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: Daniel Schuh who wrote (7600)10/6/1998 6:54:00 PM
From: j_b  Read Replies (1) of 67261
 
<<But one of the first issues to be addressed is "what is an impeachable offense". >>

Ignoring the fact that the Rodino commission came to the opposite conclusion last time this was an issue, I object to it because the definition of what constitutes an impeachable offense seems to depend on circumstances and how people feel about them. Since there is no way to tell how you will feel about the circumstances before finding out what they are, there is no way to define which ones might be impeachable. There is actually a fair amount of scholarship spent on the topic pointing out that the definition always depends on the circumstances of the case. In other words, there is no way to define what constitutes an impeachable defense other than "I'll know it when I see it".

<<Somehow, we're supposed to divorce the "facts" of Clinton's alleged perjury from the background of dirty politics that lead up to it.>>

"We" aren't, the Senate is. It is their duty to put the needs of the nation above their own needs or the needs of the party. For them, the only thing that should matter is that scale I talked about in another post - put the "crimes" and their effects on the nation on one side, and the effects on the nation of an impeachment on the other. Nothing else should matter.

Every time you try to compare this set of circumstances with a different set, you obfuscate the real issues, IMHO.

<<Somehow, lying in the context of a politically motivated, moribund civil suit is more ominous and important than all the documented lying in the Iran/Contra affair>>

Just for fun, look at this way - which would you rather have, a President who lies to you because he really wants to do what he thinks is best for the country, even though he knows you don't agree, or one who lies to hide a tawdry affair with a subordinate employee his daughter's age? It's probably not relevant, and I don't think Clinton should be removed for Monicagate, but try to answer that question honestly. One acted from selfish motives and one acted in what he thought were the best interests of the country.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext