Sport Today

by **Freddy Kater** » Tue, 29 Sep 1998 04:00:00

Greeting Runners

As i am training for the next USMC-Marathon in Washington, i ran today for
about 5 miles. While is was running i was thinking about the socalled
Clinton affaires, which i as a straitthrue thinking European don`t
understand. So he did`nt tell the wole trueth about Lewinsky, wo would
have???
But no politics here , i thougt i would be a perfect idea to support this
president by running (with) for him this oktober two days before the
USMC-Mararthon. I suggest to run lijke the last 3 miles ( 5 km ) of the
official parcours at 19.00 h the 23 Oktober Friday`s . It also would be a
nice warmup for the Marathon.
Give it a thougt. Please reactions in this newsgroup

Freddy Katers ( Holland)

by **Jjse** » Fri, 02 Oct 1998 04:00:00

As a Lawyer, he is an officer of the Court. As President, he is the highest
authority in our land (subject to "balance-of-power" limitations) and the
Commander-in-Chief of our military. He lied under oath.

That he had a girlfriend is not the crime; the crime is Perjury. He lied in
Court and encouraged others to do likewise for over seven months.

Many of we Americans are every bit as sophisticated as many Europeans, like
yourself.
Many of the rest of us take our Courts, the Constitution, and character
seriously.

by **Mike Tenne** » Fri, 02 Oct 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

>Many of we Americans are every bit as sophisticated as many Europeans, like
>yourself.
>Many of the rest of us take our Courts, the Constitution, and character
>seriously.

Then perhaps you should review Constitutional law regarding impeaching the
President. Quite simply, an impeachable act has to directly relate to his
constitutional authority and performance of his duties as President. Perjury in
a civil case unrelated to his duties as President are simply not an impeachable
act. Period.

That was last established by the committee that recommended Nixon's impeachment.
Much of the stuff that folks were upset about were not impeachable acts. Then
and now.

Mike "No matter what Newt says" Tennent
"TriBop"
'98 Ironman Canada, 16:17:03

by **Abhay Thatt** » Fri, 02 Oct 1998 04:00:00

i dont think he should or will be impeached. getting a bj is not illegal.
ps i know a lot of 50 something guys who would like to get with 20
something women.

(and a lot of 20 something guys who wouldnt mind getting with 50 something
women:))

this al***dude though is beginning to annoy me with his enviro-crap. i
will vote for george bush junior.

by **Horseman** » Sat, 03 Oct 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

>> a civil case unrelated to his duties as President are simply not an
>impeachable
>> act. Period.

but to lying to a federal grand jury is.......Besides having to explain ***
sex to my seven year old and trying to tell him that it was wrong even if the
President did do it.He didn't think the President could do wrong.According to
my seven year old's thinking the guy couldn't have done that because in his
words was,"he is the President,right??"How do you answer that?Not coming down
on you Mike :0) Just an opinion.What are we to do? Randy

by **Ray Charbonnea** » Sat, 03 Oct 1998 04:00:00

Upon further review...
An impeachable act is whatever Congress says it is. That's not to say
that I think Clinton should be impeached (quite the contrary), but that
there are no concrete guidelines for what an impeachable act is, and
your rep is legally within the Constitution (though obviously
short-sighted and partisan) to decide that boorish behavior (yep) and
minor perjury (if it is that) "directly relate to his
constitutional authority and performance of his duties as President"

But I can read about this anywhere - can we _please_ keep it out of
rec.running?
-Ray

Quote:

> >Many of we Americans are every bit as sophisticated as many Europeans, like
> >yourself.
> >Many of the rest of us take our Courts, the Constitution, and character
> >seriously.

> Then perhaps you should review Constitutional law regarding impeaching the
> President. Quite simply, an impeachable act has to directly relate to his
> constitutional authority and performance of his duties as President. Perjury in
> a civil case unrelated to his duties as President are simply not an impeachable
> act. Period.

> That was last established by the committee that recommended Nixon's impeachment.
> Much of the stuff that folks were upset about were not impeachable acts. Then
> and now.

> Mike "No matter what Newt says" Tennent
> "TriBop"
> '98 Ironman Canada, 16:17:03

--
-Ray Charbonneau
The MITRE Corporation

by **Mike Tenne** » Sat, 03 Oct 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

>proxy.airnews.net>,

>You forgot to add "in my opinion" . By the way, many constitutional lawyers
>disagree with your "opinion".

No, it is not "my opinion." It is the opinion of the lawyers and former House
members who sat on the Nixon Impeachment committee, O.K.?

And I doubt if many unbiased lawyers disagree. The framers of the Constitution
did not want a parliamentarian government, which is why impeachment is so
severely limited in scope.

If people would separate their feelings from law, it would help.

And this is so far off topic, that I'll bow out now.

Mike Tennent
"TriBop"
'98 Ironman Canada, 16:17:03

by **Dennis G. Rea** » Sat, 03 Oct 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

>>Many of we Americans are every bit as sophisticated as many Europeans, like
>>yourself.
>>Many of the rest of us take our Courts, the Constitution, and character
>>seriously.

>Then perhaps you should review Constitutional law regarding impeaching the
>President. Quite simply, an impeachable act has to directly relate to his
>constitutional authority and performance of his duties as President.

I don't think this is true. It it was then the President could not be
impeached for ***,***, theft, etc, As those crimes have nothing to
do with his duties as president. The actual wording is

Section 4. The president, vice-president and all civil officers of
the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment
for, and conviction of, treason, ***, or other high crimes and
misdemeanors.

Quote:

>Perjury in
>a civil case unrelated to his duties as President are simply not an impeachable
>act. Period.

No period. If there was a period it wouldn't be an open issue.

Quote:

>That was last established by the committee that recommended Nixon's impeachment.
>Much of the stuff that folks were upset about were not impeachable acts. Then
>and now.

dennis
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sport Today

clinton support run

clinton support run

clinton support run

clinton support run

clinton support run

clinton support run

clinton support run

clinton support run

clinton support run