The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Discuss the viability of a possible Bush IMPEACHMENT.
Poast new message in this thread
Date: November 13th, 2005 3:36 PM Author: Soul-stirring cerise immigrant (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297815&forum_id=2#4282381) |
 |
Date: November 13th, 2005 3:36 PM Author: floppy police squad native Don't think he's a great American eh? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297815&forum_id=2#4282387) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2005 3:37 PM Author: Soul-stirring cerise immigrant i can think of a couple greater ones (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297815&forum_id=2#4282398) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2005 3:38 PM Author: bistre ratface Hitler was German. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297815&forum_id=2#4282402) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2005 3:45 PM Author: Soul-stirring cerise immigrant ich bin ein berliner, as they say. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297815&forum_id=2#4282484) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2005 3:41 PM Author: Translucent concupiscible meetinghouse I thought you'd put this moniker to rest already. sheesh. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297815&forum_id=2#4282434) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2005 3:48 PM Author: Soul-stirring cerise immigrant not until i collect my 10k. where is that guy anyway? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297815&forum_id=2#4282523) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2005 3:49 PM Author: Translucent concupiscible meetinghouse You're supposed to email him, remember? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297815&forum_id=2#4282537) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2005 3:52 PM Author: Soul-stirring cerise immigrant lol. i asked him to email me first (about 22 hours ago) with all the necessary info. you guys are hilarious HAhahhaa (and rich) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297815&forum_id=2#4282562) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2005 3:59 PM Author: Translucent concupiscible meetinghouse I'm not rich, which is why I expect that $500 in treatise books if you get the money =)
No, seriously, I think you are supposed to email him. |
|
Date: November 13th, 2005 4:01 PM Author: Soul-stirring cerise immigrant i asked him to email me first, though (seriously). i was first to bring up the escrow idea becuase i did something through escrow a while ago and it worked out pretty well. i asked him to email me so we could get it set up (by monday at the absolute latest). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297815&forum_id=2#4282674) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2005 6:13 PM Author: Translucent concupiscible meetinghouse Fucking email him. He gave his email first. Do it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297815&forum_id=2#4283456) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2005 8:51 PM Author: Soul-stirring cerise immigrant I called him out like a man. That guy fucking owes me 10k. If I can get GTO to give me his IP info and all that other stuff (that might be a bit of a challenge), I'm sure I can bring a suit against him. It's very arguable that a binding contract existed between us when he gave his challenge. He offered, and I accepted. That's that. He's currently trying to impede the fulfillment of his obligations under our contract -- that clearly constitutes breach. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297815&forum_id=2#4284724) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2005 10:14 PM Author: Translucent concupiscible meetinghouse Subject: Isn't it something of a bet? How would that be enforceable? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297815&forum_id=2#4285415) |
Date: November 13th, 2005 3:39 PM Author: buff keepsake machete http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=297432&mc=40&forum_id=2
BTW, what ever happened between you and Roberts? |
|
Date: November 13th, 2005 3:44 PM Author: Soul-stirring cerise immigrant a bush impeachment is certainly more plausible than were the proceedings against clinton. the difference is that dubya actually committed "high crimes and misdemeanors" within the meaning of the impeachment clause. without resorting to ttt flame, do you find anything unsound with this view?
(kudos to WAAL for linking to the thread where i originally posted this) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2005 3:44 PM Author: floppy police squad native I'm curious what you think high crimes and misdemeanors are. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297815&forum_id=2#4282482) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2005 3:46 PM Author: Soul-stirring cerise immigrant do you want the textual argument or the constructionist argument? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297815&forum_id=2#4282495) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2005 3:49 PM Author: floppy police squad native Whatever you think. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297815&forum_id=2#4282533) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2005 3:54 PM Author: Soul-stirring cerise immigrant i'd rather not waste valuable mind power constructing a beautiful response to your question, but I have a question for you. where, in the impeachment clause of course, does it say that getting your pecker sucked by a fat whore is an impeachable offense? the answer is incredibly obvious, of course, but i think we can use it as a good place to start. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297815&forum_id=2#4282589) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2005 3:55 PM Author: Contagious amber bbw I had no idea that Clinton was impeached for having his nuts sucked. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297815&forum_id=2#4282599) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2005 3:57 PM Author: Soul-stirring cerise immigrant exactly. like i said, the answer is obvious. keep going with this, young wolverine. just to make sure fjackie is on the same page as the rest of us, what are you trying to say exactly? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297815&forum_id=2#4282619) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2005 3:56 PM Author: floppy police squad native WTF do I know? I'm just an asshole with a computer. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297815&forum_id=2#4282614) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2005 4:02 PM Author: Vibrant Library Perjury only applies to material facts. Clinton's sexual encounters is not material so thus perjury was not an appropriate charge and certainly not an impeachable offense.
Bush on the otherhand misled congress to go to war, violated international law and geneva convention protections, which under federal statute is a federal war crime, and that is just with Iraq. |
|
Date: November 13th, 2005 4:06 PM Author: Soul-stirring cerise immigrant damn! i wanted to make the pwn#ge a little more sublte (and excutiatingly slow and complete), but you beat me to it. good points raised. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297815&forum_id=2#4282715) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2005 4:06 PM Author: floppy police squad native Impeachment is not a judicial process at heart. It is a political process. Thomas Jefferson used it in that manner--it is a very old tradition. The crimes are defined by how Congress votes. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297815&forum_id=2#4282718) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2005 4:09 PM Author: Electric parlour The prosecutor was investigating sexual harrassment claims against Clinton, so history of other sexual encounters was material.
Please cite (a) evidence that he misled Congress, and (b) the particular international law and Geneva Convention protections he violated. The former has been, at best, hotly disputed, and at worst, a post-Kerry loss rhetoric tactic. The latter is something refreshingly new and something regarding which I'd love to examine the particular law! |
|
Date: November 13th, 2005 4:14 PM Author: Vibrant Library The War Crimes Act of 1996, a federal statute set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 2441, makes it a federal crime for any U.S. national, whether military or civilian, to violate the Geneva Convention by engaging in murder, torture, or inhuman treatment.
The statute applies not only to those who carry out the acts, but also to those who ORDER IT, know about it, or fail to take steps to stop it.
The general in charge of the notorious Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq stated this week that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and other top administration officials ORDERED that inhuman treatment and torture be conducted as part of a deliberate strategy.
U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales wrote a memo in January 2002 to President Bush saying that America should opt out of the Geneva Convention because top officials have to worry about prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. § 2441. By attempting to sidestep the Geneva Convention, Gonzales created a document trail that can be used to prove that top administration officials knowingly created a policy of torturing prisoners, and that such a policy could reasonably have been expected to result in the death of some prisoners.
The U.S. did opt out of the Geneva Convention for the Afghanistan war, but we never opted out of the Geneva Convention for Iraq. Indeed, President Bush has repeatedly stated that Geneva applies in Iraq (although he has since claimed that foreign fighters captured in Iraq are not covered). Thus, there would be very little room for fancy footwork by defense lawyers in a prosecution against top officials concerning torture in Iraq.
The Abu Ghraib general's recent statements about torture coming from the top is an important piece of evidence for convicting Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, and a host of other top administration officials for violation of the War Crimes Act of 1996. Upon conviction, they could be sentenced to life in prison, or even death.
Additionally, violation of the war crimes act almost certainly constitutes a "high crime or misdemeanor" which would allow impeachment of such officials. |
|
Date: November 13th, 2005 4:17 PM Author: Soul-stirring cerise immigrant very well said. excellent work. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297815&forum_id=2#4282794) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2005 4:19 PM Author: Electric parlour This argument hinges on the definitions of the terms "torture" and "inhumane treatment." If you can cite the Geneva interpretations of these terms that include the actions that the Bush Administration advocated and engaged in, I would be interested. Otherwise, you're conflating "torture," or action that you find reprehensible, with "torture" as defined by the treaty. The two are not necessarily the same thing. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297815&forum_id=2#4282811) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2005 10:23 PM Author: slimy step-uncle's house weak, weak, weak. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297815&forum_id=2#4285495) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2005 4:01 PM Author: Electric parlour "where, in the impeachment clause of course, does it say that getting your pecker sucked by a fat whore is an impeachable offense?"
Nowhere, but perjury, being a "crime," certainly is. |
|
Date: November 13th, 2005 4:02 PM Author: floppy police squad native Federal judges have been impeached for falsifying testimony to grand juries. It was nothing new in WJC's case. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297815&forum_id=2#4282686) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2005 4:06 PM Author: Electric parlour Federal judges have tenure "for good behavior." It's a different standard than "high crimes and misdemeanors." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297815&forum_id=2#4282723) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2005 4:03 PM Author: Soul-stirring cerise immigrant excellent. question: does the impeachment clause say that all "crimes" are impeachable or does it say that "high crimes and misdemeanors" are impeachable? is there a difference? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297815&forum_id=2#4282689) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2005 4:05 PM Author: Electric parlour A crime that generally has a sentence of at least one year in prison, I believe, would fall under the title of "high crimes and misdemeanors." If you'd like to quibble with that, go ahead. Of course, it's still more difficult to assert that Clinton's perjury was not a "high crime," but whatever Bush did that you think is so impeachment-worthy is. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297815&forum_id=2#4282709) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2005 4:13 PM Author: Soul-stirring cerise immigrant the thought that "A crime that generally has a sentence of at least one year in prison, I believe, would fall under the title of "high crimes and misdemeanors'" is of course malarkey. this is arguable both ways, though, i agree. (there is a tension between the prior two sentences, indeed.)
however, "high" modifies "crimes" as well as "misdemeanors." when the clause is taken in toto, the obvious conclusion is that, whatever the offense the "President, VP and other Civil Officers" has been convicted of, they must be on the same grade, if you will, as "treason" and "bribery." this is what is meant to be conveyed by the word "other." now re-examining your prior statement, it's almost impossible to characterize clinton's semantic perjury as "treason" or "bribery" or other offenses which would compromise national security. |
|
Date: November 13th, 2005 4:16 PM Author: Electric parlour You're artificially requiring "other" to relate to crimes relating to "national security." First, bribery does not necessarily compromise national security. Additionally, "other" does not inherently require a relation to "national security," since both previous offense have jail time in common, or federal criminal statutory proceedings in common. The "other" commonality element of your argument is too forced and too conclusory.
Learn to cut down on pretentious adverbial modifiers in your writing, though, indeed, I can see, in toto, how it may, inf act, be effective. |
|
Date: November 13th, 2005 4:24 PM Author: Soul-stirring cerise immigrant answer the question instead of side-stepping it. calling something "forced or too conclusory" = meaningless. the problem with you, in toto, is that you seem to have great difficulty staying on the issue. putting to one side the national security argument (it was an original point i debated with a fellow classmate seveal weeks ago), you essentially said in your post that "other" has no meaning here. explain why instead of inanely calling it conclusory. stop dancing and prove it.
oh yeah, you can disregard all the "modifiers" in my posts all you want, but i don't think you can do the same with the constitution. think about it. |
|
Date: November 13th, 2005 4:30 PM Author: Electric parlour "answer the question instead of side-stepping it."
You're artificially requiring "other" to relate to crimes relating to "national security." First, bribery does not necessarily compromise national security. (This was a point I saw when I got a 177 on my LSAT several weeks ago.) Additionally, "other" does not inherently require a relation to "national security," since both previous offense have jail time in common, or federal criminal statutory proceedings in common.
EDIT: Why don't you answer the meaningful arguments posted on other threads that you self-proclaimedly pwn? http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=295407&forum_id=2#4259224 |
|
Date: November 13th, 2005 4:33 PM Author: Soul-stirring cerise immigrant haha that's what i fucking thought. let's see what you do with this one:
however, "high" modifies "crimes" as well as "misdemeanors." when the clause is taken in toto, the obvious conclusion is that, whatever the offense the "President, VP and other Civil Officers" has been convicted of, they must be on the same grade, if you will, as "treason" and "bribery." this is what is meant to be conveyed by the word "other." now re-examining your prior statement, it's almost impossible to characterize clinton's semantic perjury as "treason" or "bribery" or OTHER similar grade offenses.
try not to fall on your face again.
and congrats on that lsat.
|
|
Date: November 13th, 2005 4:37 PM Author: Soul-stirring cerise immigrant yikes. i just tried to read your babble on that other thread but my eyes teared two paragraphs in. your entire post can be reduced to about 5 or six words: "i don't like the slaughterhouse case." please learn to cut out the fat and get to the meat. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297815&forum_id=2#4282952) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2005 3:45 PM Author: Vibrant Library I'm with you. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297815&forum_id=2#4282485) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2005 3:59 PM Author: Soul-stirring cerise immigrant excellent. let us teach these bats some con law. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297815&forum_id=2#4282640) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2005 4:44 PM Author: french overrated base and its no coincidence that you are as dumb as him. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297815&forum_id=2#4282997) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2005 4:47 PM Author: Soul-stirring cerise immigrant gomer produced one of the best replies i've read on this board to date. he's not dumb just because you can't keep up. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297815&forum_id=2#4283017) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2005 4:03 PM Author: Electric parlour http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=70386&mc=4&forum_id=2 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297815&forum_id=2#4282691) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2005 4:02 PM Author: Electric parlour http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=136778&mc=16&forum_id=2
http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=268378&mc=36&forum_id=2
This has so been done. |
|
Date: November 13th, 2005 8:52 PM Author: Soul-stirring cerise immigrant GUMP!111 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297815&forum_id=2#4284729) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2005 9:08 PM Author: razzle-dazzle insane rehab warner will probably pardon both him and cheney. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=297815&forum_id=2#4284880) |