Conservative Tough Talk on Impeachment

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Jul , 01:13 PM)</div>

Clinton was disbarred because he misled the grand jury. He was not convicted of anything. Conviction of a crime is not a prerequisite for disbarment.

 

My post points out that Clinton was disbarred by both the Arkansas State Bar and SCOTUS. Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives. Another jpost points out that Clinton was also found to have committed a criminal violation of the Privacy Act by the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia. It matters not that the case was civil in nature or that it did not end in a criminal record, conviction or imprisonment. The gravitas of a Federal Court Judge declaring a sitting President of intentionally committing a criminal act and the U.S. Circuit Court upholding the finding on appeal lends creditably and weight to the charges. It is also of no consequence that Clinton gave up his license voluntarily as it would have been taken from him in any case. So if someone would please supply me with suitable terminology so that we can have a less acrimonious discussion about the findings of fact, decision, verdict, judgment, conviction, ruling, determination or whatever that led to the findings of intentional criminal acts, disbarment and impeachment, speak now or forever hold your peace. Some type of reliable and authoritative process had to be taken so that these actions would be considered legal and have the full force and effect of the law, which they clearly have.

Why etawful refer to the Senate vote on the Articles of Impeachment, something I had not mentioned or referred too once, is a different matter and of no consequence. He and others on this board seemed to think that somehow this absolved Clinton of the findings, conviction, ruling, determination, order, sanction or whatever that he criminally violated the Privacy Act, his disbarment, and the Impeachment by the House. They do not.

Furthermore, while it is true I did not pass the California Bar as IAP so adroitly pointed out above it wasn’t entirely due to my ignorance of the law. At the time I was taking the Bar, mid to late 90’s, I was in the final stages of renal failure (ESRD) “End Stage Renal Disease†which not only was a life threatening (60-70K die each year and 3-4K die each year waiting for transplant) but it made a very difficult subject (Law) that much more difficult because of all the side effects not only from the disease but the drugs used in treatment. I consider that time of my life to be one of accomplishment and victory having survived Diabetes, ESRD, Diabetic Retinopathy (I had a bleeder in my right eye 3 days before the 96 Bar Exam which almost completely obscured my vision in that eye), Cardio Vascular problems, (high blood pressure and Heart Attack in 2003) and a 5+ year wait for a double organ (kidney, pancreas) transplant in 1999, a fairly new and in some respects experimental procedure at that time. I quite proud to say I stuck it out and did not give up and eventually graduated with a Juris Doctorate Degree. I have no desire to become an attorney.

While it may not be IAP’s main goal to ridicule and embarrass me (simile noted at the end of his post) his rather obvious tone of distain is typical of many leftist elites on this board. I don’t mind, as I have dished it out, so I should expect it and also take it without sniveling or whining. I have been attacked viciously and quite often on this board ask the mods how many times I have personally gone to them to complain. But I will not take kindly or stand idly by while anyone calls me a liar as etawful did on a public forum. As it stands in this case I have no other means of redressing this attack upon my character. I am forced to seek help from the mods (Moderators) that is something they do and have done in the past and that’s why they are called Moderators. Besides that the rules of this board strictly prohibit this type of attack.

MarinJohn, your juvenile attack upon me for taking this avenue of redress reveals an ignorance of rules of this board, the job moderators do and has furthered lowered my estimation of your class and character. What gives you the right to criticize or have a say in the how, when or why I defend my own character? Mind your own business and don’t be such a putz.

Wildkow

p.s. FYI I believe that the impeachment of Bill Clinton was a huge waste of time and money.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Jul 26 2007, 02:48 AM) [snapback]485309[/snapback]</div>

You explained this yourself when you said your initial post wasn't worded as well as it could have been. He (and I'm assuming etawful is a guy here) thought you were saying Clinton was impeached & convicted on the articles of impeachment. He misconstrued what you said. However, your replies to him did nothing to disabuse him of that notion. You replied only to the impeachment part of his reply. And you stuck to the impeachment over multiple posts, to the point of offering wagers to everyone that thought he wasn't impeached. It was only after it was pointed out that no one ever that he wasn't impeached that you finally said what you meant.

I said it earlier ... there's blame enough to go around. He shouldn't have called you a liar. And you should have clarified your statement.

And I haven't seen anyone say that Clinton's acquittal on the articles of impeachment absolve him from any other behavior. What I usually see happening is people on the right scream "Clinton was impeached" and people on the left scream "He was acquitted". And this goes on ad nauseum.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Jul 26 2007, 02:48 AM) [snapback]485309[/snapback]</div>

Actually, you are not forced to rely on the moderators. You could send him a PM and ask (nicely) for an apology. If he doesn't respond or makes another attack, then you can send the PM & a copy of the initial offense to the mods.

By the way, your use of leftist elites takes a little away from your argument. You can't complain about someone impugning your character while simultaneously calling other people names.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Jul 26 2007, 02:48 AM) [snapback]485309[/snapback]</div>

I don't disagree with you. And, as much as I dislike the Bush administration, I believe it would be a huge waste of time & money here, too.