Sen. Stevens indicted: 7 false statements counts

The first sitting U.S. senator to face federal indictment since 1993, Stevens has been dogged by a federal investigation into his home renovation project and his dealings with wealthy oil contractors.

And he's running for re-election.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080729/ap_on_go_co/stevens_indictment

Is this shocking or standard procedure?

Im happy. I hope he goes to the slammer

Even if he's not guilty?

If it turns out to be true, I think it would be just another instance of the foxes running the henhouse ever since Bush Jr. got elected President.

I think the odds are good that there are quite a few officials in both parties that have personally profited from their office. I am not excusing it just stating the obvious I think.

Still let's let him be tried.

These sorts of things remind me of the Clinton impeachment when Newt lead the charge all the while boinking an intern too.

Agree he should be tried.

But why should he remain free while so many others (accused of all different types of crimes) await trials/justice behind bars.

just asking your opinions...

In total agreement! They harp about how prostitution is illegal, yet go out every weekend with another bimbo.

1) He's not a flight risk
2) He is not accused of a violent crime
3) Anyone who can make bail (assuming they are eligible for bail) can remain free until they are convicted.

If they are, I agree.(innocent until proven guilty)

However, it sure is a disproportionate number of Republicans who are getting caught!
IMO, that's a sure sign of one sided corruption running amuck within the Republican party!

Until they are caught with their hands dirty, why include them in an equally condemning statement?

Selling out to an Energy corporation,
Granting them favors on contracts inside an illegal war Zone,
is in no way comparable to Clinton getting his billy slurpped!

"Getting his billy slurped" haha I love that expression. gonna have to use it in a conversation soon.

Bill Clinton was impeached for a felony offense, perjury, not having an affair. Bill Clinton was disbarred for commiting perjury. It doesn't matter if it was about sex, it was perjury. In short, perjury is against the law and only one president has ever perjured himself. That's Bill Clinton. And I'm not sure who would think "He did the same thing!" is ever a defense for adultry and abuse of power. Bill Clinton hurt his wife, his daughter and abused his position with an obviously disturbed young lady, that does not deserve any defense.

The correct term spider is indicted.
He was not impeached! He was not removed from office!

http://www.justsayhi.com/topic/show/150473

With regards to impeachment, the act never withstood the test.
While the House passed a bill to impeach him in December 1998, Senate acquitted him through Trial in February 1999.

Neither was he ever indicted! Although there had been a strong push to do so!

'... Independent counsel Robert Ray, who took over the investigation in its last year run, had been using a grand jury to decide whether Clinton should be indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice after he leaves office...'

Ray reached the deal with Clinton's attorney, David Kendall.

The net of it is, that Clinton was neither indicted nor impeached, nor was he disbarred, contrary to the two wrong statement in 'spider's' post to that effect.

The facts are, Independent counsel Ray and Clinton's lawyer, agreed to a 5 year suspension of his liscence to practice law in Arkansas (very distinct from disbarment), and a 25 000$ fine.

For Ray, this was putting an end to the Lewinski case, and all plans of indictment after Clinton would leave office, were dropped definitevely.


So let's see: NO IMPEACHMENT - NO INDICTMENT - NO DISBARMENT

So Spider, in that post of yours my friend, I guess you swung through a perfect '3 strikes, ... AND YOU'RE OUT!!!'

For the chronology and full report of events, see link:

http://english.people.com.cn/english/200101/20/eng20010120_60951.html

Well, we don't have to worry about Rove, Cheney or Bush committing perjury do we? They've just refused to answer questions or in the case of Rove respond to legal issued subpoenas.

It's not an affair in question here but illegal firings and torture.

You are correct, Bill Clinton wasn't disbarred, darn my faulty memory. I forgot that Bill Clinton resigned from the Supreme Court bar, so that they wouldn't disbar him. He would have been disbarred if he hadn't resigned. Being on the Bar of the Supreme Court is an honor, not a privilege.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton


Bill Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives, but not by the Senate. A president must be Impeached by both houses to be removed from office. I can understand how it's confusing, but the fact remains that Bill Clinton was Impeached.

So let's see: Bill Clinton was Impeached. I didn't say he was indicted, Fanta did. He wasn't disbarred, but only because he resigned. You get a 33% on this one. You know what? I'll bump it up to a 34%. Your 34% vs my 50% means you were more wrong than I was. Enjoy your weekend.

USAGE NOTE When an irate citizen demands that a disfavored public official be impeached, the citizen clearly intends for the official to be removed from office. This popular use of impeach as a synonym of “throw out” (even if by due process) does not accord with the legal meaning of the word. As recent history has shown, when a public official is impeached, that is, formally accused of wrongdoing, this is only the start of what can be a lengthy process that may or may not lead to the official's removal from office. In strict usage, an official is impeached (accused), tried, and then convicted or acquitted. The vaguer use of impeach reflects disgruntled citizens' indifference to whether the official is forced from office by legal means or chooses to resign to avoid further disgrace.



Its all about the usage.
Nixon was impeached (forced from office.)
Clinton was accused- (impeached? that's usually not whats meant, but it is the dict meaning)

Its all about the usage! Generally in Politics to impeach is to remove from office In the dictionary it is the same meaning as indict!

in·dict (ĭn-dīt)
tr.v. in·dict·ed, in·dict·ing, in·dicts
1. To accuse of wrongdoing; charge: a book that indicts modern values.
2. Law To make a formal accusation or indictment against (a party) by the findings of a jury, especially a grand jury.

im·peach (ĭm-pēch)
tr.v. im·peached, im·peach·ing, im·peach·es

1. a. To make an accusation against.
b. To charge (a public official) with improper conduct in office before a proper tribunal.

2. To challenge the validity of; try to discredit: impeach a witness's credibility.

Nixon wasn't impeached, he resigned. Bill Clinton was impeached. It's not hard to find. Bill Clinton was impeached in the House of Representatives. When someone is impeached by the House, the Impeachment hearings start in the Senate. If the president is impeached in the Senate, then he is impeached from office. If he is impeached only in the house, he is still impeached. I know it's confusing that they used the term for both events, but there it is. Nothing I can do about it. I'm 100% that Bill Clinton was impeached, I'm sorry if you don't want to accept that.

EDIT:

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/impeach.html