27 Sep 2006 04:34:15
Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remaile
Clinton Sets The Record Straight On Terrorism, Smacks Down Fox News

Here's the key portion of the Fox News Sunday interview with President
Clinton. He sets the record straight on his efforts to combat terrorism,
the Bush administrationâs record and the tactics of Fox News. Watch it:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/24/clinton-video/




26 Sep 2006 22:16:23
dazed and confuzzed
Re: Clinton Sets The Record Straight On Terrorism, Smacks Down Fox

Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer wrote:
> Here's the key portion of the Fox News Sunday interview with President
> Clinton. He sets the record straight on his efforts to combat terrorism,
> the Bush administrationâs record and the tactics of Fox News. Watch it:
>
> http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/24/clinton-video/
>
>
or for another take:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_09_24-2006_09_30.shtml#1159261288






--
“TANSTAAFL”


“All I can say is there had better be some cheese at the end of this maze……”
____________________________________________________________________________

"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3




27 Sep 2006 07:44:00
Lee Bell
Re: Clinton Sets The Record Straight On Terrorism, Smacks Down Fox News

He lied to Congress. Why should we believe him now?

Lee




27 Sep 2006 10:11:30
Douglas W. Popeye Frederick
Re: Clinton Sets The Record Straight On Terrorism, Smacks Down Fox News

"Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net > wrote in message
news:KttSg.13691$vi3.234@bignews3.bellsouth.net...

> He lied to Congress. Why should we believe him now?


He lied to us all, starting with his wife, working his way through
everyone who voted for him, and finally every citizen of the country.

While I don't dis-believe the base-line his spin, there's a big difference
between 8 years and 8 months.

--

Popeye
People with courage and character
always seem sinister to the rest. -Hesse
www.finalprotectivefire.com




27 Sep 2006 07:28:43
James Connell
Re: Clinton Sets The Record Straight On Terrorism, Smacks Down Fox

Lee Bell wrote:
> He lied to Congress. Why should we believe him now?
>
> Lee
>

Because congress NEEDED to be lied to! I admire him for it.


27 Sep 2006 16:03:03
Lee Bell
Re: Clinton Sets The Record Straight On Terrorism, Smacks Down Fox News

Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick wrote

>> He lied to Congress. Why should we believe him now?

> He lied to us all, starting with his wife, working his way through
> everyone who voted for him, and finally every citizen of the
> country.

Yes, he did.

As I told Scott in a private mail, however, Clinton thinks he's the best man
to fight terrorism and I think he may have a point. It's a close race,
however. John Kerry also seems to be a likely candidate. I think we should
give each one of them a gun, as much ammunition as they can carry and a one
way ticket east. It's the only way to find out who really is best.

Lee




27 Sep 2006 16:03:43
Lee Bell
Re: Clinton Sets The Record Straight On Terrorism, Smacks Down Fox News

James Connell wrote

>> He lied to Congress. Why should we believe him now?

> Because congress NEEDED to be lied to! I admire him for it.

That figures.

So, back to the question. Why should we believe him now?




27 Sep 2006 13:49:46
James Connell
Re: Clinton Sets The Record Straight On Terrorism, Smacks Down Fox

Lee Bell wrote:
> James Connell wrote
>
>>> He lied to Congress. Why should we believe him now?
>
>> Because congress NEEDED to be lied to! I admire him for it.
>
> That figures.
>
> So, back to the question. Why should we believe him now?
>

Because the lie he told is one that should have been told. Contrast that
to shrub who told us there were WMDs in Iraq.
Shrub also was perfectly happy if the 'great unwashed' of this nation
thought Iraq and bin laden were linked. That,while not a technically
alie, was as much an untruth ( a lie of omission; and Infinatly more
damaging) as "I did not have sex with that woman" was to this nation.


27 Sep 2006 17:57:45
Lee Bell
Re: Clinton Sets The Record Straight On Terrorism, Smacks Down Fox News

James Connell wrote

>>>> He lied to Congress. Why should we believe him now?
>>
>>> Because congress NEEDED to be lied to! I admire him for it.
>>
>> That figures.
>>
>> So, back to the question. Why should we believe him now?

> Because the lie he told is one that should have been told.

He swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the laws
established under it. He violated the constition (sexual harassment) and
the law (perjury to Congress), and you think he should have lied about it.

Check.

OK, let's assume that he should, in fact, have lied (not that I believe it
for a second). Are the lies he's telling now, ones he should tell too?

How would I know?

How can I trust what he says when I can't tell when he "should" lie and when
he "should" tell the truth.

BTW, do you think a blowjob is sex? How about your wife?

> Contrast that to . . .

Contrast that to nobody. We're talking about whether or not Bill Clinton is
trustworthy. Anything anyone else has done, is doing, or ever will do, has
nothing to do with that question.

Lee




27 Sep 2006 14:25:16
James Connell
Re: Clinton Sets The Record Straight On Terrorism, Smacks Down Fox

Lee Bell wrote:
> James Connell wrote
>
>>>>> He lied to Congress. Why should we believe him now?
>>>> Because congress NEEDED to be lied to! I admire him for it.
>>> That figures.
>>>
>>> So, back to the question. Why should we believe him now?
>
>> Because the lie he told is one that should have been told.
>
> He swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the laws
> established under it. He violated the constition (sexual harassment) and
> the law (perjury to Congress), and you think he should have lied about it.
>

What "sexual harassment"?? It was between 2 consenting adults or do you
claim to have other info?

Lee, you've as closet republican in a democrats skin. Quit claiming not
to be.


27 Sep 2006 14:26:17
James Connell
Re: Clinton Sets The Record Straight On Terrorism, Smacks Down Fox

Lee Bell wrote:

>
> OK, let's assume that he should, in fact, have lied (not that I believe it
> for a second). Are the lies he's telling now, ones he should tell too?
>

Prove they are lies.


27 Sep 2006 16:21:59
James Connell
Re: Clinton Sets The Record Straight On Terrorism, Smacks Down Fox

Lee Bell wrote:

>
> Contrast that to nobody. We're talking about whether or not Bill Clinton is
> trustworthy. Anything anyone else has done, is doing, or ever will do, has
> nothing to do with that question.
>
> Lee
>


Trustworthy? A 'politician' and 'trustwrothy' in the same breath? Are
you some kind of Idealogical Fool? You're obsessed, Lee, but just to
make you foam at the mouth a little better - IF Clinton could run again,
I'd vote for him over any of the 'likely' candidates.


28 Sep 2006 10:49:46
dechucka
Re: Clinton Sets The Record Straight On Terrorism, Smacks Down Fox News


"Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net > wrote in message
news:rKASg.22949$8s6.444@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> James Connell wrote
>
>>> He lied to Congress. Why should we believe him now?
>
>> Because congress NEEDED to be lied to! I admire him for it.
>
> That figures.
>
> So, back to the question. Why should we believe him now?

the same reason that you would believe Bush and his administration
>
>




27 Sep 2006 20:07:22
Joe English
Re: Clinton Sets The Record Straight On Terrorism, Smacks Down Fox

James Connell wrote:

> Lee Bell wrote:
>
>> James Connell wrote
>>
>>>> He lied to Congress. Why should we believe him now?
>>
>>
>>> Because congress NEEDED to be lied to! I admire him for it.
>>
>>
>> That figures.
>>
>> So, back to the question. Why should we believe him now?
>
>
> Because the lie he told is one that should have been told. Contrast that
> to shrub who told us there were WMDs in Iraq.
> Shrub also was perfectly happy if the 'great unwashed' of this nation
> thought Iraq and bin laden were linked. That,while not a technically
> alie, was as much an untruth ( a lie of omission; and Infinatly more
> damaging) as "I did not have sex with that woman" was to this nation.

OMG


27 Sep 2006 20:10:01
Joe English
Re: Clinton Sets The Record Straight On Terrorism, Smacks Down Fox

James Connell wrote:

> Lee Bell wrote:
>
>> James Connell wrote
>>
>>>>>> He lied to Congress. Why should we believe him now?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because congress NEEDED to be lied to! I admire him for it.
>>>>
>>>> That figures.
>>>>
>>>> So, back to the question. Why should we believe him now?
>>
>>
>>> Because the lie he told is one that should have been told.
>>
>>
>> He swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the laws
>> established under it. He violated the constition (sexual harassment)
>> and the law (perjury to Congress), and you think he should have lied
>> about it.
>>
>
> What "sexual harassment"?? It was between 2 consenting adults or do you
> claim to have other info?
>
> Lee, you've as closet republican in a democrats skin. Quit claiming not
> to be.

He used a position of authority and power

any court in this country would have ruled sexual harassment, if she
would have filed. Whether she did or not is irrelevant


27 Sep 2006 20:10:26
Joe English
Re: Clinton Sets The Record Straight On Terrorism, Smacks Down Fox

James Connell wrote:

> Lee Bell wrote:
>
>>
>> OK, let's assume that he should, in fact, have lied (not that I
>> believe it for a second). Are the lies he's telling now, ones he
>> should tell too?
>>
>
> Prove they are lies.


His track record for one


27 Sep 2006 20:11:49
Joe English
Re: Clinton Sets The Record Straight On Terrorism, Smacks Down Fox

James Connell wrote:

> Lee Bell wrote:
>
>>
>> Contrast that to nobody. We're talking about whether or not Bill
>> Clinton is trustworthy. Anything anyone else has done, is doing, or
>> ever will do, has nothing to do with that question.
>>
>> Lee
>
>
>
> Trustworthy? A 'politician' and 'trustwrothy' in the same breath? Are
> you some kind of Idealogical Fool? You're obsessed, Lee, but just to
> make you foam at the mouth a little better - IF Clinton could run again,
> I'd vote for him over any of the 'likely' candidates.


We kniw, James, that is what is SO SAD


27 Sep 2006 21:29:52
Lee Bell
Re: Clinton Sets The Record Straight On Terrorism, Smacks Down Fox News

James Connell wrote

> What "sexual harassment"?? It was between 2 consenting adults or do you
> claim to have other info?

Go back and read the record again. You missed a lot.

> Lee, you've a closet republican in a democrats skin. Quit claiming not to
> be.

No, I'm a Dixiecrat, as I've said on several occasions, recently. I'm a
conservative, southern, registered Democrat. I've never claimed anything
else. If it took you this long to figure it out, you've not been paying
attention.

Lee




27 Sep 2006 21:31:51
Lee Bell
Re: Clinton Sets The Record Straight On Terrorism, Smacks Down Fox News

James Connell wrote

>> OK, let's assume that he should, in fact, have lied (not that I believe
>> it for a second). Are the lies he's telling now, ones he should tell
>> too?

> Prove they are lies.

He's the liar, you know, the one you admire because he lies when you think
he should.

You prove he's not. Until you can, the question of why we should believe
him now stands unanswered.

Lee




27 Sep 2006 21:35:14
Lee Bell
Re: Clinton Sets The Record Straight On Terrorism, Smacks Down Fox News

James Connell wrote

> Trustworthy? A 'politician' and 'trustwrothy' in the same breath? Are you
> some kind of Idealogical Fool?

No, I'm a federal official, one sworn, just like Clinton was, to uphold and
obey the laws of the United States. I take my oath seriously. Clinton
didn't and you admire him for it. It's not me that's obsessed.

> . . . just to make you foam at the mouth a little better - IF Clinton
> could run again, I'd vote for him over any of the 'likely'
> candidates.

Not only does it not make me froth, it doesn't even surprise me.

Lee




27 Sep 2006 19:28:45
Dennis (Icarus)
Re: Clinton Sets The Record Straight On Terrorism, Smacks Down Fox News


"James Connell" <jconnell@gci.net > wrote in message
news:12hlsfp61q8l09e@corp.supernews.com...
> Lee Bell wrote:
> > James Connell wrote
> >
> >>> He lied to Congress. Why should we believe him now?
> >
> >> Because congress NEEDED to be lied to! I admire him for it.
> >
> > That figures.
> >
> > So, back to the question. Why should we believe him now?
> >
>
> Because the lie he told is one that should have been told. Contrast that
> to shrub who told us there were WMDs in Iraq.

Clinton also believed there were WMDs in Iraq. As did several other leading
Democrats until...oh...Jan 2001.

> Shrub also was perfectly happy if the 'great unwashed' of this nation
> thought Iraq and bin laden were linked. That,while not a technically
> alie, was as much an untruth ( a lie of omission; and Infinatly more
> damaging) as "I did not have sex with that woman" was to this nation.

Dennis




27 Sep 2006 19:29:51
Dennis (Icarus)
Re: Clinton Sets The Record Straight On Terrorism, Smacks Down Fox News


"James Connell" <jconnell@gci.net > wrote in message
news:12hluiasb5cak87@corp.supernews.com...
> Lee Bell wrote:
> > James Connell wrote
> >
> >>>>> He lied to Congress. Why should we believe him now?
> >>>> Because congress NEEDED to be lied to! I admire him for it.
> >>> That figures.
> >>>
> >>> So, back to the question. Why should we believe him now?
> >
> >> Because the lie he told is one that should have been told.
> >
> > He swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the laws
> > established under it. He violated the constition (sexual harassment)
and
> > the law (perjury to Congress), and you think he should have lied about
it.
> >
>
> What "sexual harassment"?? It was between 2 consenting adults or do you
> claim to have other info?

Paula Jones? Kathleen Wiley? Juanita Brodderick? No...excuse me, that last
was a rape.

>
> Lee, you've as closet republican in a democrats skin. Quit claiming not
> to be.

Dennis




27 Sep 2006 19:30:57
Dennis (Icarus)
Re: Clinton Sets The Record Straight On Terrorism, Smacks Down Fox News


"James Connell" <jconnell@gci.net > wrote in message
news:12hluk8evl68bbc@corp.supernews.com...
> Lee Bell wrote:
>
> >
> > OK, let's assume that he should, in fact, have lied (not that I believe
it
> > for a second). Are the lies he's telling now, ones he should tell too?
> >
>
> Prove they are lies.

Richard Calrke was fired. He wasn't, near as I can tell.

Dennis




27 Sep 2006 21:38:26
Lee Bell
Re: Clinton Sets The Record Straight On Terrorism, Smacks Down Fox News

dechucka wrote

>> So, back to the question. Why should we believe him now?

> the same reason that you would believe Bush and his administration

Surely you forget who you're talking to. I wouldn't trust any of the Bush
family as far as I can spit and I've been very vocal in saying so.

Like I said before, what others have done is not an answer to the question
of why any of us should trust Clinton this time. The real answer is, we
have no reason at all. He's a proven liar and, since perjury to Congress is
a federal crime, a known criminal as well.

Lee




27 Sep 2006 21:57:01
Galen Hekhuis
Re: Clinton Sets The Record Straight On Terrorism, Smacks Down Fox News

On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 21:38:26 -0400, "Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net >
wrote:

>dechucka wrote
>
>>> So, back to the question. Why should we believe him now?
>
>> the same reason that you would believe Bush and his administration
>
>Surely you forget who you're talking to. I wouldn't trust any of the Bush
>family as far as I can spit and I've been very vocal in saying so.
>
>Like I said before, what others have done is not an answer to the question
>of why any of us should trust Clinton this time. The real answer is, we
>have no reason at all. He's a proven liar and, since perjury to Congress is
>a federal crime, a known criminal as well.

Earlier you said that you respect the law as a sworn federal officer.
Clinton was impeached by the House (indicted) then tried by the Senate
where he was acquitted, or found not guilty. You may disagree with the
outcome, you may deem the trial political, but it was done in accordance
with the law and the US Constitution. Either you can respect the law that
found him innocent or you can call him a criminal, but you can't do both.

Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA ghekhuis@earthlink.net
Guns don't kill people, religions do


28 Sep 2006 13:02:49
dechucka
Re: Clinton Sets The Record Straight On Terrorism, Smacks Down Fox News


"Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net > wrote in message
news:2IFSg.16227$GY5.11563@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> dechucka wrote
>
>>> So, back to the question. Why should we believe him now?
>
>> the same reason that you would believe Bush and his administration
>
> Surely you forget who you're talking to. I wouldn't trust any of the Bush
> family as far as I can spit and I've been very vocal in saying so.
>
> Like I said before, what others have done is not an answer to the question
> of why any of us should trust Clinton this time. The real answer is, we
> have no reason at all. He's a proven liar and, since perjury to Congress
> is a federal crime, a known criminal as well.

NIXON
is this why the republicans are so upset




28 Sep 2006 06:42:39
Grumman-581
Re: Clinton Sets The Record Straight On Terrorism, Smacks Down Fox News

"Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer" <anonymous@remailer.cyberiade.it > wrote in
message news:5662def0c4817cf65cb54973bc5418cb@remailer.cyberiade.it...

<snip-nothing-of-importance >

Like anyone gives a fuck about what a cowardly anonymous poster might have
to say... Thanks for giving me a new doman to killfile though...

<bitch-slap >

<plonk >




28 Sep 2006 07:54:19
Grumman-581
Re: Clinton Sets The Record Straight On Terrorism, Smacks Down Fox News

"Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net > wrote in message
news:7tCSg.9918$zF5.397@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> He swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the laws
> established under it. He violated the constition (sexual harassment) and
> the law (perjury to Congress), and you think he should have lied about it.

Damn, I must have missed that clause in the Constitution... Surely the FFs
would have had something in there about "life, liberty, and diddling the
office help"...




28 Sep 2006 07:54:20
Grumman-581
Re: Clinton Sets The Record Straight On Terrorism, Smacks Down Fox News

"James Connell" <jconnell@gci.net > wrote in message
news:12hluk8evl68bbc@corp.supernews.com...
> Prove they are lies.

Awh, that's *easy*...
"How can you tell when a politician is lying?"




28 Sep 2006 06:53:05
Lee Bell
Re: Clinton Sets The Record Straight On Terrorism, Smacks Down Fox News

Galen Hekhuis wrote

> Earlier you said that you respect the law as a sworn federal officer.
> Clinton was impeached by the House (indicted) then tried by
> the Senate where he was acquitted, or found not guilty. You may disagree
> with the outcome, you may deem the trial political, but
> it was done in accordance with the law and the US Constitution.

Did I say respect the law, or uphold it? There is a difference,
particularly if you're talking about how the law is applied. Life isn't
fair. If I had done what Clinton did, I would be out of a job and would be
ineligible for any significant government position. Further, he was not
tried by a jury of his peers, in a criminal court of law. What do you,
personally, think the outcome would have been if he had been?

> Either you can respect the law that found him innocent . . .

He was not found innocent. He was found not guilty. Again, there's a
difference.

. . . or you can call him a criminal, but you can't do both.

I can call him whatever I like. The law can't.

Lee




28 Sep 2006 06:54:38
Lee Bell
Re: Clinton Sets The Record Straight On Terrorism, Smacks Down Fox News

dechucka wrote

>> Surely you forget who you're talking to. I wouldn't trust any of the
>> Bush family as far as I can spit and I've been very vocal in saying so.

>> Like I said before, what others have done is not an answer to the
>> question of why any of us should trust Clinton this time. The real
>> answer is, we have no reason at all. He's a proven liar and, since
>> perjury to Congress is a federal crime, a known criminal as well.

> NIXON is this why the republicans are so upset.

It surely was at the time of Nixon's lies and crimes. What he did, or did
not do, also has nothing to do with why we should believe Clinton now.

Lee




28 Sep 2006 06:55:51
Lee Bell
Re: Clinton Sets The Record Straight On Terrorism, Smacks Down Fox News

Grumman-581 wrote

>> He swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the laws
>> established under it. He violated the constition (sexual harassment) and
>> the law (perjury to Congress), and you think he should have lied about
>> it.

> Damn, I must have missed that clause in the Constitution... Surely the FFs
> would have had something in there about "life, liberty, and diddling the
> office help"...

Sexual harassment is a form of discrimination based on gender.




28 Sep 2006 21:33:30
dechucka
Re: Clinton Sets The Record Straight On Terrorism, Smacks Down Fox News


"Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net > wrote in message
news:rRNSg.16261$GY5.15563@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> dechucka wrote
>
>>> Surely you forget who you're talking to. I wouldn't trust any of the
>>> Bush family as far as I can spit and I've been very vocal in saying so.
>
>>> Like I said before, what others have done is not an answer to the
>>> question of why any of us should trust Clinton this time. The real
>>> answer is, we have no reason at all. He's a proven liar and, since
>>> perjury to Congress is a federal crime, a known criminal as well.
>
>> NIXON is this why the republicans are so upset.
>
> It surely was at the time of Nixon's lies and crimes. What he did, or did
> not do, also has nothing to do with why we should believe Clinton now.
>
> Lee

or Bush
>
>




28 Sep 2006 07:25:13
Dennis (Icarus)
Re: Clinton Sets The Record Straight On Terrorism, Smacks Down Fox News


"Grumman-581" <grumman581@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:LcLSg.567$5o5.109@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> "Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:7tCSg.9918$zF5.397@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> > He swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the laws
> > established under it. He violated the constition (sexual harassment)
and
> > the law (perjury to Congress), and you think he should have lied about
it.
>
> Damn, I must have missed that clause in the Constitution... Surely the FFs
> would have had something in there about "life, liberty, and diddling the
> office help"...
>
>

Wou;dn't that be covered by "pursuit of happiness"? ;-)

Dennis




28 Sep 2006 09:16:59
Lee Bell
Re: Clinton Sets The Record Straight On Terrorism, Smacks Down Fox News

dechucka wrote

>> It surely was at the time of Nixon's lies and crimes. What he did, or
>> did not do, also has nothing to do with why we should believe Clinton
>> now.

> or Bush

Correct.




28 Sep 2006 09:54:18
Galen Hekhuis
Re: Clinton Sets The Record Straight On Terrorism, Smacks Down Fox News

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 06:53:05 -0400, "Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net >
wrote:

>Did I say respect the law, or uphold it? There is a difference,
>particularly if you're talking about how the law is applied.

I'd have thought that as a "sworn federal officer" you'd do both, or at
least try to. Especially in a public forum. If you were talking to
friends or cronies or maybe some of the people you work with I could see
your expressing your opinion. But in a public forum I would have expected
a "sworn federal officer" to be a little more circumspect when expressing
his views, especially in matters of legality. But I see I was wrong.

>Life isn't
>fair.

What a revelation!

> If I had done what Clinton did, I would be out of a job and would be
>ineligible for any significant government position.

I assume you mean "convicted," or perhaps "indicted." Surely you don't
mean to imply you would be terminated on the basis of an accusation.

>Further, he was not
>tried by a jury of his peers, in a criminal court of law.

If you were to read the Constitution of the United States, you would find
that the President is *never* tried by a "jury of his peers." In the
United States a sitting President is *always* tried by the Senate.

>What do you,
>personally, think the outcome would have been if he had been?

Beats me. I think what happened with OJ and Michael Jackson is enough to
scare anyone away from predicting court outcomes.

>He was not found innocent. He was found not guilty. Again, there's a
>difference.

Then he is presumed innocent unless found guilty. Granted, there's a
difference, there's also "no lo contendre" or something in which you sort
of plead guilty but you don't really. I have to admit I'm not up on the
details of each.

>I can call him whatever I like. The law can't.

I know you can, but it is kind of hard to trade on your special
relationship with the law and then turn around and call him a criminal. I
know you are well within your rights and all, it's just kind of sleazy to
tout your law enforcement relationship and all that the law implies and
then call someone who has been tried by that very system and found "not
guilty" a "criminal." I just expected a little better of you.

Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA ghekhuis@earthlink.net
Guns don't kill people, religions do


28 Sep 2006 12:11:31
Dennis (Icarus)
Re: Clinton Sets The Record Straight On Terrorism, Smacks Down Fox News

"Galen Hekhuis" <ghekhuis@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:s1jnh2ph66quoqn9h3m67kimio83ich8ie@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 06:53:05 -0400, "Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Did I say respect the law, or uphold it? There is a difference,
> >particularly if you're talking about how the law is applied.
>
> I'd have thought that as a "sworn federal officer" you'd do both, or at
> least try to. Especially in a public forum. If you were talking to
> friends or cronies or maybe some of the people you work with I could see
> your expressing your opinion. But in a public forum I would have expected
> a "sworn federal officer" to be a little more circumspect when expressing
> his views, especially in matters of legality. But I see I was wrong.
>
> >Life isn't
> >fair.
>
> What a revelation!
>
> > If I had done what Clinton did, I would be out of a job and would be
> >ineligible for any significant government position.
>
> I assume you mean "convicted," or perhaps "indicted." Surely you don't
> mean to imply you would be terminated on the basis of an accusation.

If upper managemen believes the accusation, then it could happen.

>
> >Further, he was not
> >tried by a jury of his peers, in a criminal court of law.
>
> If you were to read the Constitution of the United States, you would find
> that the President is *never* tried by a "jury of his peers." In the
> United States a sitting President is *always* tried by the Senate.
>

And you realize that the Senate is not a criminal court of law?
The crimnal ctrial, if any, would come AFTER conviction in the Senate.

> >What do you,
> >personally, think the outcome would have been if he had been?
>
> Beats me. I think what happened with OJ and Michael Jackson is enough to
> scare anyone away from predicting court outcomes.

So you now see why someone can say that Clinton si guilty, even though a
jury may've found 'em not guilty.
// which does not necessarily innocent.

>
> >He was not found innocent. He was found not guilty. Again, there's a
> >difference.
>
> Then he is presumed innocent unless found guilty. Granted, there's a
> difference, there's also "no lo contendre" or something in which you sort
> of plead guilty but you don't really. I have to admit I'm not up on the
> details of each.

"no contest". You're not admitting guilt, but you're also not contesting the
charges.
It goes on record as "guilty", a croon can then deny guilt in a civil action
based on the same facts.

http://www.jud.state.ct.us/legalterms.htm#Nolo%20Contendre

>
> >I can call him whatever I like. The law can't.
>
> I know you can, but it is kind of hard to trade on your special
> relationship with the law and then turn around and call him a criminal.
I
> know you are well within your rights and all, it's just kind of sleazy to
> tout your law enforcement relationship and all that the law implies and
> then call someone who has been tried by that very system and found "not
> guilty" a "criminal." I just expected a little better of you.

Lee's an intelligent person. He can look at the facts and draw his own
conclusion.
I always expect the best from Lee, and so far have not been disappointed.

Do you honestly believe that each and every vote to convict was based soley
on the facts?
Do you honestly believe that each and every vote to not convict was based
solely on the facts?

The people voting were politicians. Several said they would not vote to
convict regardless.
Such a person would never have been allowed to serve on a jury in a
criminal case.

Dennis




28 Sep 2006 18:05:28
GWB
Re: Clinton Sets The Record Straight On Terrorism, Smacks Down Fox News

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 07:54:20 GMT, "Grumman-581"
<grumman581@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM@gmail.com > wrote:

>Awh, that's *easy*...
>"How can you tell when a politician is lying?"
>

When he wags that big finger at you and emphatically declares: "I did
not have........"?


28 Sep 2006 18:07:17
GWB
Re: Clinton Sets The Record Straight On Terrorism, Smacks Down Fox News

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 06:53:05 -0400, "Lee Bell"
<pleebell2@bellsouth.net > wrote:

>He was not found innocent. He was found not guilty. Again, there's a
>difference.


OJ??


28 Sep 2006 19:32:35
Lee Bell
Re: Clinton Sets The Record Straight On Terrorism, Smacks Down Fox News

Galen Hekhuis wrote

> I'd have thought that as a "sworn federal officer" you'd do both, or at
> least try to.

I'm allowed to have opinions just like everybody else, and to speak my mind.
While I'm supposed to have the same freedom of speech that you do, if the
wrong person were to read some of my thoughts, it might cause career
problems. On the other hand, I've been eligible to retire for almost 5
years now. Career problems really aren't much of a threat any more.

> Especially in a public forum. If you were talking to friends or cronies .
> . .

I was speaking to my friends and cronies. Weren't you?

> I assume you mean "convicted," or perhaps "indicted." Surely you don't
> mean to imply you would be terminated on the basis of an accusation.

Nope. I don't have to be indicted or convicted. Just the knowledge that I
was guilty would be enough. For what it's worth, the same things holds for
bankers. They don't have to be indicted or convicted either. If a
preponderance of evidence suggests they have comitted a crime, including
perjury, involving dishonesty, they can be permanently removed from the
industry.

Like you said, life isn't always fair.

> If you were to read the Constitution of the United States, you would find
> that the President is *never* tried by a "jury of his peers." In the
> United States a sitting President is *always* tried by the Senate.

You know, I haven't looked to see what the rules for that are. If a court
of law, it's innocent until proven guilty. That only applies to the court
and the jury in a criminal court, by the way. If you recall, OJ was found
not guilty of murder, but was held liable in a civil trail for the same
event.

In your reading, did you find something that says that Congress has to find
them innocent until proven guilty?

> Beats me. I think what happened with OJ and Michael Jackson is enough to
> scare anyone away from predicting court outcomes.

You would have had a hard time finding better examples of just how bad the
system can be. I suspect OJ was probably guilty, particularly in light of
what the civil court subsequently did. I'm damned near positive Michael
was. I do not listen to, buy or even illegally download anything by Michael
Jackson.

> Then he is presumed innocent unless found guilty.

Only by the criminal court and jury, prior to and during the trail and it's
not "found guilty" it's proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, to be guilty.
That's a very specific provision applied to a very specific set of
circumstances.

>>I can call him whatever I like. The law can't.

> I know you can, but it is kind of hard to trade on your special
> relationship with the law and then turn around and call him a criminal.

How am I trading on it? You think I get some advantages because of it, you
should look up the ethical standards for working federal employees. You may
wonder why anyone would want the job.

Lee




30 Sep 2006 14:24:25
Grumman-581
Re: Clinton Sets The Record Straight On Terrorism, Smacks Down Fox News

"James Connell" <jconnell@gci.net > wrote in message
news:12hm5d51t6ieg16@corp.supernews.com...
> Trustworthy? A 'politician' and 'trustwrothy' in the same breath? Are
> you some kind of Idealogical Fool? You're obsessed, Lee, but just to
> make you foam at the mouth a little better - IF Clinton could run again,
> I'd vote for him over any of the 'likely' candidates.

In other words, "better the lying, cheating, politician you know than once
that you don't know"...