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 : Did Slick Boink Monica? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jlallen who wrote (17553)	7/27/1998 3:33:00 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

The Supreams will have something to say about it first. The boy would rather provoke a full fledged constitutional crisis than tall the truth. Must be drugs involved.

To: jlallen who wrote (17553)	7/27/1998 4:26:00 PM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 20981

>> According to Drudge, Clinton refuses to appear in person and argues separation of branches as his reason. I think he will refuse to testify. The question then becomes, will the House have the stones to vote articles of impeachment? There will be an intermediate step. Starr will take it to the Supremes and Clinton will lose, precisely because it is not a separations of powers issue, what is at issue is Clinton's personal criminal conduct, not something that he has done in his official role as Prez. Then if Clinton defies the Supremes and refuses to testify it will go to the House, making it a perfect setup for them to easily vote for impeachment based on Clinton's defiance and placing himself above the law. Next stop, trial in the Senate. Should be very educational. Let's hope the liberal's refrain will the same as it was with Nixon - "shows the Constitution works". Somehow I have reason to doubt that happening.