Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK Message Board

STOCKTALK

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 Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: j_b who wrote (8232)	10/8/1998 6:36:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) of 67261

Correct me if I am wrong, j_b, but I seem to remember that there were two proposals for impeachment hearings: 1) one to hold an open-ended inquiry, meaning any and every charge(including the most far-fetched) ever raised against the President can be (and maybe will be) investigated (all over again); and 2) one to hold hearings limited to the specific charges in the Starr referral. For a variety of reasons, I personally think (2) would have been a wiser choice. As for the Democrats who voted for (1), I think at least some of those who represent "conservative" (tricky word) districts may have been thinking of their re-election race. That does not mean they may not have had other motivations as well. I don't buy uni-causal explanations of human behavior, myself. jbe P.S. Were there really no Republicans who supported (2)? That surprises me. I would have thought there would be more cross-over from both sides of the aisle.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next