#1 legal reason Clinton impeachment was BOGUS!

[DeSPURado]

Clinton's impeachment was completely bogus for one reason and one reason alone. Whether or not you believe he lied in front of the grand jury is immaterial and I will prove it to you!


1) Step one: the fifth Ammendment to the cons ution states:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

2) Clinton was compelled to testify under penalty of a subpoena

July 25 — President Clinton was subpoenaed last week by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr to testify in the Monica Lewinsky investigation, ABCNEWS has learned.

link


3) In the case of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436...

The court established 2 principles: 1) the miranda warning must be given to inform suspects of their rights. 2) It also established the exclusionary principle. That is all evidence gathered in a way that breeches someones' cons utional rights is inadmissable.



Therefore: Clinton's tesitmony and later impeachment based upon that testimony is BOGUS! It goes against his cons utional rights. Now you can argue all you want that a president doesn't have that right, but then you would have to find a reason why the president is not protected by the cons ution? Is it because he is a public servant? Did a blow job have something to do with National security?

------------------------------------------------

The reason for the 5th ammendment is very straightforward: we expect people to lie in their own defense. By forcing people to testify against themselves we are in fact compelling them to lie, according to the founding fathers. The republicans decided the cons ution didn't apply to the president, and therefore didn't care about this little principle.

Yonivore you may know the facts of the case better than I (seems to be your obsession), but you do not know the law better than I. Oh and you were wrong, Paula Jone's case was thrown out for being trumped up. it was Paula who tried to weasal a settlement out of Clinton.

April 1
Judge Susan Webber Wright dismisses the Paula Jones case, saying in her decision that there is not enough evidence to prove either quid pro quo harassment or that the alleged incident created a hostile work environment.

March 31
Lawyers for Paula Jones offer to postpone the sexual harassment trial against President Clinton in exchange for the reversal of an earlier court decision barring their use of information about Monica Lewinsky in court.

link

[DeSPURado]

If you still aren't buying it, or are otherwise getting stuck on the language of the 5th, The following is a selection from the official handbook on the rules for federal grand juries:

Upon request, preferably in writing, an accused may be given the opportunity by the grand
jury to appear before it. An accused who does so appear cannot be forced to testify because of the cons utional privilege against self-incrimination. If the grand jury attempts to force the accused to testify, an indictment returned against that person may be nullified.

Because the appearance of an accused before the grand jury may raise complicated legal
problems, a grand jury that desires to request or to permit an accused to appear before it should
consult with the United States Attorney and, if necessary, the court before proceeding.

Even if the accused is willing to testify voluntarily, it is recommended that he or she first be
warned of the right not to testify. Also, he or she may be required to sign a formal waiver of this
right. The grand jury should be completely satisfied that the accused fully understands what he or
she is doing.

link

[Guru of Nothing]

Whether or not you believe he lied in front of the grand jury is immaterial and I will prove it to you!

Come on. Nothing is immaterial in politics.

You have proved nothing.

[DeSPURado]

Furthermore anything said in front of a grand jury is absolutely secret:

The law imposes upon each grand juror a strict obligation of secrecy. This obligation is emphasized in the oath each grand juror takes and in the charge given to the grand jury by the judge.

The tradition of secrecy continues as a vital part of the grand jury system for many reasons. It protects the grand jurors from being subjected to pressure by persons who may be subjects of investigations by the grand jury or associates of such persons. It prevents the escape of those against whom an indictment is being considered. It encourages witnesses before the grand jury to give full and truthful information as to the commission of a crime. It also prevents tampering with or intimidation of such witnesses before they testify at trial. Finally, it prevents the disclosure of investigations that result in no action by the grand jury and avoids any stigma the public might attach to one who is the subject of a mere investigation by the grand jury.

link

[DeSPURado]

Guru I have proven nothing? Oh Really? Go and read everything written down here and then tell me that....

[DeSPURado]

Yonivore, Hook, etc I have something for yall to eat, I baked it all by myself. Enjoy!

[LandShark]

Give it up.

[DeSPURado]

Yeah I'll give up the cons ution sure, that sounds like a good idea.

[Guru of Nothing]

Guru I have proven nothing? Oh Really? Go and read everything written down here and then tell me that....

I'm not an attorney, so I will not dive into the minutae, BUT, .....

Suffice it to say that lieing is a serious ethics violation in my eyes. I don't want to put words into your mouth, but it does seem that you gloss over, moreso than I, the lie part of this little equation.

Bottom line, Clinton got busted for getting a blow job several years ago. Ideally, he should have 'fessed up and taken his medicine, so to speak; but **** no, he opted for a starring role in "Who Wants to be a Media ?"

Why are bringing up the subject of Clinton's blowjob?

[DeSPURado]

That lie is inadmissable because in getting it republicans violated the accused's civil rights. And as such should be subject to an investigation. You republican's went on a witch hunt and were willing to sacrifice one of the most important principles in the cons ution to do it!

An accused who does so appear cannot be forced to testify because of the cons utional privilege against self-incrimination. If the grand jury attempts to force the accused to testify, an indictment returned against that person may be nullified.

[Guru of Nothing]

That lie is inadmissable because in getting it republicans violated the accused's civil rights. And as such should be subject to an investigation. You republican's went on a witch hunt and were willing to sacrifice one of the most important principles in the cons ution to do it!

This is where I bow out of the argument.

You accuse me of being a Republican, when I am anything but a Republican.

If you can't be real, be shrill.

Adios.

[DeSPURado]

I never said you were a republican....

I said republicans violated his civil rights, unless you were a part of Ken Starr's investigation I know this has nothing to do with you.

Let me ask you something Guru, If this becomes a precedent where Grand Juries can subpeona whoever they want and ask them about all of their sexual history under oath...Would you like that? Under penalty of perjury would you like to answer all the questions of you sexual history, including the way your penis is shaped? It is explicitly forbidden in the cons ution, but thats what republicans did anyway. That is why democrats have a right to be angry.

[Guru of Nothing]

I never said you were a republican....

Dude, as plain as the nose on your face, you called me a Republican. For the sake of your credibility, admit as much.

Geez!

[Guru of Nothing]

Let me ask you something Guru, If this becomes a precedent where Grand Juries can subpeona whoever they want and ask them about all of their sexual history under oath...Would you like that? Under penalty of perjury would you like to answer all the questions of you sexual history, including the way your penis is shaped? It is explicitly forbidden in the cons ution, but thats what republicans did anyway. That is why democrats have a right to be angry.

So in one corner, there is the Cons ution (Democrats apparently), and in the other corner there is the Truth (Republicans, apparently); and I'm the drunk in the crowd hoping, somehow, they both win.

SaD.

[Guru of Nothing]

Dude, as plain as the nose on your face, you called me a Republican. For the sake of your credibility, admit as much.

What happened DeSPURado?

Fact got your tongue?

[DeSPURado]

look your taking a statement that was meant as a general critique of republicans , but whatever its horrible that I falsely accused you of being republican...Sad that you think being a republican might be something to be ashamed of.....But whatever.


You still haven't answered my question....would you want to be forced to testify about your sexual history? What fact got you tongue?

Regardless it was still illegal to force Clinton to testify against himself. Even more heinous that it delved into his sex life.

[DeSPURado]

Yonivore I know you are dying to apologize to me for being wrong....Here is a perfect place to do it.

[xrayzebra]

I am sure you still believe Bush stole the election. Gee, you folks live a funny (like ha-ha) life. Wake up and smell the coffee. He lied under oath....period. End of argument.

[DeSPURado]

The oath was taken illegally....end of story! You seriously have no understanding of how the law works in the US do you...First you think the cons ution doesn't apply to the president...then you think the judge who overturned the abortion ban was just out to make a name for herself. The law doesn't work that way, she had to follow the guide lines set up by the decision of Roe vs. Wade until the SC amends that decision. And the law clearly states you can not be forced to testify against yourself.

An accused who does so appear cannot be forced to testify because of the cons utional privilege against self-incrimination. If the grand jury attempts to force the accused to testify, an indictment returned against that person may be nullified.

[xrayzebra]

No oath, given or taken, is illegal. It is an oath. He appeared before the Grand Jury and was sworn. He was cited for making false statements. I am very familiar with the law and this country. And about the Judge in California, how about the judge who ruled something was against the cons ution when the wording was taken from the cons ution almost verbatin. Like all men (okay women too) are created equal and should be treated as such........are we in school again....quit hunting for excuses to excuse people who have an agenda. Hopefully people will start using a little common sense one of these days....I hope so for the sake of people like you....I haven't got that long to worry about it.

[DeSPURado]

Thats where you are wrong an oath is illegal if it is forced on the acussed...IE a subpeona which has the force of contempt of court behind it is called using force...What part of that do you not undertand....Its so black and white even you shouldn't be able to miss it.


And you really have no idea about what the power of precedence is do you? A court has to go with the present interpretation of what the Supreme court hands down to them. Since Roe vs. Wade was the last big decision from the supreme court and it directly conflicts with the partial birth abortion ban, she had to strke down the abortion ban, until the SC hands down a new ruling or interpretation....Don't even think to misrepresent what I am saying about the cons ution needing to be interpreted literally, that only shows your nievate on this issue...It has nothing to do with what the cons ution literally says. It has everything to do with the precendance or set of rules handed down by the supreme court.

[xrayzebra]

DP, Go look at all the rulings make and then do you still want to say: "And you really have no idea about what precedence is do you? A court has to go with the present interpretation of what the Supreme court hands down to them." Lower courts go against the supreme court all the time. Anyhow, both our arguments are mute. Like I said, and you agreed, it is only the beginning. As for as Clinton and his oath, I don't recall a gun at his head. His oath was not forced, his appearance was not forced. He protested and lost....and then tried to get the taxpayers to pay the bill, and finally ask his supporters to pay the bill. Did you send him a little money to help the poor guy out.....just curious. I guess the judge that fined him was all wrong too.........at least he didn't send him to jail.

[DeSPURado]

I don't recall a gun at his head. His oath was not forced, his appearance was not forced.

the subpeona is force if you do not obey a subpeona (then he could have been legally impeached, presenting a nice catch-22 don't you think?) and held in jail until he was no longer in contempt of court again I am going to show you the rules from the official handbook of the grand jury and the pertinent part of the fifth:

An accused who does so appear cannot be forced to testify because of the cons utional privilege against self-incrimination. If the grand jury attempts to force the accused to testify, an indictment returned against that person may be nullified.

nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,

And again I should repeat the purpose behind that part of the fifth ammendment:
The reason for the 5th ammendment is very straightforward: we expect people to lie in their own defense. By forcing people to testify against themselves we are in fact compelling them to lie, according to the founding fathers. I know Clinton chose to lie and I know that was morally reprehensible. But it was done under really reprehensible cir stances, and the impeachment based upon that lie is a joke. It holds no legal water. It shows that this really was a witch hunt, and not something that had any good intentions like the truth behind it. The point was to catch him in a lie, and so they forced him into an illegal oath.


About the issue of judges going against the SC they do so only at the cost of their own decisions. And its the way our courts work...I'm just saying she didn't have to be out to make a name for herself, going with the standards set by Roe vs. Wade was the correct legal thing to do.

[Hook Dem]

DeSPURado:"Yonivore, Hook, etc I have something for yall to eat, I baked it all by myself. Enjoy!" Sorry DeSPURATE! Us Republicans don't eat crow! That kind of pie is for you and your buddies! I didn't even comment in here because I wasn't in town, but nice to know you thought of me while I was gone. I don't know what GON is or isn't, but he has made you look like the fool that you are! I'm glad that others(regardless of party affiliation) are starting to see how radical you are. Have a nice day!

[DeSPURado]

Uh huh try to paint me as a radical, as if that has anything to do with the issues at hand. Why are you so scared of the issues? Huh?


Manny was right when he said this about you:

for once i'd like to see hook prove a point of his own instead of piggybacking on someone else.

I think you are afraid of the debate because you don't know didley squat besides what the political pundits tell you to think...You didn't even know what the articles of confederation are...You thought that they were from the civil war. Yonivore maybe be someone I disagree with but at least he has an argument to make (most of the time) while menawhile you just hide behind him, and some stupid ass rhetoric.