RE: Senate ethics anyone ?

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Senate ethics anyone ?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Senate ethics anyone ?

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Senate ethics anyone ? - 12/6/2010 8:13:58 AM

MrRodgers

Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

Oops

< Message edited by MrRodgers -- 12/6/2010 8:34:55 AM >

(in reply to subrob1967)

Profile

Post #: 21

RE: Senate ethics anyone ? - 12/6/2010 8:27:30 AM

MrRodgers

Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

And yet Gingrich is a potential 2012 candicate. LOL

He isn't running and that's a good thing.

(in reply to tazzygirl)

Profile

Post #: 22

RE: Senate ethics anyone ? - 12/6/2010 8:34:33 AM

MrRodgers

Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Perjury, was he charged ?

Look, it was a civil case about his time as governor into which repub backers went to work with money and all of the background they could get and to build nothing more than circumstantial evidence. Nothing like what this guy Ensign was up to.

Just give it up, there is no comparison no matter how hard you try.

Fuck yes he was impeached. So you are correct on trying to compare them, there isn't one...Why are you trying?

quote:

On December 19, following much debate over the constitutionality of the proceedings and whether or not Clinton could be punished by censure rather than impeachment, the House of Representatives held its historic vote. Clinton was impeached on two counts, grand jury perjury (228–206) and obstruction of justice (221–212),
Read more: Impeachment History — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/spot/impeach.html#ixzz178251SPP

Starr forwarded his investigation to the house clearly outside his perview...an entirely politically motivated enterprise.

While the report outlined 11 possible grounds for impeachment, none stemmed from the initial subjects of the investigation, including the Whitewater real estate deal. The real focus of the accusations seemed to be Clinton's moral conduct, and the “Starr Report” graphically detailed his sexual affair, i.e., NOT criminal conduct.

None of what Clinton did would be a subject of debate at all if it was not for repub right wing money, mud slinging and hypocrisy. I buy none of this entire politically motivated witch hunt of a $60 million investigation that resulted in NO criminal charges for either Clinton

Let us get Bush & Co. in front of a grand jury on 9/11, then we'll see sparks fly, as they would not even tesify to congress or the 9/11 commission without ridiculous preconditions that rendered the whole exercise a sham.

(in reply to subrob1967)

Profile

Post #: 23

RE: Senate ethics anyone ? - 12/6/2010 9:55:33 AM

Edwynn

Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

Abandoning your cancer stricten wife for another woman to run for president ? You must be talking about John Edwards .

Actually, his wife's cancer was diagnosed the day after the election, it was Elizabeth who left -him-, and it was six years after his presidential run in any event.

In other news, we sent a few folks to the moon in '69 (not to Mars) and it was not on the space shuttle, and the Soviet Union no longer exists.

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

~ This explains a lot about how we've wound up with the politicians we have running things today ... ~

< Message edited by Edwynn -- 12/6/2010 10:03:59 AM >

(in reply to servantforuse)

Profile

Post #: 24

RE: Senate ethics anyone ? - 12/6/2010 10:00:57 AM

Moonhead

Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline

I know nothing of Ethics: I'm throm Thtathordthire...

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to Edwynn)

Profile

Post #: 25

RE: Senate ethics anyone ? - 12/6/2010 10:02:55 AM

rulemylife

Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

And yet Gingrich is a potential 2012 candicate. LOL

He isn't running and that's a good thing.

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

How many other candidates have said that?

(in reply to MrRodgers)

Profile

Post #: 26

RE: Senate ethics anyone ? - 12/6/2010 10:10:15 AM

rulemylife

Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

Abandoning your cancer stricten wife for another woman to run for president ? You must be talking about John Edwards .

No, I was talking about Newt.

You were talking about Edwards.

But the last I heard no one was supporting a John Edwards Presidential campaign and he has made no indication he will try.

Yet Newtie is once again a respected figure in the Republican Party.

I guess it must be those conservative values at work again.

< Message edited by rulemylife -- 12/6/2010 10:11:45 AM >

(in reply to servantforuse)

Profile

Post #: 27

RE: Senate ethics anyone ? - 12/6/2010 10:39:34 AM

FirmhandKY

Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

Kicked out for what exactly?

quote:

WASHINGTON —Justice Department prosecutors have cleared Senator John Ensign of criminal allegations arising from his affair with a former campaign aide and his efforts to secure lobbying work for the woman’s husband, the senator’s lawyers announced Wednesday.

Source...Your link, very first paragraph.

What part of cleared didn't you understand? Also according to you leftists affairs are none of our business, and Clinton should have been left alone...Why the flip flop?

Grasping at straws again going after 'lefties.'
You see no difference in lying about an oval office blow job as compared to throwing money, power and influence around from a sitting senator ? I do...a big difference. There is absolutely no comparison at all as Clinton wasn't charged or suspected of doing anything like this guy Ensign. This obviously wasn't just an affair.

Besides, the lawsuits against Clinton were civil not criminal and the plaintiff was in no position to sue within the statute of limitations if it wasn't for repub backers.

Clinton admits misleading testimony, avoids charges in Lewinsky probe
President's law license suspended for 5 years
January 19, 2001
Web posted at: 5:06 p.m. EST (2206 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton will leave office free of the prospect of criminal charges after he admitted Friday that he knowingly gave misleading testimony about his affair with Monica Lewinsky in a 1998 lawsuit.

Under an agreement with Independent Counsel Robert Ray, Clinton's law license will be suspended for five years and he will pay a $25,000 fine to Arkansas bar officials. He also gave up any claim to repayment of his legal fees in the matter. In return, Ray will end the 7-year-old Whitewater probe that has shadowed most of Clinton's two terms.

"I tried to walk a fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish this goal and am certain my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false," Clinton said in a written statement released Friday by the White House.

Firm

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to MrRodgers)

Profile

Post #: 28