who wants a traitor for President?

[Brother James]

Let me retract my statemt then. GW is not a traitor. However, he is an international war criminal as well as a subverter of the bill of rights.

 

[carpro]

Originally posted by Brother James:
Let me retract my statemt then. GW is not a traitor. However, he is an international war criminal as well as a subverter of the bill of rights.

At least you have wiggle room on that statement because it is largely a matter of opinion.

Under the law you might make a case for your contention, but it's highly unlikely.

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by carpro:
Unsupportable is the proper word.

Even if the if became true there would still be no case at all for treason.

"The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort."

That's all. There is no other cause for a charge of treason.

Totally unsupportable is even better.

Thanks for the lesson.

 

[hillclimber]

Looks like ya'll are having fun, a couple of you at God's anointed's expense.

 

[gb93433]

Whatever happened to Whitewater?

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by carpro:
who wants a traitor for President?

Over 50 million people voted for Kerry in the last election.

John Kerry is not a traitor.

He is a self-admitted war criminal.

 

[hillclimber]

He gave much aid and comfort to the enemy. He has a place of homor in the Viet Congs history.
He's is most certainly a traitor.

 

[Terry_Herrington]

Originally posted by hillclimber:
Looks like ya'll are having fun, a couple of you at God's anointed's expense.

When you make ridiculous statements like this, you lose what little credibility you have.

 

[hillclimber]

Originally posted by Terry_Herrington:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by hillclimber:
Looks like ya'll are having fun, a couple of you at God's anointed's expense.

When you make ridiculous statements like this, you lose what little credibility you have. </font>[/QUOTE]By your distorted viewpoint.
And it is mine to lose.

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by gb93433:
Whatever happened to Whitewater?

Insufficient evidence to prosecute - same as all the other stuff except lying in deposition in the Paula Jones case.

 

[carpro]

Originally posted by Daisy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by carpro:
Unsupportable is the proper word.

Even if the if became true there would still be no case at all for treason.

"The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort."

That's all. There is no other cause for a charge of treason.

Totally unsupportable is even better.

Thanks for the lesson.

</font>[/QUOTE]The odd thing is that, if Bush had reason to believe there was a terrorist attack being planned and did nothing to stop it, he could be accused of treason and there might actually be grounds for a case.

 

[Mike McK]

Originally posted by Daisy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gb93433:
Whatever happened to Whitewater?

Insufficient evidence to prosecute - same as all the other stuff except lying in deposition in the Paula Jones case. </font>[/QUOTE]So then, why did so many of their associates in the Whitewater scams go to prison?

In all fairness, much of the "lack of evidence" is based on the fact that the McDougals chose to go to prison, rather than testify against them and face their wrath.

 

[LadyEagle]

3-page warning: This thread will be closed no sooner than 10:30 p.m. ET by one of the Moderators.

Lady Eagle,
Moderator

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by Mike McK:
So then, why did so many of their associates in the Whitewater scams go to prison?

I wasn't clear - insufficient evidence to prosecute the Clintons.

Link to Special Committee's Report on Whitewater

In all fairness, much of the "lack of evidence" is based on the fact that the McDougals chose to go to prison, rather than testify against them and face their wrath.

In all fairness? To whom? That seems to be speculation on your part rather than "fact".

 

[LadyEagle]

Closed, per prior warning.

LE