I'll make it easy on you guys... A charge is nothing if they can't get a
conviction.....

wrote in message
ink.net...
im·peach (m-pch)
tr.v. im·peached, im·peach·ing, im·peach·es
1..
1.. To make an accusation against.
2.. To charge (a public official) with improper conduct in office
before
a proper tribunal.
I see nothing in this definition that says he is guilty of anything... It
mearly says to make an accusation... The accusation was proven false.

"Jack Goff" wrote in message
. com...

wrote:

Get over it, Clinton was found INNOCENT by a jury of his peers.

So was OJ. But get over it already, Clinton was IMPEACHED. Look up the
meaning, and have a 10 year old explain it to you. Spin it all you
want,
but he was IMPEACHED.

He *was* IMPEACHED. Get it yet?

Jack





"John Smith" wrote in message
news:_Ffpc.3425$gr.255065@attbi_s52...
The New York Times, December 20, 1998, p. A1, col. 6

CLINTON IMPEACHED
_____

HE FACES A SENATE TRIAL, 2D IN HISTORY; VOWS TO DO JOB TILL TERM'S
'LAST
HOUR'

By ALISON MITCHELL

WASHINGTON, Dec. 19 - William Jefferson Clinton was impeached on
charges
of
perjury and obstruction of justice today by a divided House of
Representatives, which recommended virtually along party lines that
the
Senate remove the nation's 42d President from office.

A few hours after the vote, Mr. Clinton, surrounded by Democrats,
walked
onto the South Lawn of the White House, his wife, Hillary, on his
arm,
to
pre-empt calls for his resignation. The man who in better days had
debated
where he would stand in the pantheon of American Presidents said
he would stay in office and vowed "to go on from here to rise above
the
rancor, to overcome the pain and division, to be a repairer of the
breach."
Later, Mr. Clinton called off the bombing in Iraq, declaring the
mission
accomplished. Mr. Clinton became only the second President in
history
to
be
impeached, in a stunning day that also brought the resignation of
the
incoming Speaker of the House, Robert L. Livingston.

wrote in message
nk.net...
He was charged, he was not convicted. With no conviction he is
innocent.

Sorry but your impeachment song doesn't play any longer

wrote in message
ink.net...
im·peach (m-pch)
tr.v. im·peached, im·peach·ing, im·peach·es
1..
1.. To make an accusation against.
2.. To charge (a public official) with improper conduct in office
before
a proper tribunal.
I see nothing in this definition that says he is guilty of anything... It
mearly says to make an accusation... The accusation was proven false.

Wrong... Clinton was acquitted. The accusation was not proven false.

John wrote: "Impeached. And he's still their hero."

Then you wrote: "Sorry but your impeachment song doesn't play any longer"
Then you went on a several message whining spree saying that impeachment
means nothing.

No one said he was *found* guilty. Simply that he *was* impeached. You
seem to have a problem understanding the difference. Try reading for
content.

You *do* understand that acquittal in a court of law, and being innocent of
the charge you were acquitted of have little to do with each other, right?
That there are many reasons an acquittal can be reached, and true
*innocence* of the charge levied is only one of them?

Does OJ Simpson ring a bell?

Let me make it easy for *you*... "Where there's smoke, there's fire". And,
in the future when someone writes "Clinton was IMPEACHED", you don't have a
leg to stand on... as usual.

Have a good day...
Jack

Jack Goff wrote:

wrote:


Get over it, Clinton was found INNOCENT by a jury of his peers.


So was OJ. But get over it already, Clinton was IMPEACHED. Look up the
meaning, and have a 10 year old explain it to you. Spin it all you want,
but he was IMPEACHED.

He *was* IMPEACHED. Get it yet?

Jack



Are you referring to that rabid vote by the right-wing controlled,
Republican US House? The fix was in...

wrote:
I'll make it easy on you guys... A charge is nothing if they can't get a
conviction.....

Spoken like a law breaking thug that's had many brushes with the courts...
figures you'd be a LIEberal.

Jack

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Wow...the lunatic fringe element of right-wing obviously is getting
*very* nervous. How delightful. And with a really good chance now that
their dumb boy Bush will lose the election (beyond fixing it), we've
only begin to see their bile.

Speaking of bile... you've only made about half of your usual 20
lefty-leaning Demon-crat posts today. What's wrong?


Poor Jackoff.

Ohh... you fascination with *that* again. You go blind, Krause. Give your
left hand a break.

Jack

Jack Goff wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Wow...the lunatic fringe element of right-wing obviously is getting
*very* nervous. How delightful. And with a really good chance now that
their dumb boy Bush will lose the election (beyond fixing it), we've
only begin to see their bile.


Speaking of bile... you've only made about half of your usual 20
lefty-leaning Demon-crat posts today. What's wrong?


Poor Jackoff.


Ohh... you fascination with *that* again. You go blind, Krause. Give your
left hand a break.

Jack




Once a Jackoff, always a Jackoff.

Jack Goff wrote:

wrote:

I'll make it easy on you guys... A charge is nothing if they can't get a
conviction.....


Spoken like a law breaking thug that's had many brushes with the courts...
figures you'd be a LIEberal.

Jack




Uh, Jackoff...if the US House at that time was not controlled by rabid
right-wing Republicans out for blood at any cost, the results of the
vote would have been quite different.

"Jack Goff" wrote in message
. com...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Wow...the lunatic fringe element of right-wing obviously is getting
*very* nervous. How delightful. And with a really good chance now that
their dumb boy Bush will lose the election (beyond fixing it), we've
only begin to see their bile.

Speaking of bile... you've only made about half of your usual 20
lefty-leaning Demon-crat posts today. What's wrong?


Poor Jackoff.

Ohh... you fascination with *that* again. You go blind, Krause. Give
your
left hand a break.

Jack



You can always tell when a person cannot support their side of a discussion
anymore....they resort to childish insults.

Watch how often this happens with Krause. He is usually beat within 2 or 3
posts and then goes into his insult mode. Pretty funny stuff.

"Jack Goff" wrote in message
. com...

"Doug Kanter" wrote:



Bill Clinton will forever be stained with sexual scandal and by being
found
guilty of lying in a court of law along with the fact that the Supreme
Court
has revoked his privilege of practicing before them. Oh, and hasn't
his
law
license been suspended too? Bill Clinton just looked out for himself.


How many people died as the result of Clinton's "sexual scandal"?


The 3000 in the WTC. Clinton refused Bin Laden's when he was offered to
us.
He is directly to blame for 9/11. All because his "head" was somewhere
else, just not in managing the country and being the POTUS he swore he
would
be.

Liberal lying scumbag sack-o-**** he was.

Jack

The 3000 in the WTC.
That, of course, is stupid, but you knew that within seconds of hitting the
"Send" button.

During the 9/11 hearings, I couldn't listen to the entirety of the
broadcasts because I have a full time job. But, one thing I *did* catch was
very interesting. Some intelligence person was asked how often he was
supposed to meet with Bush, and said something like "weekly". He then
explained that during the late summer of that year, he had NOT met with Bush
for quite some time. When asked why, he explained "Well....the president had
been in Crawford for most of the summer, but we communicated".

So, what have we learned from this?

1) Except for mine, we know that nobody's dick is so big that a blowjob
requires a month or two (the length of Bush's vacation) to finish.
Therefore, there's no way Clinton was as distracted because of sex as Bush
probably was by sitting in his yard. This conclusion is based purely on how
much time is represented by each president's distraction.

2) We can now ask "Hmmm....what *did* last for months, and probably did a
great job of distracting Clinton?" Let's get past the word "impeachment" and
head straight for the source of at least 85% of the flak Clinton had to put
up with: Newt Gingrich, who was later silenced by *his* escapades. Remember?

When you're big, you'll understand these things.

On Sat, 15 May 2004 22:18:06 +0000, Jack Goff wrote:

You *do* understand that acquittal in a court of law, and being innocent
of the charge you were acquitted of have little to do with each other,
right? That there are many reasons an acquittal can be reached, and true
*innocence* of the charge levied is only one of them?

Excuse me, but not in this country. In this country, you are *innocent*
until *proven* guilty.