"Capt. JG" wrote in message

So, please show us the "precedence" of these redundant court decisions.
The passage I quoted is what is used as a guideline for businesses. Are
you saying that they're not valid?

That's precisely what I'm saying. If you're using and abiding by them,
you're leaving yourself open for litigation.

How did you come to that conclusion. Should we alert the media?

The media are well aware of it. Where have you been?

Basically, what you're saying is that it's not ok for two consenting
adults who happen to work with each other to have an affair.

Not if they are at the opposite ends of the power spectrum. Today a CEO who
has an consensual affair with his secretary is leaving himself open to
charges if she all of a sudden decides she doesn't like the guy anymore. It
especially happens if he dumps her for another tryst.

And, further, you're saying that this should be investigated and
prosecuted for lying about it. Is that what you're really saying??? Seems
kind of like a lot of gov't intrusion into someone's private life to me.
But, you're the conservative not me.

I have no idea what you're asking here.

I already did, but you refuse to acknowledge it.

Better show that evidence to Nancy Pelosi. Maybe she'll put impeachment
back on the table. ;-)

In any case, you're understanding of the impeachment process is flawed:

During Clinton's presidency, the world continued to transition from the
political order of the Cold War, and the United States experienced the
longest period of economic expansion in its history. In 1998, he became
the second president to be impeached by the United States House of
Representatives. He was subsequently acquitted by the United States Senate
and remained in office to complete his term.

Thanks for the history lesson, Jon, but now tell me something I don't
already know.

How am *I* supposed to show you that? I'm calling for an investigation.

No problem with that. If an investigation is warranted, it should happen.
But I could probably retire if I had a dollar for every time you've called
Bush a liar. You seem to have some evidence to which no one else is privvy.
I don't like Bush, but I like left-wing dogmatic garbage even less.

He knew that based on the intelligence or he should have known. For a guy
with an MBA, he sure didn't check to carefully or have his minions check.

Really? When some of the top intel people in the country are telling him
there is a strong possibility of WMDs, and a couple of others are saying
'probably not,' does he opt for the naysayers while taking the risk that
they may be wrong? Bush's only mistake, IMO, is staying in Iraq to help
nation-build. He once said he would not do that, but he has done exactly
that. And it's become a quagmire in which we are embroiled and losing
American lives, not to mention the tens of thousands of Iraqi lives that
have been lost in the process.

You don't believe. Well, that's an opinion and we need a full
investigation.
What if he DID lie? Do you really want someone who lies and 1000s die to
remain in office?

I don't want him to remain in office, regardless. I'm predicting he'll be
out of the White House in, oh, I don't know, less than two years.

Max