours earlier, would be able to gum things up to the point where Gore's recount people could come up with just enough votes to win, and then apply MSM pressure on Bush to conceed in the interests of the nation.

So your contention is that these 100,000 votes were not correlated on the electoral roll.

Thats a hell of a lot of votes to manufacture. But i wouldn't put it past a political party.

But how would they do this in a Republican held state? Surely Jeb would have been onto that like a flash?

Its all a bit unclear. Perhaps if the automatic recount required by Florida state law had actually been carried out then all this argument would be moot.

Lopes,

Democrats have a long history of manufacturing votes - It goes back to the 1850's. You can do it anywhere that the election judges are Democrats.

There were all sorts of oddities in Florida - as an example, a couple precincts reported 100% turnout and 99% of their votes for Gore...this is just not possible; can't have 100% turnout...someone must have been sick, or dead, or moved away...and 99% for one candidate? Only in the USSR...

Mark, this is one of the reasons the Democrats are so against voter ID.

Bane:

My, my! Certainly have stirred up a hornet’s nest of Bushies, haven’t I? Where to start, where to start....

Well, let’s tackle you first and then move on to the other loons. After all, you’re first up, right? So here we go:

To the question of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” you cite Thomas E Patterson of Harvard University who, according to you, says: “The origins of the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" comes from English Common Law in 1386. The phrase not only referred to common criminal acts but also acts such as "maladministration" (i.e., incompetence) or other serious political offenses such as ‘misconduct in office.’”

Here’s the problem: Thomas E. Patterson of Harvard University did NOT say that. I found the quote, word for word, on this website:

http://www.mhhe.com/socscience/polisci/americangov/indeximpeach.html#menu

The footnote attributes to quote to Charles L. Black, Jr., who wrote Impeachment: A Handbook. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press 1974, p. 49; and Raoul Berger, author of Impeachment: The Constitutional Problems. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1974.

But I never would have stumbled on the page without your having mis-quoted Mr. Patterson, so thanks. Because on the same page, we find this little nugget:

“What Qualifies as an Impeachable Offense: The impeachable offenses of bribery and treason mentioned earlier are easily defined and understood. The interpretation of "other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" as grounds to impeach and convict a federal civil officer has been disputed by constitutional scholars. One thing the scholars do agree upon is that the adjective "other," in Article II, Section 4, implies that the high crime and misdemeanor must be on a par with a crime of treason or bribery. The crime would have to undermine the legal, institutional or democratic foundations of our system of government.”

Sweet. “On a par with a crime of treason or bribery.” Not ANY crime. Get it? And please note that BOTH of the articles I’m going to show you contain the phrase (or variations of it) “crimes that rise to the level, etc.” Don’t go blamin’ me for that.

But I’m gonna go way out on a limb and guess that you aren’t satisfied yet. Okay. So let’s take another look at ANOTHER take. This is from the Constitutional Rights Foundation and can be linked to here:

http://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/highcrimes.html

Read the whole thing. Fascinating stuff. But if you’re looking for the money quote, it is here:

“What are “high crimes and misdemeanors”? On first hearing this phrase, many people probably think that it is just an 18th century way of saying “felonies and misdemeanors.” Felonies are major crimes and misdemeanors are lesser crimes. If this interpretation were correct, “high crimes and misdemeanors” would simply mean any crime. But this interpretation is mistaken.”

Hear that? Your interpretation is MISTAKEN. But let’s see just HOW mistaken you are, shall we?

You also include this quote (again): “the word "high" does not mean "more serious". It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons.” This quote, as I mentioned, is from Jon Roland who I’ve already established is a complete wacko. But you keep on quotin’ him, you hear?

Now where was I? Ah yes. Refuting “the Bane”:

He sez: “By today’s definition a "misdemeanor" is the lesser of two recognized levels of criminal behavior (felony or misdemeanor), in the framers time it’s more common definition was "any misbehavior or misconduct" or essentially "bad behavior."

Wow! And I thought you right-wingnuts were of the “strict constructionist” camp! Who knew that you were so fond of interpreting the language of the Framers based on the context and time period in which it was written? Shoot, one could argue that the Framers would never have inserted the “right to bear arms” into the Constitution if they’d known about AK47's. But that’s another discussion and I don’t want to get off track:

Bane again: “In our judicial system there are no high crimes or low crimes or crimes that are “just right.” A crime is a crime, a president may be removed for any crime charged by the House and convicted by the Senate.”

But by your own admission, ya big dummy, there ARE high crimes and low crimes. In fact, crimes have DEGREES (1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, manslaughter, etc.). There are serious crimes (larceny) and not so serious crimes (petty theft). Within certain crimes, you can even have separate “counts” on which you can be convicted. You can also...aw, hell. You get the point by now, right? Surely you must.

I mean, are you saying that the Congress, if they found out that Bill Clinton had swiped a pen from the Ambassador from Bulgaria, that they would be honor-bound to convict him of this “crime” even though it is not, as the Framers intended, a crime against the state? Seems to me that you are. A crime is a crime, right?

Whew! But wait! There’s more: “Meanwhile, why don’t you explain the relevance of the Niger documents, known to be forgeries, who was the citizen deprived of due process by Libby, and how does a crime “rise”?”

One by one: (1) given the length of this message so far, let me refer all Niger questions to Mr. Zuniga’s website: http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Niger_uranium. Great stuff. Don’t shoot the messenger, everybody.

(2) I never said that any citizen was deprive of due process by Scooter Libby. Go back and read the original post, you yabbo. I merely said that Clinton's perjury was taken soooo seriously and Libby's is treated as a harmless mistake. You CAN read, right?

(3) I already answered the third question. What else?

Final note: If you’re actually going to be anyone’s “Bane,” you’re going to have to try a whole lot harder than that, buddy-boy. This was too easy.

Bane:

My, my! Certainly have stirred up a hornet’s nest of Bushies, haven’t I? Where to start, where to start....

Well, let’s tackle you first and then move on to the other loons. After all, you’re first up, right? So here we go:

To the question of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” you cite Thomas E Patterson of Harvard University who, according to you, says: “The origins of the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" comes from English Common Law in 1386. The phrase not only referred to common criminal acts but also acts such as "maladministration" (i.e., incompetence) or other serious political offenses such as ‘misconduct in office.’”

Here’s the problem: Thomas E. Patterson of Harvard University did NOT say that. I found the quote, word for word, on this website:

http://www.mhhe.com/socscience/polisci/americangov/indeximpeach.html#menu

The footnote attributes to quote to Charles L. Black, Jr., who wrote Impeachment: A Handbook. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press 1974, p. 49; and Raoul Berger, author of Impeachment: The Constitutional Problems. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1974.

But I never would have stumbled on the page without your having mis-quoted Mr. Patterson, so thanks. Because on the same page, we find this little nugget:

“What Qualifies as an Impeachable Offense: The impeachable offenses of bribery and treason mentioned earlier are easily defined and understood. The interpretation of "other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" as grounds to impeach and convict a federal civil officer has been disputed by constitutional scholars. One thing the scholars do agree upon is that the adjective "other," in Article II, Section 4, implies that the high crime and misdemeanor must be on a par with a crime of treason or bribery. The crime would have to undermine the legal, institutional or democratic foundations of our system of government.”

Sweet. “On a par with a crime of treason or bribery.” Not ANY crime. Get it? And please note that BOTH of the articles I’m going to show you contain the phrase (or variations of it) “crimes that rise to the level, etc.” Don’t go blamin’ me for that.

But I’m gonna go way out on a limb and guess that you aren’t satisfied yet. Okay. So let’s take another look at ANOTHER take. This is from the Constitutional Rights Foundation and can be linked to here:

http://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/highcrimes.html

Read the whole thing. Fascinating stuff. But if you’re looking for the money quote, it is here:

“What are “high crimes and misdemeanors”? On first hearing this phrase, many people probably think that it is just an 18th century way of saying “felonies and misdemeanors.” Felonies are major crimes and misdemeanors are lesser crimes. If this interpretation were correct, “high crimes and misdemeanors” would simply mean any crime. But this interpretation is mistaken.”

Hear that? Your interpretation is MISTAKEN. But let’s see just HOW mistaken you are, shall we?

You also include this quote (again): “the word "high" does not mean "more serious". It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons.” This quote, as I mentioned, is from Jon Roland who I’ve already established is a complete wacko. But you keep on quotin’ him, you hear?

Now where was I? Ah yes. Refuting “the Bane”:

He sez: “By today’s definition a "misdemeanor" is the lesser of two recognized levels of criminal behavior (felony or misdemeanor), in the framers time it’s more common definition was "any misbehavior or misconduct" or essentially "bad behavior."

Wow! And I thought you right-wingnuts were of the “strict constructionist” camp! Who knew that you were so fond of interpreting the language of the Framers based on the context and time period in which it was written? Shoot, one could argue that the Framers would never have inserted the “right to bear arms” into the Constitution if they’d known about AK47's. But that’s another discussion and I don’t want to get off track:

Bane again: “In our judicial system there are no high crimes or low crimes or crimes that are “just right.” A crime is a crime, a president may be removed for any crime charged by the House and convicted by the Senate.”

But by your own admission, ya big dummy, there ARE high crimes and low crimes. In fact, crimes have DEGREES (1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, manslaughter, etc.). There are serious crimes (larceny) and not so serious crimes (petty theft). Within certain crimes, you can even have separate “counts” on which you can be convicted. You can also...aw, hell. You get the point by now, right? Surely you must.

I mean, are you saying that the Congress, if they found out that Bill Clinton had swiped a pen from the Ambassador from Bulgaria, that they would be honor-bound to convict him of this “crime” even though it is not, as the Framers intended, a crime against the state? Seems to me that you are. A crime is a crime, right?

Whew! But wait! There’s more: “Meanwhile, why don’t you explain the relevance of the Niger documents, known to be forgeries, who was the citizen deprived of due process by Libby, and how does a crime “rise”?”

One by one: (1) given the length of this message so far, let me refer all Niger questions to Mr. Zuniga’s website: http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Niger_uranium. Great stuff. Don’t shoot the messenger, everybody.

(2) I never said that any citizen was deprive of due process by Scooter Libby. Go back and read the original post, you yabbo. I simply said that Clinton's perjury was treated as being sooooo seriuos and Libby's is sloughed off as a simple "mistake." Whoops! Just a little mistake! Nothing to see here! Move along!

(3) I already answered the third question. What else?

Final note: If you’re actually going to be anyone’s “Bane,” you’re going to have to try a whole lot harder than that, buddy-boy. This was too easy.

Hmmm. Mark seems to be filtering me. Okay with me. His website and all.

Regarding this "Clinton Death List," I thought we put this cockamamie thing to bed YEARS ago. But apparently not. There are still lunkheads who believe this nonsense.

Fine. I'm only here to educate. Please take a look at this first-rate de-bunking of this silly list:

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/clinton.htm

By the way, did you hear Ann Richards died? Coincidence or... no. No it couldn't be.

Could it?

Bane:

My, my! Certainly have stirred up a hornet’s nest of Bushies, haven’t I? Where to start, where to start....

Well, let’s tackle you first and then move on to the other loons. After all, you’re first up, right? So here we go:

To the question of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” you cite Thomas E Patterson of Harvard University who, according to you, says: “The origins of the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" comes from English Common Law in 1386. The phrase not only referred to common criminal acts but also acts such as "maladministration" (i.e., incompetence) or other serious political offenses such as ‘misconduct in office.’”

Here’s the problem: Thomas E. Patterson of Harvard University did NOT say that. I found the quote, word for word, on this website:

http://www.mhhe.com/socscience/polisci/americangov/indeximpeach.html#menu

The footnote attributes to quote to Charles L. Black, Jr., who wrote Impeachment: A Handbook. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press 1974, p. 49; and Raoul Berger, author of Impeachment: The Constitutional Problems. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1974.

But I never would have stumbled on the page without your having mis-quoted Mr. Patterson, so thanks. Because on the same page, we find this little nugget:

“What Qualifies as an Impeachable Offense: The impeachable offenses of bribery and treason mentioned earlier are easily defined and understood. The interpretation of "other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" as grounds to impeach and convict a federal civil officer has been disputed by constitutional scholars. One thing the scholars do agree upon is that the adjective "other," in Article II, Section 4, implies that the high crime and misdemeanor must be on a par with a crime of treason or bribery. The crime would have to undermine the legal, institutional or democratic foundations of our system of government.”

Sweet. “On a par with a crime of treason or bribery.” Not ANY crime. Get it? And please note that BOTH of the articles I’m going to show you contain the phrase (or variations of it) “crimes that rise to the level, etc.” Don’t go blamin’ me for that.

But I’m gonna go way out on a limb and guess that you aren’t satisfied yet. Okay. So let’s take another look at ANOTHER take. This is from the Constitutional Rights Foundation and can be linked to here:

http://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/highcrimes.html

Read the whole thing. Fascinating stuff. But if you’re looking for the money quote, it is here:

“What are “high crimes and misdemeanors”? On first hearing this phrase, many people probably think that it is just an 18th century way of saying “felonies and misdemeanors.” Felonies are major crimes and misdemeanors are lesser crimes. If this interpretation were correct, “high crimes and misdemeanors” would simply mean any crime. But this interpretation is mistaken.”

Hear that? Your interpretation is MISTAKEN. But let’s see just HOW mistaken you are, shall we?

You also include this quote (again): “the word "high" does not mean "more serious". It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons.” This quote, as I mentioned, is from Jon Roland who I’ve already established is a complete wacko. But you keep on quotin’ him, you hear?

Now where was I? Ah yes. Refuting “the Bane”:

He sez: “By today’s definition a "misdemeanor" is the lesser of two recognized levels of criminal behavior (felony or misdemeanor), in the framers time it’s more common definition was "any misbehavior or misconduct" or essentially "bad behavior."

Wow! And I thought you right-wingnuts were of the “strict constructionist” camp! Who knew that you were so fond of interpreting the language of the Framers based on the context and time period in which it was written? Shoot, one could argue that the Framers would never have inserted the “right to bear arms” into the Constitution if they’d known about AK47's. But that’s another discussion and I don’t want to get off track:

Bane again: “In our judicial system there are no high crimes or low crimes or crimes that are “just right.” A crime is a crime, a president may be removed for any crime charged by the House and convicted by the Senate.”

But by your own admission, ya big dummy, there ARE high crimes and low crimes. In fact, crimes have DEGREES (1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, manslaughter, etc.). There are serious crimes (larceny) and not so serious crimes (petty theft). Within certain crimes, you can even have separate “counts” on which you can be convicted. You can also...aw, hell. You get the point by now, right? Surely you must.

I mean, are you saying that the Congress, if they found out that Bill Clinton had swiped a pen from the Ambassador from Bulgaria, that they would be honor-bound to convict him of this “crime” even though it is not, as the Framers intended, a crime against the state? Seems to me that you are. A crime is a crime, right?

Whew! But wait! There’s more: “Meanwhile, why don’t you explain the relevance of the Niger documents, known to be forgeries, who was the citizen deprived of due process by Libby, and how does a crime “rise”?”

One by one: (1) given the length of this message so far, let me refer all Niger questions to Mr. Zuniga’s website: http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Niger_uranium. Great stuff. Don’t shoot the messenger, everybody.

(2) I never said that any citizen was deprive of due process by Scooter Libby. Go back and read the original post, you yabbo. I simply said that Clinton's perjury was taken sooooo seriously and Libby's is laughed of