Clinton, Bush

[Ganoderma]

Anyone read the book "Fortunate Son"? it a biography about bush. He is a criminal, according to the book. In fact he has been caught with cocain. That book has not been proven wrong which tells me it isnt, that said i think bush is a prick and should not be allowed to keep a dog, nevermind a country.

 

clinton had a dick, bush is one. I think what clinton did for the USA is far far more progressive than anything bush has done "for" the country. Much of the world sure is pissed at him.

 

But i am canadian so i guess i am a little bias. I am still PO'd about the "free trade" agreements america has with canada. may as well give them the forests, save the ink and paper.

 

rant over :phones:

[CraigD]

It’s quite possible that President G. W. Bush has broken very serious laws. For example, he may have been aware of, or even ordered, the disclose the name of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame to journalist Robert Novak. He may have ordered the recent firings of several US Attorneys in order to obstruct ongoing investigations of corruption of his political allies.

 

These are only speculations. Bush, and many members of his administration, have been very careful that the only people who could testify to their commission or complicity in these definite or suspected crimes are their trusted allies, and that, if questioned under oath about such events, they can reasonably claim a lack of knowledge about these events, or plead Fifth Amendment protection (which has recently occured) on the ground that such testimony could incriminate them. Memos and emails that might invalidate an “I don’t recall” claim have been carefully destroyed and deleted. In short, there is cause for strong suspicion that Bush has committed impeachable crimes, but apparently a complete lack of any testimony or evidence that could satisfy the legal burden of proof.

 

President Bill Clinton lied under oath in his testimony concerning a civil lawsuit charging sexual harassment of a former employee, Paula Jones, claiming that he had never had sexual relations with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Lewinsky had confided details of such sexual contact to a person very hostile to Clinton, Linda Tripp. A piece of physical evidence, a dress worn by Lewinsky during a sexual encounter with Clinton, was scientifically tested, and show to contain Clinton’s semen.

 

Although I consider Clinton’s impeachment to have been inappropriate, in that his crime did not, IMNALO, qualify as a “high crime or misdemeanor” as required by the US constitution, the evidence of his crime satisfied the burden of legal proof. (Clinton later confessed to the having had the alleged sexual contact with Lewinsky, but argued that he had not lied under oath because he did not believe their contact to be “sexual relations” in the legal sense of the term)

 

Clinton’s behavior, while arguably less criminal than Bush’s, was unarguably better legally proven. Even though impeachment is both a legal and a political process, I believe it must adhere to legal principles. For Bush to be impeached, legal proof of crimes must be obtained by members of the legislature unfriendly to him. I consider this very unlikely to occur.

 

Even were Bush impeached, a 2/3 vote of the Senate would be required for conviction. Given recent history of strong loyalty along party lines, I think it very unlikely that such a vote could occur in a Senate with 49 Republicans Senators.