Right wing legal scholar Bruce Fein is calling for Bush's impeachment. Fein,
who worked in the Reagan administration, and also supported the impeachment
of Bill Clinton, says that Bush has committed illegal acts far worse than
any president in American history and has done things that even King George
of England wouldn't have dared to do. Fein discussed the issue of
impeachment on Bill Moyer's Journal, which was rerun last night on PBS. Fein
is clearly a right wing partisan yet he is able to objectively look at
George Bush's illegal actions as president and tell the truth about it. When
someone as clearly a pure conservative partisan as well as a constitutional
expert says that Bush is way over the line it really lends credence to
everyone else who is saying exactly the same thing. It's time for Bush and
Cheney to be impeached. At least that is what Fein is calling for and
according to him many other real conservatives think the same thing. If
someone as right wing as Fein says that then maybe the criticism of Bush
from the left is more than justified.

Hawke

Hawke wrote:

Right wing legal scholar Bruce Fein is calling for Bush's impeachment. Fein,
who worked in the Reagan administration, and also supported the impeachment
of Bill Clinton, says that Bush has committed illegal acts far worse than
any president in American history and has done things that even King George
of England wouldn't have dared to do. Fein discussed the issue of
impeachment on Bill Moyer's Journal, which was rerun last night on PBS. Fein
is clearly a right wing partisan yet he is able to objectively look at
George Bush's illegal actions as president and tell the truth about it. When
someone as clearly a pure conservative partisan as well as a constitutional
expert says that Bush is way over the line it really lends credence to
everyone else who is saying exactly the same thing. It's time for Bush and
Cheney to be impeached. At least that is what Fein is calling for and
according to him many other real conservatives think the same thing. If
someone as right wing as Fein says that then maybe the criticism of Bush
from the left is more than justified.

Hawke




The problem here is that these people, regardless of affiliation, scream
and shout for impeachment and holler about the illegal acts but not a
damned one of them produces any EVIDENCE (you know, that stuff that you
have to produce in court to get a conviction) as to which specific laws
were broken. Impeachment ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN. With less than 18
months until the next election and no slam-dunk outcome guaranteed, the
Congresscritters and Senators aren't going to bother. They could NEVER
get enough votes to convict so why waste our tax dollars on it. Not to
mention the fact that it would take more than 18 months to even get the
thing going. By that time they are out of office and the entire
proceeding is a waste of time and money. The best thing for the libreals
to do is just shut up, sit back and ride it out and hope that one of
their ilk can get elected. They we can start on their president for all
the **** that they (and they will you know) will pull.

Jim Chandler

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
Right wing legal scholar Bruce Fein is calling for Bush's impeachment.
Fein,
who worked in the Reagan administration, and also supported the
impeachment
of Bill Clinton, says that Bush has committed illegal acts far worse than
any president in American history and has done things that even King
George
of England wouldn't have dared to do. Fein discussed the issue of
impeachment on Bill Moyer's Journal, which was rerun last night on PBS.
Fein
is clearly a right wing partisan yet he is able to objectively look at
George Bush's illegal actions as president and tell the truth about it.
When
someone as clearly a pure conservative partisan as well as a
constitutional
expert says that Bush is way over the line it really lends credence to
everyone else who is saying exactly the same thing. It's time for Bush and
Cheney to be impeached. At least that is what Fein is calling for and
according to him many other real conservatives think the same thing. If
someone as right wing as Fein says that then maybe the criticism of Bush
from the left is more than justified.

Hawke



My question to you: who gives a ****?

"Jim Chandler" wrote in message
news:GPsvi.1288$hK5.179@trndny02...

snip
The problem here is that these people, regardless of affiliation, scream
and shout for impeachment and holler about the illegal acts but not a
damned one of them produces any EVIDENCE (you know, that stuff that you
have to produce in court to get a conviction) as to which specific laws
were broken. Impeachment ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN. With less than 18 months
until the next election and no slam-dunk outcome guaranteed, the
Congresscritters and Senators aren't going to bother. They could NEVER
get enough votes to convict so why waste our tax dollars on it. Not to
mention the fact that it would take more than 18 months to even get the
thing going. By that time they are out of office and the entire
proceeding is a waste of time and money. The best thing for the libreals
to do is just shut up, sit back and ride it out and hope that one of their
ilk can get elected. They we can start on their president for all the
**** that they (and they will you know) will pull.

Jim Chandler

You have to understand that Hawke HATES the right soooo much that his
masturbatory dream of impeachment and any other ding on the Right, is so
powerful that it overwhelms all logical thinking. If Gore had been elected
in 2000 and HE was the one to go into Iraq, he would be the ultimate world
leader that could do no wrong. But, like a good little lefty-lemming, Hawke
toes the party's fringe's line.

just once I would like to see a wish that the next president bring the
country together and lead us out of the morass of partisan bickering and
back stabbing, rather than planning to sabotage the administration before it
is even conceived.



"Jim Chandler" wrote in message
news:GPsvi.1288$hK5.179@trndny02...
Hawke wrote:


--------------big snip------------
.. The best thing for the libreals
to do is just shut up, sit back and ride it out and hope that one of their
ilk can get elected. They we can start on their president for all the
**** that they (and they will you know) will pull.

Jim Chandler



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

William Noble wrote:
just once I would like to see a wish that the next president bring the
country together and lead us out of the morass of partisan bickering and
back stabbing, rather than planning to sabotage the administration before it
is even conceived.


Seriously seconded.

But I think the world has changed and that kind of thing can't happen
anymore.

William Noble wrote:

just once I would like to see a wish that the next president bring the
country together and lead us out of the morass of partisan bickering and
back stabbing, rather than planning to sabotage the administration before it
is even conceived.


Frankly I doubt that is possible any longer. With the current social
philosophy of "Me first and to hell with everyone else". :-(
There are no longer any "statesmen" only politicians. :-(
...lew...

On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 23:01:56 -0700, "William Noble"
wrote:

just once I would like to see a wish that the next president bring the
country together and lead us out of the morass of partisan bickering and
back stabbing, rather than planning to sabotage the administration before it
is even conceived.


When was the last time that happened in the US?

At least gasoline prices could fall to $2 again.




"Jim Chandler" wrote in message
news:GPsvi.1288$hK5.179@trndny02...
Hawke wrote:


--------------big snip------------
. The best thing for the libreals
to do is just shut up, sit back and ride it out and hope that one of their
ilk can get elected. They we can start on their president for all the
**** that they (and they will you know) will pull.

Jim Chandler

"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
. net...

"Jim Chandler" wrote in message
news:GPsvi.1288$hK5.179@trndny02...

snip
The problem here is that these people, regardless of affiliation, scream
and shout for impeachment and holler about the illegal acts but not a
damned one of them produces any EVIDENCE (you know, that stuff that you
have to produce in court to get a conviction) as to which specific laws
were broken. Impeachment ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN. With less than 18
months
until the next election and no slam-dunk outcome guaranteed, the
Congresscritters and Senators aren't going to bother. They could NEVER
get enough votes to convict so why waste our tax dollars on it. Not to
mention the fact that it would take more than 18 months to even get the
thing going. By that time they are out of office and the entire
proceeding is a waste of time and money. The best thing for the libreals
to do is just shut up, sit back and ride it out and hope that one of
their
ilk can get elected. They we can start on their president for all the
**** that they (and they will you know) will pull.

Jim Chandler

You have to understand that Hawke HATES the right soooo much that his
masturbatory dream of impeachment and any other ding on the Right, is so
powerful that it overwhelms all logical thinking. If Gore had been
elected
in 2000 and HE was the one to go into Iraq, he would be the ultimate world
leader that could do no wrong. But, like a good little lefty-lemming,
Hawke
toes the party's fringe's line.



Wrong again, numbnuts! If Gore was pulling the stuff that Bush has done I'd
be as opposed to him as I am to Bush. But since Gore respects the
constitution that would never happen. I am taking the same position as Bruce
Fein has and not due to partisanship. I'm an independent. It isn't the
person it's what they are doing in the office. If it's wrong I would oppose
it, because unlike the Troglodyte conservative you are, who wouldn't have
the nerve to oppose a republican president no matter what he does, I would
oppose any president who breaks constitutional laws like Bush clearly has.
Big difference between me and you. I have principles I go by, you don't.
You're like Nixon, anything a republican does is legal because it's a
republican.

Hawke

"Jim Chandler" wrote in message
news:GPsvi.1288$hK5.179@trndny02...
Hawke wrote:

Right wing legal scholar Bruce Fein is calling for Bush's impeachment.
Fein,
who worked in the Reagan administration, and also supported the
impeachment
of Bill Clinton, says that Bush has committed illegal acts far worse
than
any president in American history and has done things that even King
George
of England wouldn't have dared to do. Fein discussed the issue of
impeachment on Bill Moyer's Journal, which was rerun last night on PBS.
Fein
is clearly a right wing partisan yet he is able to objectively look at
George Bush's illegal actions as president and tell the truth about it.
When
someone as clearly a pure conservative partisan as well as a
constitutional
expert says that Bush is way over the line it really lends credence to
everyone else who is saying exactly the same thing. It's time for Bush
and
Cheney to be impeached. At least that is what Fein is calling for and
according to him many other real conservatives think the same thing. If
someone as right wing as Fein says that then maybe the criticism of Bush
from the left is more than justified.

Hawke




The problem here is that these people, regardless of affiliation, scream
and shout for impeachment and holler about the illegal acts but not a
damned one of them produces any EVIDENCE (you know, that stuff that you
have to produce in court to get a conviction) as to which specific laws
were broken. Impeachment ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN. With less than 18
months until the next election and no slam-dunk outcome guaranteed, the
Congresscritters and Senators aren't going to bother. They could NEVER
get enough votes to convict so why waste our tax dollars on it. Not to
mention the fact that it would take more than 18 months to even get the
thing going. By that time they are out of office and the entire
proceeding is a waste of time and money. The best thing for the libreals
to do is just shut up, sit back and ride it out and hope that one of
their ilk can get elected. They we can start on their president for all
the **** that they (and they will you know) will pull.

Jim Chandler


You clearly didn't see the program with Bruce Fein on it or you wouldn't
have such an ignorant comment. Fein is a veteran constitutional scholar and
he said repeatedly that Bush has gone way past what is legal according to
the constitution. You can argue he doesn't know what he's talking about but
that would be like saying Sam Alito doesn't know anything about the
constitution either. Fein laid it out chapter and verse how Bush has
violated the constitution over and over and so dramatically that he should
be impeached for it. He is not an anti Bush or anti republican by any
stretch of the imagination like you would want so you could ignore him. The
point is when legal experts on the right assert that Bush has committed
impeachable offenses a rational person listens and wants to know more. An
ass simply argues against him without knowing the facts. The question is
which are you?

Hawke

Hawke wrote:

Right wing legal scholar Bruce Fein is calling for Bush's impeachment. Fein,
who worked in the Reagan administration, and also supported the impeachment
of Bill Clinton, says that Bush has committed illegal acts far worse than
any president in American history and has done things that even King George
of England wouldn't have dared to do. Fein discussed the issue of
impeachment on Bill Moyer's Journal, which was rerun last night on PBS. Fein
is clearly a right wing partisan yet he is able to objectively look at
George Bush's illegal actions as president and tell the truth about it. When
someone as clearly a pure conservative partisan as well as a constitutional
expert says that Bush is way over the line it really lends credence to
everyone else who is saying exactly the same thing. It's time for Bush and
Cheney to be impeached. At least that is what Fein is calling for and
according to him many other real conservatives think the same thing. If
someone as right wing as Fein says that then maybe the criticism of Bush
from the left is more than justified.

Hawke


What the heck?

Hi Hawke.

RCM: header attachment...

Also need to add RCM: for the reliy lines.

Should work with most all news agents.

Richard

PS: Gunner is gonny beat me senseless for this...

Hawke wrote:
"Jim Chandler" wrote in message
news:GPsvi.1288$hK5.179@trndny02...

Hawke wrote:


Right wing legal scholar Bruce Fein is calling for Bush's impeachment.

Fein,

who worked in the Reagan administration, and also supported the

impeachment

of Bill Clinton, says that Bush has committed illegal acts far worse

than

any president in American history and has done things that even King

George

of England wouldn't have dared to do. Fein discussed the issue of
impeachment on Bill Moyer's Journal, which was rerun last night on PBS.

Fein

is clearly a right wing partisan yet he is able to objectively look at
George Bush's illegal actions as president and tell the truth about it.

When

someone as clearly a pure conservative partisan as well as a

constitutional

expert says that Bush is way over the line it really lends credence to
everyone else who is saying exactly the same thing. It's time for Bush

and

Cheney to be impeached. At least that is what Fein is calling for and
according to him many other real conservatives think the same thing. If
someone as right wing as Fein says that then maybe the criticism of Bush
from the left is more than justified.

Hawke




The problem here is that these people, regardless of affiliation, scream
and shout for impeachment and holler about the illegal acts but not a
damned one of them produces any EVIDENCE (you know, that stuff that you
have to produce in court to get a conviction) as to which specific laws
were broken. Impeachment ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN. With less than 18
months until the next election and no slam-dunk outcome guaranteed, the
Congresscritters and Senators aren't going to bother. They could NEVER
get enough votes to convict so why waste our tax dollars on it. Not to
mention the fact that it would take more than 18 months to even get the
thing going. By that time they are out of office and the entire
proceeding is a waste of time and money. The best thing for the libreals
to do is just shut up, sit back and ride it out and hope that one of
their ilk can get elected. They we can start on their president for all
the **** that they (and they will you know) will pull.

Jim Chandler



You clearly didn't see the program with Bruce Fein on it or you wouldn't
have such an ignorant comment. Fein is a veteran constitutional scholar and
he said repeatedly that Bush has gone way past what is legal according to
the constitution. You can argue he doesn't know what he's talking about but
that would be like saying Sam Alito doesn't know anything about the
constitution either. Fein laid it out chapter and verse how Bush has
violated the constitution over and over and so dramatically that he should
be impeached for it. He is not an anti Bush or anti republican by any
stretch of the imagination like you would want so you could ignore him. The
point is when legal experts on the right assert that Bush has committed
impeachable offenses a rational person listens and wants to know more. An
ass simply argues against him without knowing the facts. The question is
which are you?

Hawke


Seems that you are the only ass here. I don't go about screaming for
the presidents impeachment without concrete proof that a crime has been
committed. I have seen no such evidence. Were there such hard evidence
I am quite sure that the Democrats would have acted on it long ago.
This is my last word on the subject as it is way off topic in a
METALWORKING group. If you want to post politics, go somewhere that
they do so.

Jim Chandler

Hawke wrote:
Right wing legal scholar Bruce Fein is calling for Bush's impeachment. Fein,
who worked in the Reagan administration, and also supported the impeachment
of Bill Clinton, says that Bush has committed illegal acts far worse than
any president in American history and has done things that even King George
of England wouldn't have dared to do. Fein discussed the issue of
impeachment on Bill Moyer's Journal, which was rerun last night on PBS. Fein
is clearly a right wing partisan yet he is able to objectively look at
George Bush's illegal actions as president and tell the truth about it. When
someone as clearly a pure conservative partisan as well as a constitutional
expert says that Bush is way over the line it really lends credence to
everyone else who is saying exactly the same thing. It's time for Bush and
Cheney to be impeached. At least that is what Fein is calling for and
according to him many other real conservatives think the same thing. If
someone as right wing as Fein says that then maybe the criticism of Bush
from the left is more than justified.

Impeachment is a political action, not a
judicial one. Nixon counted the votes,
found himself a looser and resigned. Clinton
counted the votes, found himself a winner
and stayed. If Bush were impeached, he
would stay because there's no way the required
number of republicans would break ranks and
vote to kick him to the curb.

The fact that Fein broke ranks as a conservative
is nothing more than a curious aberration.

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 10:22:24 -0700, Jim Stewart
wrote:

Hawke wrote:
Right wing legal scholar Bruce Fein is calling for Bush's impeachment. Fein,
who worked in the Reagan administration, and also supported the impeachment
of Bill Clinton, says that Bush has committed illegal acts far worse than
any president in American history and has done things that even King George
of England wouldn't have dared to do. Fein discussed the issue of
impeachment on Bill Moyer's Journal, which was rerun last night on PBS. Fein
is clearly a right wing partisan yet he is able to objectively look at
George Bush's illegal actions as president and tell the truth about it. When
someone as clearly a pure conservative partisan as well as a constitutional
expert says that Bush is way over the line it really lends credence to
everyone else who is saying exactly the same thing. It's time for Bush and
Cheney to be impeached. At least that is what Fein is calling for and
according to him many other real conservatives think the same thing. If
someone as right wing as Fein says that then maybe the criticism of Bush
from the left is more than justified.

Impeachment is a political action, not a
judicial one. Nixon counted the votes,
found himself a looser and resigned. Clinton
counted the votes, found himself a winner
and stayed. If Bush were impeached, he
would stay because there's no way the required
number of republicans would break ranks and
vote to kick him to the curb.

The fact that Fein broke ranks as a conservative
is nothing more than a curious aberration.


I wonder what the Parakeet thinks about all the Democrats who vote
with the Republicans on the Iraq war, funding and so forth?

Then there is Joe Lieberman.

Best becareful here..it may cause the tweety birds head to explode....

Gunner

"SteveB" wrote in message
...

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
Right wing legal scholar Bruce Fein is calling for Bush's impeachment.
Fein,
who worked in the Reagan administration, and also supported the
impeachment
of Bill Clinton, says that Bush has committed illegal acts far worse
than
any president in American history and has done things that even King
George
of England wouldn't have dared to do. Fein discussed the issue of
impeachment on Bill Moyer's Journal, which was rerun last night on PBS.
Fein
is clearly a right wing partisan yet he is able to objectively look at
George Bush's illegal actions as president and tell the truth about it.
When
someone as clearly a pure conservative partisan as well as a
constitutional
expert says that Bush is way over the line it really lends credence to
everyone else who is saying exactly the same thing. It's time for Bush
and
Cheney to be impeached. At least that is what Fein is calling for and
according to him many other real conservatives think the same thing. If
someone as right wing as Fein says that then maybe the criticism of Bush
from the left is more than justified.

Hawke



My question to you: who gives a ****?


Only those who consider themselves patriotic Americans, believe in
democracy, and give a **** about their country and not just their own
selfish little lives. So that lets you out.


Hawke

Gunner Asch wrote:

Best becareful here..it may cause the tweety birds head to explode....


So what? Tweety bird heads are a dime a gross. Much cheaper than
cleaning up the mess and reloading the burnt skull.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 02:10:13 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:

Best becareful here..it may cause the tweety birds head to explode....


So what? Tweety bird heads are a dime a gross. Much cheaper than
cleaning up the mess and reloading the burnt skull.


One could follow the old traditions and prepare his skull as a
drinking vessel, but given his brain size...it would only make a shot
glass or egg cup.

Gunner

Gunner Asch wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 02:10:13 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:

Best becareful here..it may cause the tweety birds head to explode....


So what? Tweety bird heads are a dime a gross. Much cheaper than
cleaning up the mess and reloading the burnt skull.

One could follow the old traditions and prepare his skull as a
drinking vessel, but given his brain size...it would only make a shot
glass or egg cup.


For another tweety bird.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 02:10:13 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:

Best becareful here..it may cause the tweety birds head to explode....


So what? Tweety bird heads are a dime a gross. Much cheaper than
cleaning up the mess and reloading the burnt skull.


One could follow the old traditions and prepare his skull as a
drinking vessel, but given his brain size...it would only make a shot
glass or egg cup.

Gunner


It's real funny hearing from an unlettered wimp how stupid other people are.
It was you who they had in mind when the phrase "the pot calling the kettle
black" was coined. If anyone around here lacks intellectual firepower it's
you Bummer. But then name calling is what ignorant and small minded people
always resort to when confronted by those with greater intellectual capacity
and education. Along with that comes the usual negative comments about how
college degrees aren't worth anything. Of course, coming from the
uneducated, unwashed mass of ignorant underclass you come from, that is par
for the course and just what I expected. You couldn't make a rational
argument if your life depended on it. I guess that explains why you never
try. Your limitations are so severe.


Hawke

Hawke wrote:

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 02:10:13 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:

Best be careful here..it may cause the tweety birds head to explode....


So what? Tweety bird heads are a dime a gross. Much cheaper than
cleaning up the mess and reloading the burnt skull.


One could follow the old traditions and prepare his skull as a
drinking vessel, but given his brain size...it would only make a shot
glass or egg cup.

Gunner

It's real funny hearing from an unlettered wimp


Actually you're not funny, at all. The word pathetic comes to mind.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Hawke wrote:
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 02:10:13 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:
Best be careful here..it may cause the tweety birds head to explode....

So what? Tweety bird heads are a dime a gross. Much cheaper than
cleaning up the mess and reloading the burnt skull.

One could follow the old traditions and prepare his skull as a
drinking vessel, but given his brain size...it would only make a shot
glass or egg cup.

Gunner
It's real funny hearing from an unlettered wimp


Actually you're not funny, at all. The word pathetic comes to mind.



Spoken by the sad sack who can't stop screaming about his DD214 and his
DAV status, from the roof tops.

--
Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

On Aug 13, 8:14 am, Jim Chandler wrote:

... I don't go about screaming for
the presidents impeachment without concrete proof that a crime has been
committed.

That's odd. The usual sequence is: suspicion, indictment, proof,
conviction.
So, you need to have suspicion first (yep, we got that) then you
indict
(i.e. accuse, ask for impeachment...). It's very much out-of-sequence
to ask for proof BEFORE indictment.

Abrasha wrote:

Spoken by the sad sack who can't stop screaming about his DD214 and his
DAV status, from the roof tops.


yawn.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

whit3rd wrote:
On Aug 13, 8:14 am, Jim Chandler wrote:


... I don't go about screaming for
the presidents impeachment without concrete proof that a crime has been
committed.


That's odd. The usual sequence is: suspicion, indictment, proof,
conviction.
So, you need to have suspicion first (yep, we got that) then you
indict
(i.e. accuse, ask for impeachment...). It's very much out-of-sequence
to ask for proof BEFORE indictment.



Actually, it's not. One must have proof before going to the Grand Jury,
or in this case, Congress, to try to get an indictment (Bill of
Impeachment). Without proof FIRST, you will never get an indictment or
impeachment, no matter how loudly the left whines "He lied, people
died", etc. Proof must be concrete, not merely suspicion, or fervent
desire. The Democrats obviously don't have enough or they would have
been on it sooner. If they had solid proof of the lafts desired result
they could have swayed enough Republicans to convict. They don't, they
didn't they won't.

Jim Chandler

In article 2eLwi.4525$%55.1914@trnddc04, Jim Chandler wrote:

Actually, it's not. One must have proof before going to the Grand Jury,
or in this case, Congress, to try to get an indictment (Bill of
Impeachment).

Incorrect. Back to remedial high school civics for you!

One needs *evidence* before going to the grand jury. The purpose of the grand
jury is to examine the evidence presented to it, and determine whether that
evidence is sufficient cause to issue an indictment.

Without proof FIRST, you will never get an indictment or

That's just silly. It's fairly common for persons to be indicted by a grand
jury because the evidence was strong enough to justify a formal accusation
(the indictment) but then acquitted by the trial jury because the evidence was
not so conclusive as to support a conviction; i.e. there wasn't proof.

impeachment, no matter how loudly the left whines "He lied, people
died", etc. Proof must be concrete, not merely suspicion, or fervent
desire.

That's just silly, too. "Fervent desire" isn't enough to convene a grand jury.
Suspicion might be, if strong enough. Suspicion supported by evidence is more
than ample reason to convene a grand jury -- whose purpose, I remind you, is
to determine if the evidence is strong enough to bring the case to trial. The
petit jury then determines if that evidence constitutes proof.

The Democrats obviously don't have enough or they would have
been on it sooner. If they had solid proof of the lafts desired result
they could have swayed enough Republicans to convict. They don't, they
didn't they won't.

Again, the Dems in the House don't *need* "solid proof" for an impeachment,
any more than a grand jury needs "solid proof" for an indictment. They need
*evidence*, which is not the same thing as proof.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article 2eLwi.4525$%55.1914@trnddc04, Jim Chandler wrote:


Actually, it's not. One must have proof before going to the Grand Jury,
or in this case, Congress, to try to get an indictment (Bill of
Impeachment).


Incorrect. Back to remedial high school civics for you!

One needs *evidence* before going to the grand jury. The purpose of the grand
jury is to examine the evidence presented to it, and determine whether that
evidence is sufficient cause to issue an indictment.


Without proof FIRST, you will never get an indictment or


That's just silly. It's fairly common for persons to be indicted by a grand
jury because the evidence was strong enough to justify a formal accusation
(the indictment) but then acquitted by the trial jury because the evidence was
not so conclusive as to support a conviction; i.e. there wasn't proof.


impeachment, no matter how loudly the left whines "He lied, people
died", etc. Proof must be concrete, not merely suspicion, or fervent
desire.


That's just silly, too. "Fervent desire" isn't enough to convene a grand jury.
Suspicion might be, if strong enough. Suspicion supported by evidence is more
than ample reason to convene a grand jury -- whose purpose, I remind you, is
to determine if the evidence is strong enough to bring the case to trial. The
petit jury then determines if that evidence constitutes proof.


The Democrats obviously don't have enough or they would have
been on it sooner. If they had solid proof of the lafts desired result
they could have swayed enough Republicans to convict. They don't, they
didn't they won't.


Again, the Dems in the House don't *need* "solid proof" for an impeachment,
any more than a grand jury needs "solid proof" for an indictment. They need
*evidence*, which is not the same thing as proof.



Sorry, but YOU'RE the one being silly. Do you think that the Dems are
going to try to impeach the President without anything other than a
desire to do so? No, they're not! They have to have something other
than a hatred for the President to begin such a proceeding unless they
really want to look like bigger fools than they already do. Without a
substantial case they would NEVER convince enough Republicans to vote
for it. Without substantial numbers of republicans voting to impeach it
isn't going to happen. Back to Common Sense 101 for you, never mind the
Civics.

Jim Chandler

In article KHMwi.10064$Ns6.4212@trnddc01, Jim Chandler wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article 2eLwi.4525$%55.1914@trnddc04, Jim Chandler
wrote:


Actually, it's not. One must have proof before going to the Grand Jury,
or in this case, Congress, to try to get an indictment (Bill of
Impeachment).


Incorrect. Back to remedial high school civics for you!

One needs *evidence* before going to the grand jury. The purpose of the grand
jury is to examine the evidence presented to it, and determine whether that
evidence is sufficient cause to issue an indictment.


Without proof FIRST, you will never get an indictment or


That's just silly. It's fairly common for persons to be indicted by a grand
jury because the evidence was strong enough to justify a formal accusation
(the indictment) but then acquitted by the trial jury because the evidence was
not so conclusive as to support a conviction; i.e. there wasn't proof.


impeachment, no matter how loudly the left whines "He lied, people
died", etc. Proof must be concrete, not merely suspicion, or fervent
desire.


That's just silly, too. "Fervent desire" isn't enough to convene a grand jury.
Suspicion might be, if strong enough. Suspicion supported by evidence is more
than ample reason to convene a grand jury -- whose purpose, I remind you, is
to determine if the evidence is strong enough to bring the case to trial. The
petit jury then determines if that evidence constitutes proof.


The Democrats obviously don't have enough or they would have
been on it sooner. If they had solid proof of the lafts desired result
they could have swayed enough Republicans to convict. They don't, they
didn't they won't.


Again, the Dems in the House don't *need* "solid proof" for an impeachment,
any more than a grand jury needs "solid proof" for an indictment. They need
*evidence*, which is not the same thing as proof.



Sorry, but YOU'RE the one being silly. Do you think that the Dems are
going to try to impeach the President without anything other than a
desire to do so? No, they're not!

Of course they won't. I never said they would.

They have to have something other
than a hatred for the President to begin such a proceeding unless they
really want to look like bigger fools than they already do.

Of course they do. They have to have evidence.

You said they had to have proof, which is patently absurd, and is the reason
I'm arguing with you.

Without a
substantial case they would NEVER convince enough Republicans to vote
for it.

Oh, so now you've decided that they don't need proof after all, just "a
substantial case".

So we agree. Glad you figured it out.

Without substantial numbers of republicans voting to impeach it
isn't going to happen. Back to Common Sense 101 for you, never mind the
Civics.

Back to Reading Comprehension 101 for you -- I never commented one way or the
other about the prospects for impeachment. My *entire* disagreement with your
comments stems from your repeated, erroneous statements that indictments (or
impeachments) require proof first. That's just not so.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 22:36:46 +0000, Jim Chandler wrote:
whit3rd wrote:
On Aug 13, 8:14 am, Jim Chandler wrote:

... I don't go about screaming for
the presidents impeachment without concrete proof that a crime has been
committed.

That's odd. The usual sequence is: suspicion, indictment, proof,
conviction.
So, you need to have suspicion first (yep, we got that) then you
indict
(i.e. accuse, ask for impeachment...). It's very much out-of-sequence
to ask for proof BEFORE indictment.

Actually, it's not. One must have proof before going to the Grand Jury,
or in this case, Congress, to try to get an indictment (Bill of
Impeachment). Without proof FIRST, you will never get an indictment or
impeachment, no matter how loudly the left whines "He lied, people
died", etc. Proof must be concrete, not merely suspicion, or fervent
desire. The Democrats obviously don't have enough or they would have
been on it sooner. If they had solid proof of the lafts desired result
they could have swayed enough Republicans to convict. They don't, they
didn't they won't.

Everybody's afraid to impeach Dubya, because that would put Cheney in
charge.

Better the devil we know than the devil we don't.

Thanks,
Rich

Doug Miller wrote:


Back to Reading Comprehension 101 for you -- I never commented one way or the
other about the prospects for impeachment. My *entire* disagreement with your
comments stems from your repeated, erroneous statements that indictments (or
impeachments) require proof first. That's just not so.


Which goes to show you, that reasoning (or arguing) with an illiterate
fool, who is incapable of reading, is rather pointless.

--
Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

In article , Abrasha wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:


Back to Reading Comprehension 101 for you -- I never commented one way or the
other about the prospects for impeachment. My *entire* disagreement with your
comments stems from your repeated, erroneous statements that indictments (or
impeachments) require proof first. That's just not so.


Which goes to show you, that reasoning (or arguing) with an illiterate
fool, who is incapable of reading, is rather pointless.

This is doubtless true. I can only hope that your reference is to him, and not
to me. :-)

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.