Ok bub. I have been gone for a couple days but it seems quite a few folks agree with my opinion regarding Purjury by a sitting President. The list includes political professors, Hillary Rodham Clinton, A former Supreme Court Justice, at least two framers of the constitution and Notable Attorneys.

David Lowenthal, professor emeritus of political science at Boston College makes the novel and compelling argument that perjury is "bribery consummate, using false words instead of money or other things of value to pervert the course of justice" and, thus, perjury is a constitutionally enumerated high crime.

"Perjury attacks the very essence of democracy. Perjury is bribery consummate."

Hamilton (or Madison) discussed the importance of wisdom and virtue in Federalist 57. "The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust."

written in 1974 when she wanted to impeach a president; both mention "bad conduct" as grounds for impeachment.
"Impeachment," wrote Rodham, "did not have to be for criminal offenses -- but only for a 'course of conduct' that suggested an abuse of power or a disregard for the office of the President of the United States...A person's 'course of conduct' while not particularly criminal could be of such a nature that it destroys trust, discourages allegiance, and demands action by the Congress...The office of the President is such that it calls for a higher level of conduct than the average citizen in the United States."

Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis wrote: "Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."

The great nineteenth-century lawyer and orator Robert Ingersoll eloquently described that harm: "f there is an infamous crime in the world it is the crime of perjury. All the sneaking instincts; all the groveling, crawling instincts unite and blend in this one crime called perjury. It clothes itself . . . in the shining vestments of an oath in order that it may tell a lie.Furthermore, a reason the law prohibits convicted perjurers from holding public office is that they have shown, in attempting to undermine justice by lying in court, that they cannot be trusted to administer justice as a public official.

excerpts from an article by
Joseph C. Sommer, Author, Attorney at Law are below or you can read the full article here:

www.humanismbyjoe.com/bill_clinton.htm

In their book No Contest: Corporate Lawyers and the Perversion of Justice in America, Ralph Nader and Wesley J. Smith report that a similar situation exists in civil litigation. They assert that many corporate clients want their attorneys to employ win-at-all-costs tactics that include lying and concealing evidence. And they say that many lawyers oblige by viewing their duty to zealously represent clients as meaning to "obstruct, lie, obfuscate, and abuse."

It apears he doesnt think very highly of corporate attorneys.

"Because perjury is such a serious crime - particularly when committed by a high government official - Clinton should have resigned from office or Congress should have removed him."

To answer your questions:

"Do you believe that becoming the president of the united states has made GW gain a vastly more respectful standpoint?

Yes I believe it. I could be wrong.

Do you believe that uttering an oath administered by John Rehnquist makes him all the more accountable now?"

Resoundingly YES. He is more accountable than ever before or ever again in his life after he leaves office.

As I have shown several folks whos opinions you prolly value more than a rube like mine support my position.

I rest my case counselor.

As for your other argument about military tribunals, It remains to be seen. I think some of your fellow counselors are arguing about that in court as we speak. I hope you can agree that many lawyers would disagree with your opinion of their legality or constitutionality.

Here is a link to the actual order:

www.whitehouse.gov/news/r...13-27.html

I am just an ignorant citizen but it sure looks to me like someone with an "esquire" on the end of his name helped write that baby up. Mayhap a few of em even did some research first.

Maybe you can clarify which of these statements you really believe?

"So because george bush's crime (which is equally as serious) didnt occur when he was president hes better for it?"

"Ive never doubted the severity of lying under oath as opposed to a DUI conviction."

Oh and it was Hastly who brought up the better man business here:

"Atleast get the facts and dont demonize the better man in defense of GW."

Now the "better man" would admit he was wrong and arguing in circles.

Bargeroth
"who hopes your not one of the corporate attorneys referred to above damn