Karl Rove

[MachZer0]

that's not what you said in your other post. you said he was the only president ever impeached. that's not true. you know this, or you wouldn't have amended your post to include the word "elected".

Really???? Here's my post

The Republican Copngress didn't try to impeach Clinton, they DID impeach him. He is the only elected president in American history to be impeached, and he was impeached for actual crimes. No such crimes have been determined to have been committed by Rove

Now maybe you'll take your own advice when you said

why not say, you're right. my bad. why always a fight,

 

[reverend B]

Really???? Here's my post

that's not true. you know this, or you wouldn't have amended your post to include the word "elected". why not say, you're right. my bad. why always a fight, mach?

Now maybe you'll take your own advice when you said[/QUOTE]

i will absolutely take my own advice and apologize for missing that in your post. my bad.

my question to you, though, would be why would you make that distinction? is the way he ascended to the presidency relevant to whether or not he was impeached? have there been two impeachment proceedings in congress or one? is it merely to try to demonize clinton further? what's your motive for splitting that hair?

 

[katherine2001]

Clinton was indeed guilty and was penalized by a court of law and he was successfully impeached. In Rove's case, there is no crime, only a witch hunt

Actually, President Clinton was not impeached. He remained in office until January 20, 2001 at noon, when President Bush took over. If he'd been impeached, he would have been out of office sooner than that.

 

[MachZer0]

Actually, President Clinton was not impeached. He remained in office until January 20, 2001 at noon, when President Bush took over. If he'd been impeached, he would have been out of office sooner than that.

You seem to have a misunderstanding as to how impeachment works. I'll let you do the research on that, but rest assured, Bill Clinton was indeed impeached

 

[Grizzly]

Clinton was indeed guilty and was penalized by a court of law and he was successfully impeached. In Rove's case, there is no crime, only a witch hunt

That's not what I asked (and you know it). How did the impeachment go? That means, what was the ultimate outcome? Was he acquitted by the Senate or was he found guilty?

 

[MachZer0]

That's not what I asked (and you know it). How did the impeachment go? That means, what was the ultimate outcome? Was he acquitted by the Senate or was he found guilty?

I don't think guilt or innocence is an issue, since the Congress is not a law enforcement or judicial agency. However, the record will show that Clinton was indeed guilty. The impeachment itself went very well. The House did it's job. The Senate however based it's decision about removal largely on political affiliation, which was expected by most of us.

 

[MachZer0]

i will absolutely take my own advice and apologize for missing that in your post. my bad.

my question to you, though, would be why would you make that distinction? is the way he ascended to the presidency relevant to whether or not he was impeached? have there been two impeachment proceedings in congress or one? is it merely to try to demonize clinton further? what's your motive for splitting that hair?

It's a distinction I believe is important since Andrew Johnson was a man that nobody ever voted for to be President. You're free not to consider that a significant distinction, but I do.

 

[Grizzly]

I don't think guilt or innocence is an issue, since the Congress is not a law enforcement or judicial agency. However, the record will show that Clinton was indeed guilty. The impeachment itself went very well. The House did it's job. The Senate however based it's decision about removal largely on political affiliation, which was expected by most of us.

Of course its about guilt or innocence. To impeach is to bring federal charges against someone in office. As you know, bringing charges does not establish guilt or innocence. The Senate (with the Supreme Court Chief Justice presiding) decides whether the person impeached is innocent or guilty.

And if I recall, a number of Republicans voted innocent.

 

[MachZer0]

Of course its about guilt or innocence. To impeach is to bring federal charges against someone in office. As you know, bringing charges does not establish guilt or innocence. The Senate (with the Supreme Court Chief Justice presiding) decides whether the person impeached is innocent or guilty.

And if I recall, a number of Republicans voted innocent.

To say that the Congress could find him guilty or innocent would be to place him in double jeopardy in violation of the Constitution. Remember, Clinton was guilty, that is beyond question, so guilt or innocence was not the issue

 

[Grizzly]

To say that the Congress could find him guilty or innocent would be to place him in double jeopardy in violation of the Constitution. Remember, Clinton was guilty, that is beyond question, so guilt or innocence was not the issue

please read

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

There was a trial, there was a vote, he was found not guilty of all charges brought forward in the impeachment.

 

[MachZer0]

please read

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

There was a trial, there was a vote, he was found not guilty of all charges brought forward in the impeachment.

Did you notice that it was voted "guilty", in quotes. The issue was not guilt or innocence really since he was unquestionably guilty as determined in a court of law. The question was to remove or not to remove. Regardless, that has nothing to do with Karl Rove

 

[reverend B]

It's a distinction I believe is important since Andrew Johnson was a man that nobody ever voted for to be President. You're free not to consider that a significant distinction, but I do.

why? how does that impact the fact of his impeachment?

 

[reverend B]

Did you notice that it was voted "guilty", in quotes. The issue was not guilt or innocence really since he was unquestionably guilty as determined in a court of law. The question was to remove or not to remove. Regardless, that has nothing to do with Karl Rove

do you think it is civil to argue a point until you lose and then find it irrelevant?

 

[MachZer0]

do you think it is civil to argue a point until you lose and then find it irrelevant?

Having not lost any points, I wouldn't know

 

[reverend B]

Having not lost any points, I wouldn't know

you have, actually. the man was acquitted in his impeachment. you specifically said he couldn't be found guilty or not guilty. that is categorically incorrect, and suddenly became irrelevant. why do you do this, mach?

 

[MachZer0]

you have, actually. the man was acquitted in his impeachment. you specifically said he couldn't be found guilty or not guilty. that is categorically incorrect, and suddenly became irrelevant. why do you do this, mach?

He was acquitted in the sense of whether or not to remove him from office, but not in a criminal sense which was my point. Note that Clinton was indeed guilty, thus supporting my point

 

[Grizzly]

Did you notice that it was voted "guilty", in quotes. The issue was not guilt or innocence really since he was unquestionably guilty as determined in a court of law. The question was to remove or not to remove. Regardless, that has nothing to do with Karl Rove

Do you deny that Bill Clinton was acquitted of the impeachment charges? By acquitted, I mean found "not guilty"?

 

[MachZer0]

Do you deny that Bill Clinton was acquitted of the impeachment charges?

He was indeed acquitted. Do you deny that he was guilty?

 

[Grizzly]

He was indeed acquitted. Do you deny that he was guilty?

Thank you for your admission. No, I do not deny that he was found guilty outside of the impeachment procedures.

 

[MachZer0]

Thank you for your admission. No, I do not deny that he was found guilty outside of the impeachment procedures.

Which brings us back to the fact that Congress is neither capable of law enforcement or criminal adjuducation which is what folks are promoting in Karl Rove's situation