Federal Judge Ruling: George W. Bush is a Felon
Listed in the Politics category.
Terms Of Use | Code Of Conduct | FAQ | Site Map | Contact Us | The Store
Licensed by ASCAP, BMI & The MCPS-PRS Alliance
© 2008 SingSnap
Listed in the Politics category.
Terms Of Use | Code Of Conduct | FAQ | Site Map | Contact Us | The Store
Licensed by ASCAP, BMI & The MCPS-PRS Alliance
© 2008 SingSnap
offline
Posted by UnclerudyGOLD on July 12, 2008 at 9:00 AM
Federal Judge Ruling: George W. Bush is a Felon
The Existentialist Cowboy
July 11, 2001
Chief Judge Vaughn Walker of the US District Court in California has ruled that President George W. Bush is a felon. The ruling stems from the case of Al-Harmain Islamic Foundation Inc. v Bush, a case which will now be remembered as making it official that Bush’s program of ‘warrantless spying’ is illegal.
Judge Walker held that the president lacks the authority to disregard the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA — which means Bush’s warrantless electronic surveillance program was illegal. Whether Bush will ultimately be held accountable for violating federal law with the program remains unclear. Bush administration lawyers have fought vigorously — at times using brazen, logic-defying tactics — to prevent that from happening. The court battle will continue to play out as Congress continues to battle over recasting FISA and possibly granting immunity to telecom companies involved in the illegal surveillance.–Suing George W. Bush: A bizarre and troubling tale
The complete story at Sott.net outlines the sorry history of how the Bush administration has defined the law of this nation as well as the laws of common sense and decency to carry out a program that would have made even Richard Nixon or J. Edgar Hoover blush. It would seem to me that it’s now well established that Bush is indictable in a Federal Court. It is also my understanding that any sitting federal judge can now –upon his/her own motion –convene a federal grand jury to investigate Bush’s many violations of federal law, not the least of which are US Codes, Title 18, Section 2441, which make Bush subject to the penalty of death for each death of his war of aggression in Iraq.
(a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death. –TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 118 > § 2441 § 2441. War crimes
It’s easy to find evidences of Bush’s tyranny. Here’s a headline linked from the article cited above.
Editor’s note: This article is part of a Salon investigative series on spying inside the United States by the Bush administration. Research support for the article was provided by the Nation Institute Investigative Fund.
Spying on Americans without warrants, charges based on secret evidence, a small town divided by fear. Welcome to the world of Bush’s "specially designated global terrorists."May 19, 2008 | RIYADH, Saudi Arabia, and ASHLAND, Ore. One day in March 2004, Soliman Hamd Al-Buthe, a former member of Saudi Arabia’s national basketball team and a government official in the city of Riyadh, picked up his phone for an urgent call with two American lawyers in Washington, DC Most of the call concerned a growing confrontation between the US government and the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation in Ashland, Ore., the US branch of a global Saudi Arabian charity organization under investigation for possible links to terrorism. Al-Buthe had been an advisor to Al-Haramain from 1995 to 2002 and was a member of the Oregon foundation’s board of directors. Just weeks prior to the call, the foundation — a respected fixture in the Ashland community run for years by an Iranian-American Muslim named Pete Seda — had been raided by US law enforcement agents.–Blacklisted by the Bush government, Tim Shorrock, Salon
Quote
offline
Reply by UnclerudyGOLD on July 12, 2008 at 9:01 AM
It is the Bush administration which has pressed this issue, an issue that has come up, until Bush, just four times in 23 years. But since 911 and the Bush wars for which it is fraudulently cited in justification, Bush has seized upon a Supreme Court ruling of 1953 to justify sweeping authority far beyond anything that could have been envisioned by the courts. Mere mention of two words –’state secrets’ –was always enough to get a wink and nod from a federal judge. Things have changted. There is the possibility that George W. Bush is under investigation by a Federal Grand Jury as we write this.
Federal grand juries do two things: They investigate to determine if federal crimes have been committed; and they indict, or bring criminal charges against, those whom the grand jury believes committed federal crimes. To indict, the grand jurors must have probable cause to believe the persons indicted did violate federal criminal law. Grand juries offer prosecutors several advantages in conducting a criminal investigation, especially a high-profile, factually complicated investigation. For one thing, grand juries operate in secret; this not only gives prosecutors the ability to shield the evidence they are gathering from disclosure to the press and others, it can also encourage people to cooperate with a grand jury. Unless a witness reveals that he or she testified before a federal grand jury, no one ever needs to know that occurred, and since the transcripts of grand jury testimony are secret, no one will know what the witness said. This can be an advantage in an investigation, such as an investigation into terrorism, where witnesses may be afraid of retaliation if they cooperate with investigators.Grand juries also give prosecutors the power to subpoena witnesses and evidence from around the country and, in some circumstances, from other countries, as well. (Getting evidence from abroad is discussed below.) If federal agents want to interview someone, the person can refuse to speak to them; this is true even if the person is arrested as a material witness, because persons who are arrested can invoke the Miranda rights to silence and to an attorney. The U.S. Supreme Court has held, however, that the Miranda rights are not available to witnesses subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury. Unlike someone being interrogated by federal agents, a grand jury witness not only has not right to silence or counsel, he or she is required to answer questions posed by the prosecutor working with the grand jury and by the grand jurors. A grand jury witness can refuse to answer if he or she can invoke the Fifth Amendment as to a question, but the privilege must be claimed as to each question and the prosecutor can challenge a witness’ ability to invoke the privilege.–Using a Grand Jury to Investigate the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks, Susan Brenner & Lori Shaw
It is against both the letter of the law, logic, and common sense to allow Bush carte blanche to dismiss out-of-hand legal challenges to his various assumptions of dictatorial powers. This is crucial! Bush wars on Iraq, Afghanistan and ‘terror’ can be shown to be criminal and fraudulent. No other criminal defendant could simply invoke ‘executive privilege’ in order to have the smoking gun evidence against him thrown out of court. And Bush must no be allowed to do so either!
In this case, the evidence that must be allowed, the evidence that must be weighed by a federal grand jury will prove beyond any shadow of doubt that the panoply of frauds and lies Bush perpetrated upon the sovereign people of the US amount to high treason, mass murder, and war crimes for which US Codes themselves demand the death penalty.
http://www.infowars.com/?p=3271
Quote
Reply by SirfitzGOLD on July 12, 2008 at 11:22 AM
Uh, with all due respect, a felon is someone who has been convicted of a felony. I remember the blogs making a deal out of Clinton's "crimes" and calling him a felon when in fact he has not been convicted of such. More examples of far right and far left convictions without a trial. Thank God these people don't run the country, or anyone suspected of a crime without due process would be labeled.
Edited on July 12, 2008 at 11:22 AM Quote
Reply by SirfitzGOLD on July 12, 2008 at 11:28 AM
And if you read the judges ruling it does not say "I rule that Bush is a Felon". It says that the crimes Bush is ACCUSED of constitute a felony. These left wing blogs must mistake us for idiots as no Judge would actually brand someone a Felon. You can't even infer it, and no judge would.
If I was ACCUSED of selling dope, that does not make me a felon. I have to be convicted first. Glad we don't live in a far left or far right wing America where your guilty of being a felon before having to prove your innocence. And before I get jumped on for being a Bush apologist, if the man is guilty, then a court of law should convict him, THEN HE'S A FELON.
Edited on July 12, 2008 at 11:32 AM Quote
Reply by AmymamaGOLD on July 12, 2008 at 11:44 AM
Okay so maybe he isn't a felon but he sure is a Snake!
A vicious Viper That feeds on the poor and sucks the life out of liberty!
Dirty crook needs to be charged with war crimes.. oh that's right.. he pardoned HIMSELF from all of those. Sickens me!
Great post UNCLERUDY. :)
Quote
Reply by SirfitzGOLD on July 12, 2008 at 1:10 PM
Where in the legislation does it say he pardoned himself? What bill number is it? Or are you just going by what the far left blogs SAY it says ? People need to be carefull of repeating stuff that has no proof at all behind it, like blind sheep. (interesting that they don't quote the legislation itself..they just STATE it says that. You would think if the legislation actually pardon's the president all all the people who voted for the war they would quote the legislation and not just an accusation. But of course they can't or they would have).
And if you REALLY believe there is this bill that pardon's the president, then they are pardoning all the politians that voted to go to war for War Crimes.
Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors”
- President William Jefferson Clinton 12/16/98
Would this be a War Crime, to attack another country. Bill Clinton himself said after we invaded Iraq that the common belief is that Iraq would spirit the WMD's to syria.
“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
– Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
“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 the means of delivering them.”
– Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
– Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“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
“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
“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
“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
“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
“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do”
– Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
“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
“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
“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
Note: The evidence they all spoke of was not what Bush SAID (he wasn't president when Clinton ordered the attack on Iraq), but what the intelligence reports said WHEN CLINTON WAS IN OFFICE who also said that Iraq had WMD's.
I guess they all lied and need to be arrested for War Crimes including Bill Clinton who also stated when he was president that Iraq had WMD's.
Edited on July 12, 2008 at 1:15 PM Quote
Reply by sawheadGOLD on July 12, 2008 at 3:10 PM
"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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"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
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"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
"[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, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
"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
"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
Don't forget these quotes as well, they were before Bush took office.
Quote
Reply by hobo56GOLD on July 12, 2008 at 3:26 PM
[quote=sawhead]
"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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"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
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"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
"[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, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
"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
"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
Don't forget these quotes as well, they were before Bush took office. [/quote]
well said . the one thing bush haters forget is how all united we all were the day after 9-11 and they also forget how we havnt been attacked since . now if we had been attacked since 9-11 the bush haters would really have something to complain and bash about .what i see is not so much they hate mr.Bush but they hate the fact that the democrats didnt get the presidency the last 8 years thats what really galls them . clinton wasnt the greatest president but i never hated him or showed him any disrespect even tho i didnt aggree with his lifestyle he was still our president . these witch hunts show how far the liberals will go to snuff out anyone who promotes anything differant than what there goals are . the bush haters will no doubt ruin this country in jan 2009 thats the sad facts
Quote
Reply by SirfitzGOLD on July 12, 2008 at 4:22 PM
I remember the blogs when Clinton was president. Whenever anyone would say something nasty about Clinton, the lefties were screaming about how disrespectful it was to say such things about a President. And here they are now saying the most vile things about a sitting President. Oh the hypocrisy!
Edited on July 12, 2008 at 4:22 PM Quote
Reply by JacquiGOLD on July 12, 2008 at 4:29 PM
Oh come on, Sirfitz, ya gotta admit, he is a magnet for all kinds of comments! And he is funny as hell, lol!
Clickety here
Quote
Reply by SirfitzGOLD on July 12, 2008 at 4:32 PM
So was Clinton. My point is, don't sit, get all uppity about something, then turn around and do it yourself as if everyone will forget what was said. Sounds foolish and hypocritical.
Quote
Reply by JacquiGOLD on July 12, 2008 at 4:33 PM
Point taken! Did you see the one fingered salute in that clip? hehehe......
Quote
Reply by SirfitzGOLD on July 12, 2008 at 4:34 PM
Kind of like saying "your mamma" and the person gets all bent out of shape but is guilty of doing it themselves. Just shows the far left for what they are. Defenders of free speech if only it's for their' speech.
Quote
Reply by SirfitzGOLD on July 12, 2008 at 4:35 PM
Yeah.
There is something wrong with them all. I am critical of Clinton, Bush, Gore, Cheney, and the list goes on. but I try to be civil about it. That old saying "do unto others as you want them to do unto you".
Quote
Reply by AmymamaGOLD on July 12, 2008 at 6:26 PM
well said . the one thing bush haters forget is how all united we all were the day after 9-11 and they also forget how we havnt been attacked since . now if we had been attacked since 9-11 the bush haters would really have something to complain and bash about .what i see is not so much they hate mr.Bush but they hate the fact that the democrats didnt get the presidency the last 8 years thats what really galls them . clinton wasnt the greatest president but i never hated him or showed him any disrespect even tho i didnt aggree with his lifestyle he was still our president . these witch hunts show how far the liberals will go to snuff out anyone who promotes anything differant than what there goals are . the bush haters will no doubt ruin this country in jan 2009 thats the sad facts
I'm a proud Bush hater... so I suppose you are referring to me. :)
Please don't even get me started on 9/11 again.
Those of us that don't believe the media and research for ourselves know for a fact that 9/11 could have been prevented many times over but yet it wasn't. hmmmm......
Quote
Reply by SirfitzGOLD on July 12, 2008 at 9:52 PM
Yes it could have. Starting with Clinton. Since your up on the 9/11 then you know that. They both are culpable.
Edited on July 12, 2008 at 9:53 PM Quote
Reply by SirfitzGOLD on July 12, 2008 at 9:56 PM
Bush's Predecessor Didn't 'Put Much of a Dent' in Bin Laden Network
The massive report released July 22 by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States reveals that the Clinton Administration was warned in early 2000 that U.S. borders were open to terrorists and that terrorist sleeper cells had already penetrated the United States.
The warning came in a memo written by National Security Council aide Richard Clarke after al Qaeda had failed in its Millenium Plot, which included plans to detonate a bomb at Los Angeles International airport on Jan. 1, 2000. That attack was foiled when terrorist Ahmed Ressam panicked and ran as he was pat-searched by a Customs agent at Port Angeles, Wash., where Ressam had arrived from Canada via ferry.
more at:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200407/ai_n9457960
Quote
Reply by Arizonagal on July 12, 2008 at 10:17 PM
A blast from the past...
"Character doesn't matter". - Bill Clinton
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans." - Bill Clinton
"You know the one thing that's wrong with this country? Everyone gets a chance to have their fair say." - Bill Clinton
"My husband may have his faults, but he has never lied to me."
- Hillary Rodham Clinton, "Living History", page 465
"If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees." -
-- Bill clinton
"I have news for the forces of greed and the defenders of the status quo; your time has come and gone. It's time for change in America." -
-- Bill clinton
“The road to tyranny, we must never forget, begins with the destruction of the truth” - Bill Clinton
Edited on July 12, 2008 at 10:37 PM Quote
Reply by SirfitzGOLD on July 13, 2008 at 12:23 AM
And my favorite:
"I'm not a 'stand by your man woman'"
Hillary Clinton
LOL....she's been singing the Tammy Wynette song all along during her husband's cheating.
Hillary's version of Stand By Your Man
Sometimes its hard to be a woman
Giving all your love to just one man (even though I have to share HIM with other women)
You'll have bad times (like having him embarrass me time and time again with his sexapades)
And he'll have good times (with plenty of women)
Doing things that you don't understand (like with cigars?)
But if you love him you'll forgive him (if I want to keep the power)
Even though he's hard to understand
And if you love him
Oh be proud of him (cough cough)
'Cause after all he's just a man (although most husbands don't cheat on their' wives)
Stand by your man
Give him two arms to cling to
And something warm to come to
When nights are cold and lonely (and he can't find a date)
Stand by your man
And tell the world you love him (Actually I'll BS and say your not a stand by your man woman)
Keep giving all the love you can
Stand by your man
Stand by your man
And show the world you love him (and blame it on a right wing conspiracy)
Keep giving all the love you can
Stand by your man
Edited on July 13, 2008 at 12:32 AM Quote
Reply by JacquiGOLD on July 13, 2008 at 12:31 AM
Lol, this could also be a McCain parody. He also cheated on and dumped his wife, for a woman 18 yrs younger (whom he later married). Heck, I might too, if she was worth a couple hundred million.
Quote
Reply by SirfitzGOLD on July 13, 2008 at 12:33 AM
Yes, he did. But he never swore under oath and looked at the American people as President and deny it.
Quote
Reply by JacquiGOLD on July 13, 2008 at 12:36 AM
Lol, well, maybe Bill was telling the truth. The definition of "sex" has been broadened since, I believe, so maybe he could get off that on a technicality. ;-0
Hehe.....
Quote
Reply by SirfitzGOLD on July 13, 2008 at 12:39 AM
And sadly, I was one of the people duped when I believed my President when he swore that he had never cheated. Then later when confronted with the famous dress, the truth came out. And then the open mouth when I found out his "indiscretions" with all those other women. Although I am not a Hillary supporter, I really feel bad for her. She shoulda done what Lorena Bobbitt did. I don't think any jury would have convicted her after all the shenanigans Bill pulled. I can see ONE....but good lord, the man is a serial cheater.
Edited on July 13, 2008 at 12:39 AM Quote
Reply by SirfitzGOLD on July 13, 2008 at 12:42 AM
Chelsea was out on her first date. Two in the morning rolls around when she comes strolling in. A furious Bill is pacing in his robe.
"Ok young lady! I just want to know if you had sex with that young man!"
Chelsea looks at her dad calmly and says
"Not by your definition"
;)
Quote
Reply by SirfitzGOLD on July 13, 2008 at 12:43 AM
And your remark was humorous :)
I guess Bill never heard that it's called oral "SEX" for a reason. LOL
I know many men had to be thinking "gee, wonder if I can get away with that". Yeah right. I could see trying that explanation on my wife if I was that type.
Edited on July 13, 2008 at 12:45 AM Quote
Reply by JacquiGOLD on July 13, 2008 at 12:46 AM
Lol, Sirfitz! Shame on you, you really believed him? Lol! Not me, I can smell indescretion from a mile, and that blue dress reeked of it. I am sure there are LOTS more strewn along the roadside of his multiple infidelities. Shameful, but I believe there are soooo many more of our elected officials denigrating the offices they serve with this kind of behaviour. And too many women who act as groupies, thinking that there's something special in being the other woman in an extramarital affair with a public figure....
And I am a member of the Lorena Bobbit Fan Club ;-)
Edited on July 13, 2008 at 12:47 AM Quote
Reply by SirfitzGOLD on July 13, 2008 at 12:54 AM
Well, if another sitting prez does it, I will be disgusted. I really expect more from them Otherwise just elect the common person to the highest office. We don't want the common person. We DO expect more from a person who is going to be the the most powerful leader in the world (notice I haven't used gender anywhere? LOL). Sure, politico's are can be a raunchy bunch, but while you are president, SET AN EXAMPLE for God's sake. That is why they are called LEADERS. A leader leads by example. One of the main rules in the military, business, etc.
And, not to sound sexist, but women are more apt to spot a cheater. Men really don't have that radar. Why do you think that phrase was invented "the husband is always the last to know"? LOL
Edited to add:
Did you know that in many business' there is a morality clause that can get a CEO canned? Basically it's "Don't give our business a bad name with any sleaziness or you'll be unemployed". You see it in show business too in some areas (like Miss America, etc.) Too bad they can't have a morality clause for the office of President. It's only about committing crimes that can get you impeached.
Or maybe they can make a specific federal law that says ANY elected or appointed official that is caught and convicted of committing adultery or any lewd act such as having sex with interns, male or female, is guilty of a high crime and misdemeanor and shall be forthwith removed from office.
Edited on July 13, 2008 at 1:05 AM Quote
Reply by JacquiGOLD on July 13, 2008 at 1:05 AM
Edit- off to bed, g'nite, Sirfitz.
Edited on July 13, 2008 at 1:05 AM Quote
Reply by SirfitzGOLD on July 13, 2008 at 1:08 AM
I edited my previous post to reflect that. I said
maybe they can make a specific federal law that says ANY elected or appointed official or anyone working as a federal employee (that would include anyone in the government) that is caught and convicted of committing adultery or any lewd act such as having sex with interns, male or female, is guilty of a high crime and misdemeanor and shall be forthwith removed from office.
Quote
offline
Reply by UnclerudyGOLD on July 13, 2008 at 7:44 AM
I'M SO GLAD THIS POST MADE FOR SUCH GREAT CONVERSATION! Peace!!!
Quote
Reply by txspices on July 13, 2008 at 9:42 PM
WOOOOOO HOOOOOO YOU GO ARIZONIAGAL AND Sirfitz, you 2 have said it allllllllllll, go go go go woohoo tell em....they appear to like to change facts, you know a word here and there can change the whole meaning .....you keep em straight....love yah both!!!!!!
Quote
Reply by txspices on July 13, 2008 at 9:45 PM
Jacqui wrote:
Lol, Sirfitz! Shame on you, you really believed him? Lol! Not me, I can smell indescretion from a mile, and that blue dress reeked of it. I am sure there are LOTS more strewn along the roadside of his multiple infidelities. Shameful, but I believe there are soooo many more of our elected officials denigrating the offices they serve with this kind of behaviour. And too many women who act as groupies, thinking that there's something special in being the other woman in an extramarital affair with a public figure....
And I am a member of the Lorena Bobbit Fan Club ;-)
wooohooo thats difficult on the teeth, just use the weed whacker, or the old rusty and dull kitchen knife, I personally love the weed whacker.
Quote
Reply by txspices on July 13, 2008 at 9:48 PM
Sirfitz wrote:
And my favorite:
"I'm not a 'stand by your man woman'"
Hillary Clinton
LOL....she's been singing the Tammy Wynette song all along during her husband's cheating.
Sung to "Stand By Man"
Sometimes its hard to be a woman
Giving all your love to just one man (even though I have to share HIM with other women)
You'll have bad times (like having him embarrass you time and time again)
And he'll have good times (with plenty of women)
Doing things that you don't understand (like with cigars?)
But if you love him you'll forgive him (if you want to keep the power)
Even though he's hard to understand
And if you love him
Oh be proud of him (cough cough)
'Cause after all he's just a man (although most husbands don't cheat on their' wives)
Stand by your man
Give him two arms to cling to
And something warm to come to
When nights are cold and lonely (and he can't find a date)
Stand by your man
And tell the world you love him (Actually lie and say your not a stand by your man woman)
Keep giving all the love you can
Stand by your man
Stand by your man
And show the world you love him
Keep giving all the love you can
Stand by your man
WOW would to hear you in concert.
LMBO
Quote
Reply by unique2sdaughterGOLD on July 14, 2008 at 1:41 AM
..
Edited on July 14, 2008 at 1:42 AM Quote
Reply by SirfitzGOLD on July 20, 2008 at 12:57 AM
Well, while we're at it, I found a piece where a Federal Court Of Appeals Judge found Bill Clinton and his cronies guilty back in the year 1999. And this Judge has better credentials than I've seen on a judge in a long time.
Richard Allen Posner (born January 11, 1939, in New York City) is currently a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. He is one of the most influential living legal theorists and a major voice in the law and economics movement, which he helped start while a professor at the University of Chicago Law School. He currently serves as a lecturer at the Law School.
Posner is the author of nearly 40 books on jurisprudence, legal philosophy, and several other topics, including The Problems of Jurisprudence; Sex and Reason; Overcoming Law; Law, Pragmatism and Democracy; and The Problematics of Moral and Legal Theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Posner
In his rigorous, unsparing, razor-sharp analysis, Affair of State, this currently sitting judge details the deluge of deceit, distortion, sloppiness, and silliness that resulted in the only impeachment of an elected president in American history. Posner takes on the major players and central institutions in the melodrama one by one -- and finds most of them wanting. Posner is a pragmatist as well as a moralist. He can reject the formalistic, fanatic, and disproportional zeal of Clinton's persecutors as well as the Clintonites' relativistic, solipsistic, situational ethics. Posner's purview is narrow, his perspective is limited. He began writing the book in October 1998 and finished it on February 16, 1999, just four days after the Senate trial concluded. Federal judge that he is -- in fact, he is Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit -- Posner confined his analysis to the available evidentiary record. Nevertheless, he succeeds in offering some first rate social commentary. Posner also helps solve two of the central mysteries of the time: how did a clearly guilty president survive and how did this tawdry and tangled episode succeed in polarizing so many into such united and hostile camps?
In eight painstaking chapters and an introduction, Posner sifts through the evidence regarding "the President's Conduct," "the Prosecution and Defense," the impeachment imbroglio, and the broader questions the scandal raised about morality, leadership, and cultural division in America today. Judge Posner finds President Clinton guilty of the very real crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice (ignoring perjury in Clinton's answers to the questions put to him by the House Judiciary Committee and certain other peripheral offenses). The judge concludes with a "conservative estimate" that Clinton's crimes would have earned a normal defendant a federal "prison sentence of thirty to thirty-seven months" (p. 55). More broadly, Posner attacks "the number, publicness, transparency, solemnity, and gratuitousness of President Clinton's lies" (p. 151). The magnitude of the deceit combined with the triviality of the motive sets Clinton apart from other presidents who may have prevaricated in the line of duty. The "everybody does it" defense does not hold. When Abraham Lincoln or Franklin Roosevelt lied under wartime conditions there was, at least "some social cost but more social benefit;" Clinton's cascade of concoctions "were all social cost and no social benefit" (p. 151).
http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/history/faculty/TROYWEB/JudgePosnerFindsClintonandtheRestofUsGuilty.htm
Edited on July 20, 2008 at 1:03 AM Quote
Reply by txspices on August 16, 2008 at 11:38 PM
I am not the least bit threatened by big brother and have nothinhg to hide , however I do have plenty to loose, MY LIFE, so if Bush wants to listen into conversations that will make us safer and protect americans I have no problem with that.
Quote
Reply by cwang50GOLD on August 28, 2008 at 2:34 PM
for the Supreme Court
http://www.singsnap.com/snap/r/b8be3c89
Quote