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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (193554)	10/18/2001 5:05:28 PM
From: PROLIFE	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

big jim and the twins? sounds like you know him very personally.......

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (193554)	10/18/2001 5:20:55 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Impeachment is a political process, not a judicial process. Those participating are invited to weigh the severity of the offense against the national interest. In that case, it is no surprise that Democrats and Republicans should weigh the case differently. Now, were the Democrats more than ordinarily partisan in their defense of the president? Doubtless, most were, and it was often sickening. However, there was a fundamental problem, which is that that they mainly revealed hypocrisy. Fishing expeditions like those used in the Paula Jones case should never have been legalized. However, for PC reasons, new rules of discovery in sexual harassment cases were passed, and Clinton signed them. Under those rules, he was caught, fair and square, no doubt. But he should never have signed them, which is very ironic. Suddenly, the Democrats were caught in their own stupid trap. As delightful as it was to see them wriggle, most Americans were right to be iffy about the circumstances under which he was caught. We resist using courts to dig for dirt, unless it is clearly germane. Thus, the rule of law issue was ambiguous: under legislation he himself had promoted and signed, he was clearly guilty of defrauding the court in various ways, chiefly through perjury. On the other hand, it was a bad law, and it troubled people. I thought he disgraced his office sufficiently that he deserved impeachment, and he was impeached. The issue of removal was more complicated. I probably would have voted for removal, but I understood how reasonable people could disagree. Removal is where weighing the national interest against the severity of the offense especially counts. The very fact that there was no popular support for the removal, and that it could only occur on a partisan vote, might have dissuaded me from voting for removal, because it would be too divisive under those conditions. Had I made the decision to vote to acquit, or had I abstained, it would not have meant that I did not think Clinton had disgraced his office, nor would it have meant that he didn't deserve impeachment. Remember all of those people calling for censure? Well, that is what they got, that is what impeachment is.......