Friday, October 28, 2005

Words of the Day

Impeach

Main Entry: im·peach
Pronunciation: im-'pech
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English empechen, from Middle French empeechier to hinder, from Late Latin impedicare to fetter, from Latin in- + pedica fetter, from ped-, pes foot --

1 a : to bring an accusation against
b : to charge with a crime or misdemeanor; specifically : to charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office
2 : to cast doubt on; especially : to challenge the credibility or validity of (impeach the testimony of a witness)
3 : to remove from office especially for misconduct -


Indict

Main Entry: in·dict
Pronunciation: in-'dīt
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: alteration of earlier indite, from Middle English inditen, from Anglo-French enditer, from Old French, to write down

1 : to charge with a fault or offense
2 : to charge with a crime by the finding or presentment of a jury (as a grand jury) in due form of law -

Refresher for Perspective

For all of the Bush haters who are salivating and creaming their britches over the Libby indictment, let's take a look at some recent history.

Bill Clinton was impeached, meaning charged with and tried for obstruction of justice and perjury. He was the President at the time, not a Presidential advisor or aide or whatever. The President.

The Senate voted on the Articles of Impeachment on February 12, 1999, with a two-thirds majority, or 67 Senators, required to convict. On Article I, that charged that the President "...willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury" and made "...corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence" in the Paula Jones lawsuit, the President was found not guilty with 45 Senators voting for the President's removal from office and 55 against. Ten Republicans split with their colleagues to vote for acquittal; all 45 Democrats voted to acquit. On Article II, charging that the President "...has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice"..., the vote was 50-50, with all Democrats and five Republicans voting to acquit. (this paragraph is an excerpt from http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-Clintonimpeach.htm)


I just want to remind those with short and selective memories that while Clinton was not convicted, he was still impeached and given the chance for a 'fair trial'. Let us give Libby the benefit of any other person who is charged with a crime. He is innocent until proven guilty. Yes, that rule really does apply to everyone, even conservatives. For those who might suggest that Clinton's impeachment was over something silly or frivolous, well, you could say the same thing about Libby's indictment. However, I am not excusing or minimizing the charges of anyone obstructing justice or committing perjury. Those are very serious crimes and should be punished more severely than Martha 'Cupcake' Stewart's short 'prison' term and mansion arrest. I'm just putting things in perspective here.

4 comments:

mr_g said...

Personally, I wonder what Libby is getting under the table to take the heat for Rove...but that's just me!

Mahndisa S. Rigmaiden said...

10 28 05

Yes, you are putting things into perspective and are correct. We can't go by guilty until proven innocent and the MSM is so lame with their coverages of folks ACCUSED of crimes but not proven guilty of the crimes. The same thing happened to O.J. as it happened to Scott Peterson (although they both look a little guilty from where I stand). But I think that is the point. The media influences our objectivity and that ain't right. They don't need to report on who is accused; they need to report on who is proven guilty! Great POST!!! :)

Sylvana said...

Mr_g I was thinking the very same thing!

Rae Ann said...

mr g and sylvana, you might be right.

mahndisa, I agree about the media coverage.