Bush Approval Numbers

12Footer

Fleet Admiral
Joined
Mar 25, 2001
Messages
8,217
Re: Bush Approval Numbers

It's ok,Tree.... They're liberals. They can lie, cheat, steal, doublecross their own country with complete impunity.
 

POINTER94

Vice Admiral
Joined
Oct 12, 2003
Messages
5,031
Re: Bush Approval Numbers

And misrepresent 12'r. I can't seem to find the articles of impeachment brought against Schlictster where an illegal sexual affair was part of the charge! It is illegal for the president to have sex with intern's. THANK YOU LIBERAL FEMINISTS!!! But that wasn't the charge.
 

treedancer

Commander
Joined
Apr 10, 2005
Messages
2,216
Re: Bush Approval Numbers

That?s why the nickname is Slick Willy think he has his law license back,??..Hhmmm ,think maybe he could lead the charge?:confused:


<<On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth before a Federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following: (1) the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee; (2) prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a Federal civil rights ac tion brought against him; (3) prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil rights action; and (4) his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action.>>"

<<In Clinton's testimony, he claimed that his relationship with Lewinsky began in early 1996; she claimed it started in late 1995. By the federal definition of perjury, the testimony has to be relevant to be perjurious. He's already admitted that they did have a relationship. Does it make any difference when the relationship began?>>

<<The Judiciary Committee also counts as perjury the fact that Clinton claimed he was alone with Lewinsky "on certain occasions" and they had "occasional" telephone sex. They call use of the word "occasion" an intentional lie and claim 20 sexual encounters and 17 phone conversations in more than a year are greater than "occasional." Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines "occasional" as an event "occurring at irregular or infrequent intervals." So how often is something that's "occasional"?>>

http://www.osmond-riba.org/lis/essay_impeach.htm
 

POINTER94

Vice Admiral
Joined
Oct 12, 2003
Messages
5,031
Re: Bush Approval Numbers

Tree, it looks like you need a little help with your history.

There is Substantial and Credible Information that
President Clinton Committed Acts that
May Constitute Grounds for an Impeachment

Introduction:

Pursuant to Section 595(c) of Title 28, the Office of Independent Counsel (OIC) hereby submits substantial and credible information that President Clinton obstructed justice during the Jones v. Clinton sexual harassment lawsuit by lying under oath and concealing evidence of his relationship with a young White House intern and federal employee, Monica Lewinsky. After a federal criminal investigation of the President's actions began in January 1998, the President lied under oath to the grand jury and obstructed justice during the grand jury investigation. There also is substantial and credible information that the President's actions with respect to Monica Lewinsky constitute an abuse of authority inconsistent with the President's constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws.

There is substantial and credible information supporting the following eleven possible grounds for impeachment:

1. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil case when he denied a sexual affair, a sexual relationship, or sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.

2. President Clinton lied under oath to the grand jury about his sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

3. In his civil deposition, to support his false statement about the sexual relationship, President Clinton also lied under oath about being alone with Ms. Lewinsky and about the many gifts exchanged between Ms. Lewinsky and him.

4. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Ms. Lewinsky concerning her involvement in the Jones case.

5. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth about their relationship by concealing gifts subpoenaed by Ms. Jones's attorneys.

6. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth of their relationship from the judicial process by a scheme that included the following means: (i) Both the President and Ms. Lewinsky understood that they would lie under oath in the Jones case about their sexual relationship; (ii) the President suggested to Ms. Lewinsky that she prepare an affidavit that, for the President's purposes, would memorialize her testimony under oath and could be used to prevent questioning of both of them about their relationship; (iii) Ms. Lewinsky signed and filed the false affidavit; (iv) the President used Ms. Lewinsky's false affidavit at his deposition in an attempt to head off questions about Ms. Lewinsky; and (v) when that failed, the President lied under oath at his civil deposition about the relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

7. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice by helping Ms. Lewinsky obtain a job in New York at a time when she would have been a witness harmful to him were she to tell the truth in the Jones case.

8. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Vernon Jordan concerning Ms. Lewinsky's involvement in the Jones case.

9. The President improperly tampered with a potential witness by attempting to corruptly influence the testimony of his personal secretary, Betty Currie, in the days after his civil deposition.

10. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice during the grand jury investigation by refusing to testify for seven months and lying to senior White House aides with knowledge that they would relay the President's false statements to the grand jury -- and did thereby deceive, obstruct, and impede the grand jury.

11. President Clinton abused his constitutional authority by (i) lying to the public and the Congress in January 1998 about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky; (ii) promising at that time to cooperate fully with the grand jury investigation; (iii) later refusing six invitations to testify voluntarily to the grand jury; (iv) invoking Executive Privilege; (v) lying to the grand jury in August 1998; and (vi) lying again to the public and Congress on August 17, 1998 -- all as part of an effort to hinder, impede, and deflect possible inquiry by the Congress of the United States.
 

treedancer

Commander
Joined
Apr 10, 2005
Messages
2,216
Re: Bush Approval Numbers

Your right Pointer, I?m a bit rusty on history, more results oriented.

<<How the Senate voted....
Friday, Feb. 12, 1999

WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, February 12)
The Senate acquitted President Bill Clinton Friday of both articles of impeachment.
The perjury charge was defeated with 55 "not guilty" votes and 45 "guilty" votes.
On the obstruction-of-justice article, the chamber was evenly split, 50-50. >>:)
 

Scaaty

Vice Admiral
Joined
May 31, 2004
Messages
5,180
Re: Bush Approval Numbers

Hmmmmm...Maybe because the Democratically controlled Congress has a lower rating?

Aint read past the second post here...
Today was (from one of the 4 cable news/CNBC shows)
Bush something like 24%...
CONGRESS...HA..13%
Go DEMS..!
 

Plainsman

Rear Admiral
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
4,062
Re: Bush Approval Numbers

Quote 12footer


Do you know the approval rating of the group THIS illustrious group belongs to is?


Them numbers will be easy to bring up; all we have to do is Impeach President Bush/Cheney. Them numbers would sore thru the roof. They tried to impeach President Clinton for having consensual sex, seems that they have a better case with this President.



All the Democrats would have to do is find a couple of hypocrites to lead the charge like Henry (?youthful indiscretions?) Hyde, and Newt Gingrich,who admitted in an interview on Focus on the Family that he had an extramarital affair even while he was leading the charge to have President Clinton impeached. Might be hard to find anybody that are any bigger hypocrites than those two, but we can make do .:D

Let's see, tree says the slick willy impeachment was a witch hunt, but here he says Libby shouldn't be pardoned for doing the same thing that slickwilly did.
http://forums.iboats.com/showthread.php?t=205752&highlight=Libby&page=2

Let's try to be consistent tree, shall we?
 

PW2

Commander
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
2,719
Re: Bush Approval Numbers

Let's see. Congress may have low approval numbers, but they are made up of roughly 50% Republicans. That will change in the '08 elections, and the numbers will improve.

That 30 % or so approve of Bush's job performance should shake a person's faith in democracy itself. What can they be thinking?
 

12Footer

Fleet Admiral
Joined
Mar 25, 2001
Messages
8,217
Re: Bush Approval Numbers

majority..You know, pw --pelosi and her crew?
Are you saying they should be "investigated and impeached"? lol
 

treedancer

Commander
Joined
Apr 10, 2005
Messages
2,216
Re: Bush Approval Numbers

Quote Plainsman


Let's see, tree says the slick willy impeachment was a witch hunt, but here he says Libby shouldn't be pardoned for doing the same thing that slickwilly did.



Clinton+ charged=Exonerated

Libby+charged=convicted

Libby= Cough.. Cough….Ccccommutation


Nice try Eric, keep lurking and digging, I’m sure you will eventually dig something up. But not today. :D
 

Kalifornyakid

Petty Officer 2nd Class
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
122
Re: Bush Approval Numbers

Nice try, Tree. But Plainsman said
"Let's see, tree says the slick willy impeachment was a witch hunt, but here he says Libby shouldn't be pardoned for doing the same thing that slickwilly did."
The outcome of the trial has nothing to do with the above statement. I think its evident, and doesn't need explaining.
 
Top