On Jun 12, 9:20*am, 69-year-old Vapid City, South Dakotan Gary Richard
"Yoorghis IDIOT" Roselles , a/k/a
and , Left-Wing Lying Liberal
Socialist LOSER Democrat™ (est. 2010-11-02) Gun Control Advocate,
wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 06:38:03 -0700 (PDT), JohnJohnsn
wrote:

In order for a person to be found guilty of perjury the government
must prove: the person testified under oath before [e.g., the grand
jury]; at least one particular statement was false; and the person
knew at the time the testimony was false.

You're talking indictment under the criminal code

Pay close attention here, Gary:

"In order for a person to be found guilty of perjury the government
must prove: the person testified under oath before [e.g., the grand
jury]; at least one particular statement was false; and the person
knew at the time the testimony was false."

What is your evidence to prove that, IF, as you claim, Reagan made
false statements to a grand jury, that he KNEW the statements were
false.

GOTCHA! snicker

Whether or not someone is indicted, doesn't mean that the act didn't
happen.

You still offer ZERO proof, Gary; just more unsupported assertions.

In the case of Reagan, he cannot be indicted until removed from office
using the impeachment clause.

First: Ronald Wilson Reagan died at his home in Bel Air, California on
the afternoon of Saturday, June 5, 2004, so why in the world are you
writing in the present tense???

Second: Care to show ANY statute that prevents the indictment,
prosecution and conviction of a sitting POTUS?

Third: Ronald Reagan's approval ratings:

Ronald Reagan From the People’s Perspective: A Gallup Poll Review
March 18-20, 2002
Approval: 73%
Disapproval: 22%
No Opinion: 5%
-http://media.gallup.com/POLL/Releases/pr040607iii.gif
-http://media.gallup.com/POLL/Releases/pr040607iv.gif

"The People have spoken."

He can be impeached, then prosecuted

{GIC}

He can finish his term, then be indicted

Evidence?

In reagan's case, the evidence of perjury were contained in Grand Jury
depositions where all, or most, of the deposed witnesses in the John
Pointdexter issue swore under oath that Reagan testified (under oath)
falsely, that he did know about the ongoing Iran-Contra schemes, sat
in on meetings, and gave permission

Reagan also lied to congress

Reagan lied to The public.

In either case, no impeachment because doing so did not fit the "clear
and present danger" test;

What "clear and present danger test"?

The Constitution of the United States
Article II - The Executive Branch
Section 4 - Disqualification

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United
States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and
Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and
Misdemeanors.

Don't find "clear and present danger" here, Gary.

...*and because the poor sap was nothing more than
a drooling idiot by the time he was in his last years.

I didn't see any evidence of his being " drooling idiot" while he was
in office, Gary; unlike you who demonstrate almost daily to your being
a "droolong Yoorghis IDIOT."

However:

The Case For Obama’s Impeachment : Obama Clear And Present Danger!
-http://politicalvelcraft.org/2010/05/25/the-case-for-obamas-
impeachment

"If Ignorance is Bliss, then Lying Left-Wing Liberal Socialist Gary
Richard "Yoorghis IDIOT" Roselles must be in Nirvana"

"I found my friends / They're in my head "
--Gary Richard "Yoorghis IDIOT" Roselles