Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Don Pueblo who wrote (747)	1/6/2001 12:04:09 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

I'm going to get a lifetime subscription: Friday, Jan. 5, 2001 11:15 a.m. EST Wall Street Journal Calls for Clinton's Indictment The nation's most influential business daily became the first newspaper in the country on Friday to call for the indictment of the president of the United States, in a stinging editorial that argued he had given prosecutors no other choice. "[President Clinton] is manifestly guilty of perjury in his Paula Jones testimony, but even today clings to the 'what the meaning of the word is, is' defense," said the Wall Street Journal about the president's effort to cover up the scandal that ultimately led to his impeachment. Citing Clinton's claim in December's Esquire magazine that his congressional impeachers owe both him and the nation an apology, the Journal outlined independent counsel Robert Ray's dilemma: "If [Ray] decides to give the president a pass in terms of a larger public interest, the president will surely claim his preposterous defense was vindicated, that he was the victim. ... History's burden on Mr. Ray is that a decision not to indict serves the Clinton revisionism." The paper also revisited the pronouncements of several leading Senate Democrats two years ago, who argued that Clinton should not be removed from office because he could be prosecuted after his term expired. "His conduct should not be excused, nor will it. The president can be criminally prosecuted, especially once he leaves office," proclaimed Wisconsin's Herb Kohl. "As the Constitution clearly says, [Clinton] remains subject to the laws of the land, just like any other citizen of the United States," echoed California's Barbara Boxer. "Whether any of his conduct constitutes a criminal offense such as perjury and obstruction of justice is not for me to decide," announced conscience of the Senate Joe Lieberman. "That, appropriately, should and must be left to the criminal justice system, which will uphold the rule of law in President Clinton's case as it would for any other American." The Journal might have also noted that in the absence of any indictment, Clinton and his wife are likely to sue for restitution of an estimated $10 million in legal fees - most of which were incurred because of the investigation by the Office of Independent Counsel. Such a claim would be legally valid under the now defunct independent counsel statute that currently governs Robert Ray's probe. For Ray to facilitate such a reward when laws have clearly been violated would turn the OIC's entire investigation into a national joke. And if the Clintons collect, what happens to the $8 million in legal defense fund donations they've raised over the last seven years? Don't bet on any refunds without further court action.