Actually, I never said he was not impeached, I simply said that he was found
innocent.... Actually, I made the bold statement, by way of the conservative
news... Yes one of those right wing news publishers..

"At high noon Friday, the Senate rejected both articles of impeachment
against President Clinton, failing to get a simple 51 vote majority on
neither the perjury charge nor the obstruction of justice charge."

You know what rejected means???

re·ject
tr.v. re·ject·ed, re·ject·ing, re·jects
1.. To refuse to accept, submit to, believe, or make use of.
2.. To refuse to consider or grant; deny.
3.. To refuse to recognize or give affection to (a person).
4.. To discard as defective or useless; throw away.
Even the right wing "refuse to accept, submit to, believe, or make use of"

Must be bad that all the wanna-be pundits are holding on to something nobody
else is....

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:hzApc.8567$gr.647885@attbi_s52...
The gentleman did not say anything about wither he was found guilty, but
everyone knows he was not. The gentleman said he was impeached, which he
was. You are the one who said he was not impeached. I hate to tell you
this, but you were incorrect.

I was wondering what stock market crash... Last one I heard of was back in
the 20's... Come to think of it, Clinton wasn't alive yet, it must have been
his fault.

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


Earth to Doug...

There's nothing funny about Clinton's mis-management of our country. He
is
the person *most* responsible for 9/11 and the stock market "crash" we
experienced. No one was home in the White House during most of his
reign.

Sorry you can't see that with the liberal blinders you're wearing.



OK...now you've left the impeachment behind. How did Clinton cause a stock
market crash?

"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

Quite the opposite. The law IS that a charge can not be held against
you for ANYTHING. A conviction can. So, you see, if you righties are
saying that a charge is punishable, then you are a "law breaking
thug".

Actually, 1987, but I don't think Clinton had a hand in that one, either.

wrote in message
link.net...
I was wondering what stock market crash... Last one I heard of was back in
the 20's... Come to think of it, Clinton wasn't alive yet, it must have
been
his fault.

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


Earth to Doug...

There's nothing funny about Clinton's mis-management of our country.
He
is
the person *most* responsible for 9/11 and the stock market "crash" we
experienced. No one was home in the White House during most of his
reign.

Sorry you can't see that with the liberal blinders you're wearing.



OK...now you've left the impeachment behind. How did Clinton cause a
stock
market crash?

"basskisser" wrote in message

And how many millions of dollars did it cost the U.S. taxpayers to
find out Bill likes sex?

It cost nothing. Everyone already knew that. It cost money to establish
that Bill, among other things, obstructed justice, attempted to suborn
witnesses, possibly committed rape, and specifically and knowingly lied to
Congress, a Grand Jury, and the American public on at least seventeen
documented occasions.

"basskisser" wrote in message

..... So, you see, if you righties are
saying that a charge is punishable, then you are a "law breaking
thug".

God, I wish you folks would read and learn.

Articles of Impeachment are *not* the same as an indictment handed down by a
Grand Jury. Somewhat similar, but not the same. Press sources tout this
analogy to help simple minds grasp what's going on, but it doesn't always
work, as we see. The issue does *not* become meaningless upon failure to
convict. The fact of impeachment remains on record forever.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message

There's also a big difference between an extramarital affair, and using
your
country's armed forces as a no-charge mercenary force to protect your
family's investments.

There certainly is! As soon as a President has been impeached for having an
affair, and as soon as it is documented that a President has used the US
Armed Forces to protect his/her personal wealth, then we can investigate and
debate. Until such events transpire, try to stick with facts.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"basskisser" wrote in message

And how many millions of dollars did it cost the U.S. taxpayers to
find out Bill likes sex?

It cost nothing. Everyone already knew that. It cost money to establish
that Bill, among other things, obstructed justice, attempted to suborn
witnesses, possibly committed rape, and specifically and knowingly lied to
Congress, a Grand Jury, and the American public on at least seventeen
documented occasions.



It cost PLENTY, in terms of diverting the attention of legislators from
things that were actually important. Tell me - if you were an elected
official and a putz like Newt Gingrich decided to pry into parts of your
life that were none of anyone's business, what would YOU do?

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
news

"basskisser" wrote in message

..... So, you see, if you righties are
saying that a charge is punishable, then you are a "law breaking
thug".

God, I wish you folks would read and learn.

Articles of Impeachment are *not* the same as an indictment handed down by
a
Grand Jury. Somewhat similar, but not the same. Press sources tout this
analogy to help simple minds grasp what's going on, but it doesn't always
work, as we see. The issue does *not* become meaningless upon failure to
convict. The fact of impeachment remains on record forever.



So?

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message

There's also a big difference between an extramarital affair, and using
your
country's armed forces as a no-charge mercenary force to protect your
family's investments.

There certainly is! As soon as a President has been impeached for having
an
affair, and as soon as it is documented that a President has used the US
Armed Forces to protect his/her personal wealth, then we can investigate
and
debate. Until such events transpire, try to stick with facts.



He was impeached for having an affair. There was nothing else his opponents
could needle him with.