Romney possible federal felony.

[Denny Crane]

As far as the topic goes...

This is a smoke screen. A diversion.

Why should I really care if Bain Capital, with Romney in charge or not, invested in or managed companies that outsourced, downsized, or otherwise attempted to make unviable businesses into viable ones? Why should I care if Romney invests his money all over the world, owns more than two homes, etc.? He's a wealthy and successful man - those things are reasonable to me.

What's really going on is the president SHOULD be on the defensive for the lousy economy, poor leadership, and awful policy choices. Since he can't run on his record, the best strategy is to put Romney on the defensive and attack, attack, attack.

I'd judge them both by their records. Romney was a moderate republican when in office. Universal health care, pro-choice, etc., and was able to win election as a republican in one of the most liberal leaning states in the nation. He was able to work with the opposing party to get stuff done. Not that I agree with much of what they got done, but it did get done.

Politicians say what's expedient to gain the vote of the people he's addressing. Obama does it. Romney does it. Much of what they say they want to do are things they have no power to achieve. What it really comes down to is whether we want 4 more years of Jimmy Carter malaise or to make a change and hope for better. Neither candidate is impressive to me, and there's not much of a good choice between the two.

 

[jlprk]

You just posted in favor of the smokescreen which got us into this financial mess (the sex garbage which crippled the country and then gave us Bush) and now you say to stick to real national issues?

You both know fancy people, I believe you.

No, I'm nobody, I'm just saying he'd win board arguments faster if he opened up and cited specific jobs he's had, since they've been impressive. (He doesn't have to mention any intelligence stuff.)

 

[maxiep]

You impress with the volume of your writing here. You'd be more impressive, though, if you identified yourself. Then you could drop names more often and refer to your experience more specifically. You'd be like a KingSpeed or an HCP, someone we're honored to know, even if we disagree with you.

I initially learned accounting from a consultant who had 3 masters degrees. As an engineer he had helped develop equipment for VietNam helicopters to track and kill peasants on the ground. After he got to know you he would mention that he had worked for the CIA. He then went into the Big 8. Then he became an accounting professor (the CIA plants its contacts into academic circles). I later went back for the degree and took 3 classes from him. I even hired him to consult at one of my jobs.

As someone on the left I saw his intelligence as soon as I first worked with him. He was my shining light at my first accounting job, though I can't stand his politics. You sound similar. My point is that your traction on this board derives from volume (I gave up arguing with you on BBB--you wore me out), but if you identified some of these jobs you've had, you would gain more authority over we your opponents.

I have no desire to impress you. You believe what I say or think of me what you choose.

 

[Sedatedfork]

since Clinton wasn't convicted of a perjury felony, my original question remains unanswered

http://mediamatters.org/research/2004/11/22/bennett-falsely-claimed-six-times-that-clinton/132332

STOMP

Then I don't know the answer to your original question. I know you lose your right to vote, but I don't think it technically DQ's you from being president.

Larouche example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche_U.S._Presidential_campaigns

Some caucuses ousted him from the ballot because he could not vote, but I think that was a political move and may not have been technically legal. I suppose a party (if it wanted to) could strike the delegates and make moves like this, but if you are a candidate in the general election, I don't know if the state can forbid its citizens for voting for electors to support a felon.

 

[Sedatedfork]

I have no desire to impress you. You believe what I say or think of me what you choose.

These are not the droids you are looking for.

 

[jlprk]

I have no desire to impress you. You believe what I say or think of me what you choose.

That answer's zen-like brevity impresses nevertheless. Anyway, if you must continue to drop, among your sage pearls of wisdom, the references to important people you have known, your readers crave specificity to be convinced. Otherwise your references to your background go for naught.

 

[MARIS61]

Clinton plea bargained (roughly) with the special prosecutor.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...001/01/what_sort_of_plea_did_clinton_cop.html

He did not plea bargain, nor did he admit guilt.

For some reason you left out this from your link:

It's not your everyday legal agreement. It's not a declination, in which a prosecutor drops a criminal investigation because the case isn't solid enough to indict. Nor is it a plea bargain, in which a prosecutor accepts a guilty plea from the indicted in exchange for a lenient sentence (because, of course Clinton was never indicted). Nor is it a referral of a criminal case to civil authorities for resolution (such as when a criminal antitrust case is referred to civil prosecutors).

 

[MARIS61]

As far as the topic goes...

This is a smoke screen. A diversion.

Why should I really care if Bain Capital, with Romney in charge or not, invested in or managed companies that outsourced, downsized, or otherwise attempted to make unviable businesses into viable ones? Why should I care if Romney invests his money all over the world, owns more than two homes, etc.?

Because he has continually lied about all of the above for nearly a decade in order to defraud the US government through tax fraud.

 

[barfo]

That answer's zen-like brevity impresses nevertheless. Anyway, if you must continue to drop, among your sage pearls of wisdom, the references to important people you have known, your readers crave specificity to be convinced. Otherwise your references to your background go for naught.

What is the sound of one name dropping?

barfo

 

[mook]

During the vetting process, John McCain looked at Romney's tax records, and then went with Palin.

Romney feels he's better off hiding his tax records and taking the heat for that, rather than coming clean as pretty much all presidential candidates (and his own father) have done in the past 20 years. That, to me, says it all.

 

[Denny Crane]

Because he has continually lied about all of the above for nearly a decade in order to defraud the US government through tax fraud.

I'm shocked that a politician might lie about something.
/sarcasm

Obama promised to not raise taxes on the middle class. His chief "accomplishment" for his whole first term is a massive new tax on the middle class.

You compare a firecracker (Romney/Bain Capital) to a nuclear bomb (ObamaCare).

 

[Denny Crane]

During the vetting process, John McCain looked at Romney's tax records, and then went with Palin.

Romney feels he's better off hiding his tax records and taking the heat for that, rather than coming clean as pretty much all presidential candidates (and his own father) have done in the past 20 years. That, to me, says it all.

Seems to me McCain chose Palin because he wanted to make a radical and bold move with his VP appointment. And it worked for the short term.

 

[Denny Crane]

Clinton plea bargained (roughly) with the special prosecutor.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...001/01/what_sort_of_plea_did_clinton_cop.html

He did not plea bargain, nor did he admit guilt.

For some reason you left out this from your link:

It's not your everyday legal agreement. It's not a declination, in which a prosecutor drops a criminal investigation because the case isn't solid enough to indict. Nor is it a plea bargain, in which a prosecutor accepts a guilty plea from the indicted in exchange for a lenient sentence (because, of course Clinton was never indicted). Nor is it a referral of a criminal case to civil authorities for resolution (such as when a criminal antitrust case is referred to civil prosecutors).

You ignore the parts where the legal authorities at every level of the system say he lied under oath. That would be the Supreme Court, the Arkansas Supreme Court, the special prosecutor, and the judge in the case where Clinton lied.

He lied, and under oath, get it?

And for the record, I am a huge fan of Clinton's presidency, feel the impeachment was a witch hunt, etc. The point being that the truth is he lied.

 

[maxiep]

That answer's zen-like brevity impresses nevertheless. Anyway, if you must continue to drop, among your sage pearls of wisdom, the references to important people you have known, your readers crave specificity to be convinced. Otherwise your references to your background go for naught.

For the record, he wasn't important when we knew each other, so I don't know what the big deal is. As for what other posters crave, they will have to sate themselves. Remember, I'm not a believer in the Government doing things for us we can do for ourselves.

Edit: I should say they stonewalled once those issues were discovered.

 

[maxiep]

During the vetting process, John McCain looked at Romney's tax records, and then went with Palin.

Romney feels he's better off hiding his tax records and taking the heat for that, rather than coming clean as pretty much all presidential candidates (and his own father) have done in the past 20 years. That, to me, says it all.

Look, I voted for the guy twice, but Bill Clinton hid his wife's tax records (since she was the earner in the family). Remember Whitewater and her commodities investments?

 

[maxiep]

Seems to me McCain chose Palin because he wanted to make a radical and bold move with his VP appointment. And it worked for the short term.

Bingo. Do people really believe McCain selected Palin because she was the most ready to step in and become President?

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Bingo. Do people really believe McCain selected Palin because she was the most ready to step in and become President?

I've often wondered why McCain made such a horrible decision. The only thing I can come up with is that he knew he would lose and why toss in a GOP hopeful for 4 to 8 years down the road just to get beat up and lose image.

 

[Sedatedfork]

I've often wondered why McCain made such a horrible decision. The only thing I can come up with is that he knew he would lose and why toss in a GOP hopeful for 4 to 8 years down the road just to get beat up and lose image.

Did you watch or read Game Change? It was pretty interesting and enlightening. I think that McCain's aides have confirmed it was fairly accurate.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Did you watch or read Game Change? It was pretty interesting and enlightening. I think that McCain's aides have confirmed it was fairly accurate.

Never heard of it.

 

[maxiep]

I've often wondered why McCain made such a horrible decision. The only thing I can come up with is that he knew he would lose and why toss in a GOP hopeful for 4 to 8 years down the road just to get beat up and lose image.

McCain needed a shot of adrenaline in his campaign. It was a shit time to be a Republican and run for election and the social conservatives didn't care for McCain. Palin as a woman, a social conservative and a new face solved many of those problems. And what people don't remember was until the financial crisis in October, it worked. If he had taken someone more traditional, it wouldn't have moved the goal posts at all.

The lesson was that Sarah Palin was a great choice in many ways relating to the election, but was likely ill prepared to be President and wasn't well-vetted or prepared to handle the criticisms.

 

[MARIS61]

You ignore the parts where the legal authorities at every level of the system say he lied under oath. That would be the Supreme Court, the Arkansas Supreme Court, the special prosecutor, and the judge in the case where Clinton lied.

He lied, and under oath, get it?

And for the record, I am a huge fan of Clinton's presidency, feel the impeachment was a witch hunt, etc. The point being that the truth is he lied.

Their personal opinions were that he "mislead", and their opinions were never proven in a court.

They remain nothing more than politically-influenced opinions bearing no weight in the real world.

 

[MARIS61]

What is the sound of one name dropping?

barfo

If maxiep drops a name in the forest and nobody really knows who maxiep is...

 

[MARIS61]

I'm shocked that a politician might lie about something.
/sarcasm

Obama promised to not raise taxes on the middle class. His chief "accomplishment" for his whole first term is a massive new tax on the middle class.

You compare a firecracker (Romney/Bain Capital) to a nuclear bomb (ObamaCare).

That's ridiculous and demonstrates you either have next to no knowledge of the costs and effects of Romneycare (let's be honest and call it what it is), or you believe "the middle class' is people who make at least $250,000 yr.

 

[Sedatedfork]

Never heard of it.

Well the reason for the Palin selection as depicted in the movie was as maxiep says. He clearly wanted a female running mate who would bolster the base. Palin was a spitfire. The problem was that she was absolutely clueless. McCain was going to lose anyway so he picked a potential Homerun threat. Problem was that Palin pretty much struck out on every key at bat.

 

[Denny Crane]

That's ridiculous and demonstrates you either have next to no knowledge of the costs and effects of Romneycare (let's be honest and call it what it is), or you believe "the middle class' is people who make at least $250,000 yr.

I think the middle class is families making $20K to $65K in income.

If there are 30M to 40M people without insurance that now have to buy insurance or pay the "tax" (fine, whatever you want to call it), it is most certainly going to be a huge hit to those earners.

 

[Masbee]

That's ridiculous and demonstrates you either have next to no knowledge of the costs and effects of Romneycare (let's be honest and call it what it is), or you believe "the middle class' is people who make at least $250,000 yr.

It is typical that you call out someone for ignorance when you are ignorant about the difference between Federal and State powers. Obama has no authority to issue a mandate at the federal level. Thus, Obamacare and Romneycare are most certainly not the same thing legally.

 

[Denny Crane]

Their personal opinions were that he "mislead", and their opinions were never proven in a court.

They remain nothing more than politically-influenced opinions bearing no weight in the real world.

Their personal opinions were stated in legal documents, specifically judge Susan Webber Wright, who held Clinton in contempt of court for "giving intentionally false testimony." He was fined $90,000 by the court and she referred the matter to the Arkansas Supreme Court, where he paid a $25,000 fine and had his license to practice law suspended for 5 years. Clinton resigned from the US Supreme Court Bar, rather than trying to defend himself (fight to keep his license).

The Independent Counsel wrote:

"The Independent Counsel’s judgment that sufficient evidence existed to prosecute President Clinton was confirmed by President Clinton’s admissions and by evidence showing that he engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice."

And...

"As a consequence of his conduct in the Jones v. Clinton civil suit and before the federal grand jury, President Clinton incurred significant administrative sanctions. The Independent Counsel considered seven non-criminal alternative sanctions that were imposed in making his decision to decline prosecution: (1) President Clinton’s admission of providing false testimony that was knowingly misleading, evasive, and prejudicial to the administration of justice before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas; (2) his acknowledgement that his conduct violated the Rules of Professional Conduct of the Arkansas Supreme Court; (3) the five-year suspension of his license to practice law and $25,000 fine imposed on him by the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas; (4) the civil contempt penalty of more than $90,000 imposed on President Clinton by the federal court for violating its orders; (5) the payment of more than $850,000 in settlement to Paula Jones; (6) the express finding by the federal court that President Clinton had engaged in contemptuous conduct; and (7) the substantial public condemnation of President Clinton arising from his impeachment."

Hefty penalties for simple misleading of authorities.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

The problem was that she was absolutely clueless.

That's an understatement.

 

[MARIS61]

I think the middle class is families making $20K to $65K in income.

If there are 30M to 40M people without insurance that are now able to buy insurance it is most certainly going to be a huge hit to the 1%ers.

The income range you cite will pay less, not more for insurance. I've never met or even heard of anyone in that income range who'd rather not have healthcare if they could afford it.

Being a member of the middle class currently I've looked into it and I believe it will allow us to once again obtain health insurance in 2014 when the pre-condition clause kicks in. We've been without insurance for about 2 years now because our premiums more than doubled over a 3 year period. Until the economy recovers we'll most likely be somewhat subsidized under Romneycare and companies will have to let us back in, which they will not do now at any price. Once the RE market rebounds and I'm rolling in dough I'll have no resentment to being asked to help those in similarly hopeless situations.

 

[MARIS61]

Their personal opinions were stated in legal documents, specifically judge Susan Webber Wright, who held Clinton in contempt of court for "giving intentionally false testimony." He was fined $90,000 by the court and she referred the matter to the Arkansas Supreme Court, where he paid a $25,000 fine and had his license to practice law suspended for 5 years. Clinton resigned from the US Supreme Court Bar, rather than trying to defend himself (fight to keep his license).

The Independent Counsel wrote:

"The Independent Counsel’s judgment that sufficient evidence existed to prosecute President Clinton was confirmed by President Clinton’s admissions and by evidence showing that he engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice."

And...

"As a consequence of his conduct in the Jones v. Clinton civil suit and before the federal grand jury, President Clinton incurred significant administrative sanctions. The Independent Counsel considered seven non-criminal alternative sanctions that were imposed in making his decision to decline prosecution: (1) President Clinton’s admission of providing false testimony that was knowingly misleading, evasive, and prejudicial to the administration of justice before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas; (2) his acknowledgement that his conduct violated the Rules of Professional Conduct of the Arkansas Supreme Court; (3) the five-year suspension of his license to practice law and $25,000 fine imposed on him by the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas; (4) the civil contempt penalty of more than $90,000 imposed on President Clinton by the federal court for violating its orders; (5) the payment of more than $850,000 in settlement to Paula Jones; (6) the express finding by the federal court that President Clinton had engaged in contemptuous conduct; and (7) the substantial public condemnation of President Clinton arising from his impeachment."

Hefty penalties for simple misleading of authorities.

That's what you expect from a Republican-run witchhunt.

It only supports my post.

Since it pertains to private and personal relationships and that had no bearing on his duties as President, it's better left to the National Enquirer.

This thread is about fraud, tax evasion, and the systematic undermining of American workers for personal profit.