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


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



It actually doesn't bother you that he was impeached. You know that. It
bothers you (and others) that you can't get several facts to coexist in your
minds without overloading your brain:

The first is that he *did* have sex with Monica, but that this is less
harmful to society than running a red light.

The second is that if he'd been caught driving while drunk, you would've had
no problem with it because you've probably done it, too.

The third is that two large groups of important people still thought he was
a good leader: The first group: American female voters (and it wasn't
because they thought he was handsome). The second group: The rest of the
world.

Fourth, and most important is that you've probably never been in enough of a
position of power for women to risk anything to get to you. Oh well. Join
the club.

"thunder" wrote in message
news
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.

Not if you're a Patriot (with a capital "P"), like Jack.

wrote in message
ink.net...
And so the news says he was impeached... The news also said he was
acquitted...

Lets see, acquittal, means he was found not guilty.

That was verified by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court:
"It is therefore ordered and adjudged that William Jefferson Clinton be
and
hereby is acquitted of the charges in the said articles," declared Chief
Justice William Rehnquist in the Senate chamber.

Sorry, you were outvoted by the United States Senate, you were also called
a
liar by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

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

I'm sorry that your understanding of our legal system is lacking. You are
either found guilty or not guilty. There is no finding of innocence.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
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.

If Clinton had told the truth he wouldn't have been impeached.

"thunder" wrote in message
news
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.

You forgot to add "in the eyes of the law."

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
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.

If Clinton had told the truth he wouldn't have been impeached.

The truth about what? In your own words, please.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"thunder" wrote in message
news
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.

You forgot to add "in the eyes of the law."



Well, he went through the impeachment process, which IS the law, at least
according to Americans. The only "eyes" left are those of people whose heads
are stuck so far up their Christian asses that they can't get over a sexual
fling.

Actually, your wrong... The only brush I've had with the laws was a traffic
ticket and my dog getting off his leash...

Get your head out of the smelly area and see you have been beaten... AGAIN


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

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

in·no·cent
adj.
1.. Uncorrupted by evil, malice, or wrongdoing; sinless: an innocent
child.
2..
1.. Not guilty of a specific crime or offense; legally blameless:
was innocent of all charges.
2.. Within, allowed by, or sanctioned by the law; lawful.
ac·quit
tr.v. ac·quit·ted, ac·quit·ting, ac·quits
1.. Law. To free or clear from a charge or accusation.
Funny, they both say the same thing... Bill Clinton was found
INNOCENT, he was ACQUITTED

Sorry you guys can't seem to see this... It is very difficult for me
to put things in laymen's terms if you want to change the rules.

Here let me give you a reference point...

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...ougal.verdict/
McDougal not guilty on one count; mistrial declared on other two
charges

April 12, 1999
Web posted at: 5:51 p.m. EDT (2151 GMT)


LITTLE ROCK, Arkansas (AllPolitics, April 12) -- Whitewater figure
Susan McDougal was found not guilty Monday of obstruction of justice but the
judge declared a mistrial after jurors said they were "hopelessly
deadlocked" on the criminal contempt charges.

U.S. District Judge George Howard Jr. declared the mistrial on two
criminal contempt counts just before jurors delivered the innocent verdict
in the courtroom.

I see here it doesn't say McDougal was acquitted... No it says the
jury delivered the "innocent" verdict.

Sorry Bert, you've been beat again




"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...
And so the news says he was impeached... The news also said he was
acquitted...

Lets see, acquittal, means he was found not guilty.

That was verified by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court:
"It is therefore ordered and adjudged that William Jefferson Clinton be
and hereby is acquitted of the charges in the said articles," declared Chief
Justice William Rehnquist in the Senate chamber.

Sorry, you were outvoted by the United States Senate, you were also
called a liar by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

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

I'm sorry that your understanding of our legal system is lacking. You are
either found guilty or not guilty. There is no finding of innocence.

thunder wrote:

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.


Not until, unless. There is a big difference between until and unless.