Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 10:51:02 -0400 To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org> From: "Mike B." <omni at omniphile.com> Subject: [WSFA] Re: The end of a Washington mystery Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org> At 06:10 AM 6/3/05 -0700, Drew Bittner wrote: >--- "Mike B." <yahoo at omniphile.com> wrote: >Mike, there is no comparison between Watergate and >Monica Lewinsky. Suggesting that adultery equates to >political sabotage is naive. Yes, but I didn't do that. I suggested that malfeasance was comparable to perjury. I think that, legally, the perjury may be the more severe crime but I'm not certain of the penalties for malfeasance. Both are felonies. >> Either it's a betrayal of >> the nation to break the law and use your position to >> cover it up and evade >> the consequences, or it isn't. I'd say it is, >> personally. Any violation >> of the oath of office is...but if we were going to >> actually do anything >> about it the Congress would be pretty empty of the >> majority of those who >> keep getting re-elected anyway (anyone who's voted >> for a gun control bill >> that prevents an honest citizen from owning or >> carrying a firearm is a >> traitor to the nation and in direct violation of >> their oath of office for >> instance. See the Second Amendment and the oath of >> office). > >Also naive as well as cynical. It's naive and cynical to expect honorable behavior from our leaders? I think we've found the root cause of the problems... >What makes you think "the majority" of Congress is corrupt? You are equating "violates oath of office" with "corrupt"? If so, I already gave an example. There are lots more. I tend to think of "corrupt" as meaning things like bribes and influence peddling, but violating an oath might qualify I guess...though I'd put it more in the "dishonorable" category than "corrupt" myself. >The Second Amendment is a tangent and a distraction; we can slug >it out over that one separately How about the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights? There's only one that I can't see any infringement of so far (the 3rd), though seeing the infringement of the 9th takes a little indirect logic. All of the others are being infringed to some extent by one law or another...all passed by Congress and signed by various presidents, or enacted as regulations under powers delegated from Congress to various branches of the Executive. The anti-gun laws are just the most blatant examples. >>At least Nixon had the intelligence to resign and not force >> an impeachment situation. > >It was shame, not intelligence. He didn't want to be >impeached and he would have been. Smart enough to read >the writing on the wall, yes; smart enough to avoid >trouble in the first place, no. Agreed. >If you don't get why Watergate is a big deal, Mike... >Yes, the Democrats did want to "get" Nixon but this >was also rock-solid proof of a PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED >STATES BEING DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN COMMITTING A CRIME. So was the case for Clinton's perjury...yet the Democrats failed to do their duty and convict him for it. Double standard. >The guy is chief of the Executive Branch, charged with >upholding the laws of the country, and he authorizes >spying on his political enemies. >This is banana republic stuff. Again, if you think >what Clinton did by lying about an affair was as bad >as what Nixon did... Yes, I do. So does the law. The guy was chief of the Executive Branch, charged with upholding the laws of the country, and prosecuting those who violate them, and he lies to a Grand Jury under oath? About violating the sexual harassment laws? (if he'd just been screwing around with a random citizen it would have been legal...a subordinate was not). His administration removed a number of people from office for similar crimes...why was he given a pass and the laws ignored? >> Why didn't that come >> out in the hearings and trials? The hearings were >> run by Democrats, so >> that's obvious > >Sheesh. Like the Republicans are bastions of honesty >and integrity. Where did I say that? The "he's as bad as me!" defense is a pretty weak one anyway... >>and in the trials the judge >> suppressed that information as >> irrelevant (it was of course...though not >> politically by any means). >> >> -- Mike B. > >Suppressed? Can you cite some proof of this? That was Liddy's claim on the air when I asked him about it. If it was important enough to this I'm sure we could check him on it by looking at the transcripts of his trial. I just did a quick search and they don't appear to be on-line, so it would require either going to a law library or having access to one of the legal databases. -- Mike B. -- The Honest Politicians Convention will begin when a phone booth to hold it in is found.