SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: dougjn who wrote (2995)9/15/1998 10:52:00 PM
From: j_b  Read Replies (1) of 67261
 
<<I think it is clear that this illegality is not impeachable>>

If it were clear, there would be no need to have this discussion.

Let's assume that the President committed a felony by perjuring himself. If that is true, and you can't indict a sitting President (as many people feel is the case), how do you punish him for the crime, even if it's only a little itty bitty felony? Impeachment provides the means to remove the President from office in order to allow him to be indicted. If he isn't removed from office, and the statute of limitations runs out on this one, as has happened in other cases (like the Jones case - the statute of limitations for a federal case had passed, so it was brought in state court), the President would get away with perjury (assuming he was guilty, for the sake of this discussion). How do we reconcile this with the idea that the U.S. is a country of laws?

<<The only reason we are induced to think it might be is because of the huge crisis that we have been thrown into as a result>>

Removal from office would be necessitated by Clinton being unable to carry out his duties in an appropriate manner. It doesn't matter if the cause is a severe case of hemmoroids, or commission of a major crime - if he can't carry out his duties, Clinton should leave office, voluntarily or otherwise. Even if the cause is an evil right-wing conspiracy, Clinton's ability to function as President has been compromised. If Congress feels the compromise is serious enough, they should remove him from office.

<<I'm saying test any extreme passions here against what other countries think.>>

Why? What we do here is based on our laws and our morality, not theirs.

Just for the record - I'm still not convinced Clinton should leave office. I think that if the evidence is only what we have seen (no Whitewater, no Travelgate, etc. showing up in the future), a censure with Clinton repaying the $4 million would suffice. It ain't gonna happen - Clinton would never go for it, but I'd be satisfied. I just hate to let this kind of logic go unchallenged.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext