Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? 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 : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever?

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: pezz who wrote (8271)	10/15/1998 11:40:00 AM
From: Rick Slemmer	Read Replies (2) of 13994

The point I'm trying to make is that the Constitution has specific criteria for impeachment. No it doesn't, and it purposely leaves the interpretation of "high crimes and misdemeanors" wide open to cover contingencies. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say burglars, batterers, and cannibals have to be removed, yet I'd be willing to bet that a president indicted on charges of burglary, battery, or cannibalism would be impeached. After all why would it be only high* crimes and bad behavior? Makes no sense.* Sure it does. They didn't want to impeach a fellow for any old violation of a civil law: neglecting to clean up after his horse, or insulting a neighbor over a property line dispute, for example; the Colonial equivalents of jaywalking or public drunkenness. They did, however, want to set down rules that allowed serious crimes to be prosecuted, even if the defendant was the President. The Presidency was made vulnerable to prevent the absolute power they saw in King George. They couldn't impeach the King. So we come back to perjury. It is a high crime, and there are (according to CNN) 115 Americans now serving time for conviction on charges of perjury. Judges have been removed (impeached) for perjury, and for good reason: the entire American justice system depends on witnesses being truthful under oath. That's why there's so much "selective amnesia" and verbal acrobatics displayed by the Clintons et al in their depositions. They know that perjury is a major crime and their only hope is the exploitation of legal loopholes and the vagaries of language. Whatever you may think of BC I believe it would be a dangerous precedent to make any exception to the Constitution in order to get rid of him. It's not an exception to the Constitution; it's the *purpose* of the Constitution. RS

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next