wrote in news:dfi9v6l037mfl54mekadhe8uph9bo05v9b@
4ax.com:

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

No dingleberry i'm talking about what actually happened.


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

Well, some evidence is always nice.


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

He can be impeached, then prosecuted

He can finish his term, then be indicted

Reagan has been out of office going 23 years and has been dead for some
time. Or haven't you read a newspaper lately?


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

In Reagan's case nobody thought there was a case. Which may explain why the
Democrat controlled House didn't impeach him, stupid.

Reagan also lied to congress

Even were I to stipulate to the truth of that, what is your point. Every
President lies to Congress. Ever hear of Bull Clinton.

And, oh yeah, how's the war in Libya and the secret war in Yemen working
out?

Reagan lied to The public.

Oh please.

In either case, no impeachment because doing so did not fit the "clear
and present danger" test; and because the poor sap was nothing more
than a drooling idiot by the time he was in his last years.

You think that a President lieing to Congress regarding foreign policy does
not fit the "clear and present danger" test? Are you like 3? Oh wait you're
a Dumbocrat!

A drooling idiot that smoked the Dems in 2 Presdential elections, left the
economy in much better condition than he found it and oh yeah, drove our
sorn enemy of the Cold War into the ground, without a general war.

I'll take more drooling idiots like that anytime.

It's a pity you have your head shoved up your partisan ass so far. Or maybe
not. If you sneeze maybe you can blowout a hemmoroid and bleed out quickly.

You're angry becuase your chikldish and warped vsioin of the how the woprld
should be has been proven to be a disaster and your drooling isiot of a
hero is going to repudated in 2012.



--
Herman Cain for President! http://hermancain.com/
If you don't support him you are a Racist!!
He beat Cancer. He'll beat Obama (who is just like cancer)

Remember Desert One, Carter 0? Ain't it sad to wish that Obama had as much
ambition but being glad he doesn't knowing he doesn't have THAT much
competence?

On 6/12/2011 1:21 PM, Gray Ghost wrote:
wrote in news:dfi9v6l037mfl54mekadhe8uph9bo05v9b@
4ax.com:

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

No dingleberry i'm talking about what actually happened.


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

Well, some evidence is always nice.


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

He can be impeached, then prosecuted

He can finish his term, then be indicted

Reagan has been out of office going 23 years and has been dead for some
time. Or haven't you read a newspaper lately?


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

In Reagan's case nobody thought there was a case. Which may explain why the
Democrat controlled House didn't impeach him, stupid.

Reagan also lied to congress

Even were I to stipulate to the truth of that, what is your point. Every
President lies to Congress. Ever hear of Bull Clinton.

And, oh yeah, how's the war in Libya and the secret war in Yemen working
out?

Reagan lied to The public.

Oh please.

In either case, no impeachment because doing so did not fit the "clear
and present danger" test; and because the poor sap was nothing more
than a drooling idiot by the time he was in his last years.

You think that a President lieing to Congress regarding foreign policy does
not fit the "clear and present danger" test? Are you like 3? Oh wait you're
a Dumbocrat!

A drooling idiot that smoked the Dems in 2 Presdential elections, left the
economy in much better condition than he found it and oh yeah, drove our
sorn enemy of the Cold War into the ground, without a general war.

I'll take more drooling idiots like that anytime.

It's a pity you have your head shoved up your partisan ass so far. Or maybe
not. If you sneeze maybe you can blowout a hemmoroid and bleed out quickly.

You're angry becuase your chikldish and warped vsioin of the how the woprld
should be has been proven to be a disaster and your drooling isiot of a
hero is going to repudated in 2012.


Nope, nothing there but someones personal opinion, I don't know, chit,
he might have just copied it off some chit-house wall!


--

Regards,
JS
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain
the people, it’s an instrument for the people to restrain the
government.” -- Patrick Henry