Obama the meanie - to cut off humanitarian aid to one of poorest countries in area

kokonut · 08-30-2009, 12:58 PM

Quote:

The Obama Administration is about to cut off humanitarian aid to Honduras, one of the poorest countries in the Western Hemisphere. Earlier, the Obama Administration blocked travel to the United States by the people of Honduras.

Both actions are foolish responses to a recent ruling by the supreme court of Honduras refusing to approve the return to power of the country’s bullying ex-president and would-be dictator, Mel Zelaya. Zelaya was earlier arrested by soldiers acting on orders of the Honduras Supreme Court, replaced by his country’s Congress with a civilian successor, and forced into exile. Zelaya’s removal came after he systematically abused his powers: he sought to circumvent constitutional term limits, used mobs to intimidate his critics, threatened public employees with termination if they refused to help him violate the Constitution, engaged in massive corruption, illegally cut off public funds to local governments whose leaders refused to back his quest for more power, denied basic government services to his critics, refused to enforce dozens of laws passed by Congress, and spent the country into virtual bankruptcy, refusing to submit a budget so that he could illegally spend public funds on his cronies.

State Department lawyers, who are not experts on Honduran law, plan to declare the ex-president’s removal a “military coup” to justify cutting off aid, even though Honduras has a civilian president, and the ex-president was lawfully removed from office (although his subsequent exile may technically have violated Honduran law).

Journalists nonsensically refer to Honduras’s removal of its ex-president as a “coup” even while admitting that it was ordered by the country’s supreme court. But if it was legal, by definition, it cannot be a coup, since a coup is defined as “the unconstitutional overthrow of a legitimate government by a small group.”

The ex-president’s removal was perfectly constitutional, say many lawyers and foreign policy experts, including attorneys Octavio Sanchez, Miguel Estrada, and Dan Miller, former Assistant Secretary of State Kim Holmes, Stanford’s William Ratliff, and the Wall Street Journal’s Mary Anastasia O’Grady.

Moreover, the ex-president’s removal was not a “coup” because it was not committed by a “small group,” as the definition of “coup” requires. The removal of Honduras’s president was supported by the entire Honduran Supreme Court, an almost unanimous Honduran Congress, and much of Honduran society. Honduras did not lose its government, but merely replaced one illegitimate part of it: its overbearing president. And his removal from office (as opposed to his subsequent exile) was clearly legally justified.

Obama likely to cut off all aid to Honduras, based on legal mistake and misreading of the law

Almost sounds like somebody we know here in the United States who seems to be going in that direction.

**Foxrac** · 08-30-2009, 01:37 PM

Your post don't have any valid because Honduran government is unstable so all or many countries don't recognize new president and want Zelaya to be in power until term expire.

Thanks for other nonsense comment again.

kokonut · 08-30-2009, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxrac

Your post don't have any valid because Honduran government is unstable so all or many countries don't recognize new president and want Zelaya to be in power until term expire.

Thanks for other nonsense comment again.

Correction - the Honduran govt was beginning to become unstable due to an overly oppressive president that was *lawfully* removed as so ordered by the Supreme Court.

Dictator Hugo Chavez wants Zelaya back in power. So does Dictator Fidel Castro. So does dictator Manuel Ortega. So does Obama.

**Foxrac** · 08-30-2009, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

Correction - the Honduran govt was unstable due to an overly oppressive president that was *lawfully* removed as so ordered by the Supreme Court.

Dictator Hugo Chavez wants Zelaya back in power. So does Dictator Fidel Castro. So does dictator Manuel Ortega. So does Obama.

You don't understand about what's DEMOCRACY means? Zelaya is elected by people and supposed not oust by military coup.

I said MANY MANY or all countries don't recognize new Honduran government so Obama is right way to give support for democracy, not oust by military coup.

Time for you to re-read all news about happen in Honduras and don't put words in my mouth.

kokonut · 08-30-2009, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxrac

You don't understand about what's DEMOCRACY means? Zelaya is elected by people and supposed not oust by military coup.

I said MANY MANY or all countries don't recognize new Honduran government so Obama is right way to give support for democracy, not oust by military coup.

Time for you to re-read all news about happen in Honduras and don't put words in my mouth.

Apparently you don't follow news closely or understand how events happened and what Democracy is really about. Yes, he was elected by his people but then he began to abuse his power. Hence, he was *LEGALLY* removed. No shots were fired. No coup took place. He was *LEGALLY* removed from power just like how impeachments are done here in the U.S. There is a time and place in a Democracy govt (i.e. Hondura) when power becomes abusive to the point of over-riding the Constitution, continual corruption, suppression of the people, refusal to sign laws legally adopted and passed by Congress and so and so forth.

Quote:

Zelaya’s removal came after he systematically abused his powers: he sought to circumvent constitutional term limits, used mobs to intimidate his critics, threatened public employees with termination if they refused to help him violate the Constitution, engaged in massive corruption, illegally cut off public funds to local governments whose leaders refused to back his quest for more power, denied basic government services to his critics, refused to enforce dozens of laws passed by Congress, and spent the country into virtual bankruptcy, refusing to submit a budget so that he could illegally spend public funds on his cronies.

**Foxrac** · 08-30-2009, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

Apparently you don't follow news closely or understand how events happened and what Democracy is really about. Yes, he was elected by his people but then he began to abuse his power. Hence, he was *LEGALLY* removed. No shots were fired. No coup took place. He was *LEGALLY* removed from power just like how impeachments are done here in the U.S. There is a time and place in a Democracy govt (i.e. Hondura) when power becomes abusive to the point of over-riding the Constitution, continual corruption, suppression of the people, refusal to sign laws legally adopted and passed by Congress and so and so forth.

Don't matters, supreme court does abuse their powers too so they don't have any powers to cause any military coup so our country has no rights to interfere with other countries if leader abuse their powers like Chavez and Chavez is elected by people so we can't oust Chavez or would cause any diplomat strain in around world, same with Iran and we can't send our troopers to invade Iran because of bad election.

Some developing countries don't have good justice system or totally corrupted so your point is just moot.

kokonut · 08-30-2009, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxrac

Don't matters, supreme court does abuse their powers too so they don't have any powers to cause any military coup so our country has no rights to interfere with other countries if leader abuse their powers like Chavez and Chavez is elected by people so we can't oust Chavez or would cause any diplomat strain in around world, same with Iran and we can't send our troopers to invade Iran because of bad election.

Some developing countries don't have good justice system or totally corrupted so your point is just moot.

Again. Read the history. No military coup ever happened. Zelaya was *lawfully* removed as so ordered by the Supreme court after reviewing the case against Zelaya. Just as we would have done with Nixon and Clinton following impeachment trials for removal from office. A "coup" is defined as “the unconstitutional overthrow of a legitimate government by a small group.” This never happened.

Again. Go back and read how all this occurred.

**Foxrac** · 08-30-2009, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

Again. Read the history. No military coup ever happened. Zelaya was *lawfully* removed as so ordered by the Supreme court after reviewing the case against Zelaya. Just as we would have done with Nixon and Clinton following impeachment trials for removal from office. A "coup" is defined as “the unconstitutional overthrow of a legitimate government by a small group.” This never happened.

Again. Go back and read how all this occurred.

No, you made incorrect.

Zelaya was removed by military coup, that which is wrongful and illegal so supreme court don't have power to say something about president or they can't issue an warrant but they did so they are abuse their power or corrupted.

You can't compare like that to impeachment because require 2/3 from congress to vote but military coup has no vote, also Clinton and Nixon aren't impeachment due one resign and other is not guilty in senators, only Andrew Jackson has been impeached.

No, you need read it or let agree to disagree.

Steel X · 08-30-2009, 07:16 PM

You love to embarrass yourself don't you, kokonut?

**Foxrac** · 08-30-2009, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steel X

You love to embarrass yourself don't you, kokonut?

Of course, he did.

kokonut · 08-30-2009, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxrac

No, you made incorrect.

Zelaya was removed by military coup, that which is wrongful and illegal so supreme court don't have power to say something about president or they can't issue an warrant but they did so they are abuse their power or corrupted.

You can't compare like that to impeachment because require 2/3 from congress to vote but military coup has no vote, also Clinton and Nixon aren't impeachment due one resign and other is not guilty in senators, only Andrew Jackson has been impeached.

No, you need read it or let agree to disagree.

Oh, I have! But I know you haven't. There was no military coup. The MSM use those words inaccurately as a hyperbole.

Quote:

The Honduran attorney general has charged him with deliberately violating Honduran law and the Supreme Court ordered his arrest in Tegucigalpa on June 28.

But the Honduran military whisked him out of the country, to Costa Rica, when it executed the court's order.

His expulsion has given his supporters ammunition to allege that he was treated unlawfully. Now he is an international hero of the left. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Cuban dictator Raúl Castro, and Venezuela's Hugo Chávez are all insisting that he be restored to power. This demand is baseless. Mr. Zelaya's detention was legal, as was his official removal from office by Congress.

If there is anything debatable about the crisis it is the question of whether the government can defend the expulsion of the president. In fact it had good reasons for that move and they are worth Mrs. Clinton's attention if she is interested in defending democracy.

Besides eagerly trampling the constitution, Mr. Zelaya had demonstrated that he was ready to employ the violent tactics of chavismo to hang onto power. The decision to pack him off immediately was taken in the interest of protecting both constitutional order and human life.

Quote:

Two incidents earlier this year make the case. The first occurred in January when the country was preparing to name a new 15-seat Supreme Court, as it does every seven years. An independent board made up of members of civil society had nominated 45 candidates. From that list, Congress was to choose the new judges.

Mr. Zelaya had his own nominees in mind, including the wife of a minister, and their names were not on the list. So he set about to pressure the legislature. On the day of the vote he militarized the area around the Congress and press reports say a group of the president's men, including the minister of defense, went to the Congress uninvited to turn up the heat. The head of the legislature had to call security to have the defense minister removed.

Quote:

These experiences frightened Hondurans because they strongly suggested that Mr. Zelaya, who had already aligned himself with Mr. Chávez, was now emulating the Venezuelan's power-grab. Other Chávez protégés -- in Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua -- have done the same, refusing to accept checks on their power, making use of mobs and seeking to undermine institutions.

It was this fondness for intimidation that prompted Mr. Zelaya's exile. Honduras was worried that if he stayed in the country after his arrest his supporters would foment violence to try to bring down the interim government and restore him to power.

It wouldn't be a first. Bolivia's President Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada was removed in 2003 using just such tactics. Antigovernment militants, trained by Peruvian terrorists and financed by Venezuela and by drug money from the Colombian rebel group FARC, had laid siege to La Paz. As the city ran short on supplies, Mr. Sánchez de Lozada issued a decree to have armed guards accompany food and fuel trucks. The rebels, who had dynamite and weapons, clashed with the guards. Sixty people died. The president was pressured to step down.

In the end Congress held its ground and Mr. Zelaya retreated. But the message had been sent: The president was willing to use force against other institutions.

Why Honduras Sent Zelaya Away - WSJ.com

Again, no military coup. Only in your mind would you think that. Ironically, it was ouster of Zelaya that prevented any military coup of his own by becoming a dictator and turn a democracy govt into a communist/socialist run govt a la Hugo Chavez. Everything was done legally and lawfully. I presented my case but you have not. Evidence points to a lawfull removal of Zelaya, a dictator wanna-be.

You forget about our Congress and Supreme Court have the power to impeach a president and remove him/her from office.
Impeachment: The Process

C.C.Sinned · 08-30-2009, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxrac

No, you made incorrect.

Zelaya was removed by military coup, that which is wrongful and illegal so supreme court don't have power to say something about president or they can't issue an warrant but they did so they are abuse their power or corrupted.

You can't compare like that to impeachment because require 2/3 from congress to vote but military coup has no vote, also Clinton and Nixon aren't impeachment due one resign and other is not guilty in senators, only Andrew Jackson has been impeached.

No, you need read it or let agree to disagree.

source

Quote:

The Honduran attorney general has charged him with deliberately violating Honduran law and the Supreme Court ordered his arrest in Tegucigalpa on June 28.

But the Honduran military whisked him out of the country, to Costa Rica, when it executed the court's order.

C.C.Sinned · 08-30-2009, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

Why Honduras Sent Zelaya Away - WSJ.com

we both posted the wall street journal link at the same time

kokonut · 08-30-2009, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steel X

You love to embarrass yourself don't you, kokonut?

LOL...speaking of who? Really, it's the other way around.

Again, Zelaya was removed lawfully and legally.

**Foxrac** · 08-30-2009, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

Oh, I have! But I know you haven't. There was no military coup. The MSM use those words inaccurately as a hyperbole.

Why Honduras Sent Zelaya Away - WSJ.com

Again, no military coup. Only in your mind would you think that. Ironically, it was ouster of Zelaya that prevented any military coup of his own by becoming a dictator and turn a democracy govt into a communist/socialist run govt a la Hugo Chavez. Everything was done legally and lawfully. I presented my case but you have not. Evidence points to a lawfull removal of Zelaya, a dictator wanna-be.

You forget about our Congress and Supreme Court have the power to impeach a president and remove him/her from office.
Impeachment: The Process

I don't take with sources because many countries and world organization like OAS don't recognize new Honduran government, many of ambassadors have been left too so I'm not on their court way.

No, you are blind again, read my revious post and I made quote.

Quote:

You can't compare like that to impeachment because require 2/3 from congress to vote but military coup has no vote, also Clinton and Nixon aren't impeachment due one resign and other is not guilty in senators, only Andrew Jackson has been impeached.

C.C.Sinned · 08-30-2009, 07:40 PM

kokonut · 08-30-2009, 07:56 PM

I agree, CCsinned.

It was clearly a democracy in action that had Zelaya ousted. All this is a simple matter of seeing how the events unfolded that lead up to his ouster.

Quote:

That (Deposed President Mel Zelaya) acted as if he were above the law, there is no doubt. While Honduran law allows for a constitutional rewrite, the power to open that door does not lie with the president. A constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress.

But Mr. Zelaya declared the vote on his own and had Mr. ChÃ¡vez ship him the necessary ballots from Venezuela. The Supreme Court ruled his referendum unconstitutional, and it instructed the military not to carry out the logistics of the vote as it normally would do.

The top military commander, Gen. Romeo VÃ¡squez VelÃ¡squez, told the president that he would have to comply. Mr. Zelaya promptly fired him. The Supreme Court ordered him reinstated. Mr. Zelaya refused.

Calculating that some critical mass of Hondurans would take his side, the president decided he would run the referendum himself. So on Thursday he led a mob that broke into the military installation where the ballots from Venezuela were being stored and then had his supporters distribute them in defiance of the Supreme Court's order.

The attorney general had already made clear that the referendum was illegal, and he further announced that he would prosecute anyone involved in carrying it out. Yesterday, Mr. Zelaya was arrested by the military and is now in exile in Costa Rica.
It remains to be seen what Mr. Zelaya's next move will be. It's not surprising that chavistas throughout the region are claiming that he was victim of a military coup. They want to hide the fact that the military was acting on a court order to defend the rule of law and the constitution, and that the Congress asserted itself for that purpose, too.

Mrs. Clinton has piled on as well. Yesterday she accused Honduras of violating "the precepts of the Interamerican Democratic Charter" and said it "should be condemned by all." Fidel Castro did just that. Mr. ChÃ¡vez pledged to overthrow the new government.

Honduras is fighting back by strictly following the constitution. The Honduran Congress met in emergency session yesterday and designated its president as the interim executive as stipulated in Honduran law. It also said that presidential elections set for November will go forward. The Supreme Court later said that the military acted on its orders. It also said that when Mr. Zelaya realized that he was going to be prosecuted for his illegal behavior, he agreed to an offer to resign in exchange for safe passage out of the country. Mr. Zelaya denies it.

Honduras Defends Its Democracy - WSJ.com

In other words, Zelaya was trying to set himself up as a dictator for life, the court's ruled it illegal and when he proceeded anyway, he was ousted.

**Reba** · 08-30-2009, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxrac

You can't compare like that to impeachment because require 2/3 from congress to vote but military coup has no vote, also Clinton and Nixon aren't impeachment due one resign and other is not guilty in senators, only Andrew Jackson has been impeached....

Presidents Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson were impeached.

Quote:

The U.S. Constitution provides for impeachment and removal from office of federal officials on grounds of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (Article II, Sect. 4). Impeachment is the bringing of charges by the House of Representatives. It is followed by a Senate trial; a two-thirds Senate vote is needed for conviction and removal from office.

In 1868, Andrew Johnson became the first president impeached by the House; he was tried but not convicted by the Senate. In 1974, impeachment articles against Pres. Richard Nixon, in connection with the Watergate scandal, were voted by the House Judiciary Committee; he resigned Aug. 9, before the full House could vote on impeaching him. In 1998, Pres. Bill Clinton was impeached by the House in connection with covering up a relationship with a former White House intern Monica Lewinsky; he was tried in the Senate in 1999 and acquitted.

Impeachment in U.S. History

**deafskeptic** · 08-30-2009, 09:13 PM

Decided to read up on the events concerning the democratically elected President Zelaya's ouster in Honduras.

Source is Voice of America. Dunno if it's the same source as the OP though.

Quote:

US Prepares Further Sanctions Against Honduras Coup Leaders
By David Gollust
Washington
27 August 2009

Honduras' interim Pres. Roberto Micheletti (top R) meets with OAS Sec. General Jose Miguel Insulza (far L) in Tegucigalpa, 25 Aug 2009
Honduras' interim Pres. Roberto Micheletti (top R) meets with OAS Sec. General Jose Miguel Insulza (far L) in Tegucigalpa, 25 Aug 2009
The State Department signaled Thursday the Obama administration is ready to take tougher action against the defacto leadership in Honduras because of the political impasse over President Manuel Zelaya's ouster in June. An Organization of American States diplomatic mission to Tegucigalpa this week returned empty-handed.

Officials here say Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is expected to make a formal determination as early as Friday that the ouster of Mr. Zelaya was an extra-legal coup, action that would set in motion deep cuts in U.S. aid, and other steps against the interim government.

Obama administration officials have been saying since the democratically-elected Mr. Zelaya was arrested by the Honduran military and deported to Costa Rica on June 28 that the action amounted to a coup, despite the fact that officials of the successor administration maintain they acted within the law.

But the State Department withheld a formal determination of a coup, which carries with it harsh aid penalties mandated by Congress, in hope that diplomatic efforts led by the OAS could restore Mr. Zelaya to power.

Costa Rican President Oscar Arias, tasked by the OAS to mediate, has offered a proposal under which interim Honduran President Robert Micheletti would step down and allow Mr. Zelaya to return and serve out his term which ends in January.

But at a news briefing, Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs P.J. Crowley said Mr. Micheletti and his supporters categorically rejected the plan when a team of OAS foreign ministers visited Tegucigalpa this week, prompting the United States to consider further sanctions.

"The OAS delegation that went there this week made what we thought was a very direct offer and entreaty to Honduras, to the defacto regime, that they should sign on to the San Jose accords. They have made it categorical that they have, as far as their position today, is that they have no plan to do that. And we are now evaluating based on what we've heard since the delegation has come back to the OAS, and were consulting with the OAS. We're taking stock of that and we'll make some decisions here very soon," he said.

The Obama administration has already suspended several non-humanitarian aid programs for Honduras that it would have been required to halt, if a formal coup determination had been made.

If Secretary Clinton as expected, goes ahead and signs off on such a finding, the aid cuts, worth more than $18 million, would become permanent and other assistance would be affected including a multi-year $215 million U.S. Millennium Challenge Corporation program to boost the Honduran farm economy and roads system.

Earlier this week, the State Department said it was suspending non-emergency visa service for Hondurans seeking to visit the United States in another move aimed at pressing the interim government to accept the Arias plan.

Interim President Micheletti has said he does not fear sanctions and that Honduras can get by without international aid. Mr. Micheletti and supporters say Mr. Zelaya, a political ally of leftist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, was ousted because he was trying to illegally change the country's constitution to extend his term in office.

Mr. Micheletti, who has the vocal support of some U.S. Congressional conservatives, says Honduras will hold elections in November even if other countries do not recognize the result.

A senior State Department official who spoke to reporters said a coup finding by Secretary Clinton would give U.S. sanctions more bite and importantly, foreclose a resumption of aid without an acceptable resolution of the Honduran political impasse.

According to another source (Washington Post if you want to see the article in full context.),
Obama said that the coup was illegal but that the US government was holding off calling it a coup because it would trigger a cutoff of millions of dollars in aid to this poor Central American Country.

Quote:

President Obama said yesterday that the military ouster of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was illegal and could set a "terrible precedent," but Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the United States government was holding off on formally branding it a coup, which would trigger a cutoff of millions of dollars in aid to the impoverished Central American country

For the record, this isn't the full text of the page that I quoted. According to theWashington Post, Congress and the Supreme Court said the referendum was illegal.

Quote:

The Congress and Supreme Court said the referendum was illegal.

From what I can tell the Obama adminstration has several options even though it pledged to work closely with Latin America and not dictate policy in it's traditional back yard. One, it can cut off portions of development and military aid directly to the Honduran event of a coup. Also, the US goverment is Hondura's biggest trading partner.

We will see what course of action that the Obama administration will take regarding the coup.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Obama tried to stop this from happening.

Quote:

The Supreme Court had ruled the vote was illegal because it flouted the constitution's own ban on such referendums within six months of elections. The military had refused to take its usual role of distributing ballots. But Mr. Zelaya fired the chief of the army last week and pledged to press ahead.

The Supreme Court is hardly a bastion of liberals so it must have a good reason for decreeing this.

Quote:

The U.S. and other countries condemned the coup. President Barack Obama said he was "deeply concerned" and called on all political actors in Honduras to "respect democratic norms." Venezuela President Hugo Chávez, a close ally of Mr. Zelaya and nemesis of the U.S., said he would consider it an ''act of war" if there were hostilities against his diplomats. "I have put the armed forces of Venezuela on alert," Mr. Chávez said.

Given this situation, I can see why aid could be cut off. America is hardly alone in it's stance regarding the events.

**Foxrac** · 08-30-2009, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

Presidents Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson were impeached.

Impeachment in U.S. History

Not Bill Clinton because acquitted in senators, that what I means so Bill Clinton isn't officially impeached.

kokonut · 08-30-2009, 09:37 PM

There it is again...the word "coup" as way to exact the unnecessary hyperbole into a situation that was done legally and lawfully through the Honduran Congress and Supreme court. A Democracy in action, ironically, and not a coup. The word "extra-legal" is a fancy word for "outside of legal control or authority; not regulated by law." This is false since removal of Zelaya was lawful and legal.

Obama likely to cut off aid to Honduras, based on legal mistake and misreading of the law

Interesting that the article (deafskeptics') doesn't mention where Zayala's ballot came from when the Honduran law allows for a constitutional rewrite but that power does not belong to the president.! Understand? A constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress. But Mr. Zelaya declared the vote on his own and had Mr. ChÃ¡vez ship him the necessary ballots from Venezuela which was illegal to begin with the design in mind of usurpation of Democracy of Honduran law in the attempt for dictatorial control over the Honduran govt. What parts do you not understand people?

kokonut · 08-30-2009, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxrac

Not Bill Clinton because acquitted in senators, that what I means so Bill Clinton isn't officially impeached.

Clinton WAS OFFICIALLY IMPEACHED...!
President Clinton Impeached

souggy · 08-30-2009, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxrac

Not Bill Clinton because acquitted in senators, that what I means so Bill Clinton isn't officially impeached.

Bill Clinton was impeached though. Andrew Johnson wasn't convicted, does that means he wasn't impeached because Clinton was acquitted?

Impeach means "to make accusation against," "to charge with improper conduct," "to challenge." Based on those definitions, Bill Clinton was impeached. It just that the charges against him were dropped. You seem to be confusing "impeached" with "convicted."

Richard Nixon wasn't impeached because... well... if you were convicted after an impeachment trial, then you would be asked to step down. He resigned before he could be called upon for an impeachment trial.

**Foxrac** · 08-30-2009, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

Clinton WAS OFFICIALLY IMPEACHED...!
President Clinton Impeached

He don't leaving during impeachment trial and still to serve until Jan 20, 2001.

Passed in house isn't enough without confirmation from Senate so Clinton isn't leaving his office.

**Foxrac** · 08-30-2009, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by souggy

Bill Clinton was impeached though. Andrew Johnson wasn't convicted, does that means he wasn't impeached because Clinton was acquitted?

Impeach means "to make accusation against," "to charge with improper conduct," "to challenge." Based on those definitions, Bill Clinton was impeached. It just that the charges against him were dropped. You seem to be confusing "impeached" with "convicted."

Richard Nixon wasn't impeached because... well... if you were convicted after an impeachment trial, then you would be asked to step down. He resigned before he could be called upon for an impeachment trial.

Fine but Clinton don't stepped down or leaving the office.

kokonut · 08-30-2009, 09:53 PM

C.C.Sinned · 08-30-2009, 09:56 PM

just how many millions of the taxpayers money were spent to reach the of the ordeal over a blowjob?

what was the grand total?

kokonut · 08-30-2009, 10:21 PM

I don't know but I'm sure it left a big stain afterwards.

**Foxrac** · 08-31-2009, 12:26 AM

I admit to make mistake about Clinton isn't impeached until I understand about how article of impeachment works but he isn't convicted yet.

For situation with Honduras, I know it was order by judge to arrest Zelaya but some media considers as military coup, its just their opinion so I do consider about military coup too if you don't agree, unless many countries and world organization recognize new Honduran government.

jillio · 08-31-2009, 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

Apparently you don't follow news closely or understand how events happened and what Democracy is really about. Yes, he was elected by his people but then he began to abuse his power. Hence, he was *LEGALLY* removed. No shots were fired. No coup took place. He was *LEGALLY* removed from power just like how impeachments are done here in the U.S. There is a time and place in a Democracy govt (i.e. Hondura) when power becomes abusive to the point of over-riding the Constitution, continual corruption, suppression of the people, refusal to sign laws legally adopted and passed by Congress and so and so forth.

Definition of a "coup" as defined in Miriam Webster:

•coup d'etat: a sudden and decisive change of government illegally or by force

Therefore, what occurred can be accurately described as a coup, or to use the proper vocabulary, coup d'etat. Size of the group is not a criterion for the definition of a coup d'etat.

No, he was not removed from office following an impeachment procedure.

Regarding your last sentence, yes it does remind me of someone in the U.S. Richard Nixon would be his name.

08-30-2009, 01:37 PM	#2 (permalink)
Foxrac Need Stormtroopers? Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Zaphias Posts: 32,557	Your post don't have any valid because Honduran government is unstable so all or many countries don't recognize new president and want Zelaya to be in power until term expire. Thanks for other nonsense comment again. __________________ In Moto We Trust

08-30-2009, 09:37 PM	#21 (permalink)
kokonut Registered User Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 15,348	There it is again...the word "coup" as way to exact the unnecessary hyperbole into a situation that was done legally and lawfully through the Honduran Congress and Supreme court. A Democracy in action, ironically, and not a coup. The word "extra-legal" is a fancy word for "outside of legal control or authority; not regulated by law." This is false since removal of Zelaya was lawful and legal. Obama likely to cut off aid to Honduras, based on legal mistake and misreading of the law Interesting that the article (deafskeptics') doesn't mention where Zayala's ballot came from when the Honduran law allows for a constitutional rewrite but that power does not belong to the president.! Understand? A constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress. But Mr. Zelaya declared the vote on his own and had Mr. ChÃ¡vez ship him the necessary ballots from Venezuela which was illegal to begin with the design in mind of usurpation of Democracy of Honduran law in the attempt for dictatorial control over the Honduran govt. What parts do you not understand people? __________________ Before AD. After AD. "Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us." -Thurgood Marshall, former Supreme Court Justice "... turns out they are telling the truth."

08-30-2009, 09:53 PM	#26 (permalink)
kokonut Registered User Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 15,348	__________________ Before AD. After AD. "Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us." -Thurgood Marshall, former Supreme Court Justice "... turns out they are telling the truth."

08-30-2009, 10:21 PM	#28 (permalink)
kokonut Registered User Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 15,348	I don't know but I'm sure it left a big stain afterwards. __________________ Before AD. After AD. "Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us." -Thurgood Marshall, former Supreme Court Justice "... turns out they are telling the truth."

08-31-2009, 12:26 AM	#29 (permalink)
Foxrac Need Stormtroopers? Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Zaphias Posts: 32,557	I admit to make mistake about Clinton isn't impeached until I understand about how article of impeachment works but he isn't convicted yet. For situation with Honduras, I know it was order by judge to arrest Zelaya but some media considers as military coup, its just their opinion so I do consider about military coup too if you don't agree, unless many countries and world organization recognize new Honduran government. __________________ In Moto We Trust

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

08-30-2009, 07:16 PM	#9 (permalink)
Steel X Registered User Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: The Carolinas/Rochester, NY. Posts: 13,824	You love to embarrass yourself don't you, kokonut?

08-30-2009, 07:40 PM	#16 (permalink)
C.C.Sinned Registered User Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 4,476

08-30-2009, 09:56 PM	#27 (permalink)
C.C.Sinned Registered User Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 4,476	just how many millions of the taxpayers money were spent to reach the of the ordeal over a blowjob? what was the grand total?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode