<<No matter how much you like his policies, or like him personally, a person who commits crimes (quite intentional crimes, not incidental crimes like speeding, and crimes directly related to the integrity of the U.S. justice system) while in office should not stay in that office. >>
This is where it gets tricky. There are two conflicting priorities to be weighed against each other. There would obviously be disruption from removing the President. There would also be long-term consequences with the way future Presidents and Congresspeople are treated. The political fallout for both parties must also be considered, especially if it looks like the Republicans railroaded the President by not "playing fair" - remember, appearances are more important than reality. Continuity of government is very important to a lot of people, and even supporters of the Republicans may react badly to the way things are being done.
That disruption must be measured against the damage that would be done by NOT removing the President. Morality is not exactly high on people's lists of things to care about, if you read the posts on this list. The crimes involved all relate to things that people either do every day (the average person lies twice a day - they may be little lies, but they're just as embarrasing when you get caught), or that they understand and merely poo-poo - (a large number of people either fool around, or would if they thought they could get away with it). Other than the detractors of the President, very few people are focusing on the national security aspects or are willing to assume that the Travel/File and other gates will turn out to implicate the President directly.
That being the case, it looks as if removing the President may cause more damage to the country than leaving him where he is. Unless the focus of the debate changes, far too many people will continue to think it's all about sex. If it's all about sex (even if it only apears to be), you can't remove Clinton from office. |
