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 : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sam Citron who wrote (4325)	9/9/1998 8:49:00 PM
From: j g cordes	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

Anyone.. a serious question. What did the grand jury actually do besides sit and listen to a one sided presentation? Did they vote at the end on what evidence was good or bad, did they question or ask for balancing opinion, were they able during testimony to ask questions of witnesses or challenge their credibility? Were all those jurists just a prop so that the proceedings had the look of a balanced presentation? If Starr had witnesses present to a silent group of people without their offering rebutal or counter agrument, and if the grand jury didn't have any powers to question or to administer opinion.. that's not anything I remember about Constitutional Government or the process for arriving at truth.

To: Sam Citron who wrote (4325)	9/9/1998 9:05:00 PM
From: Machaon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

<< Let's be realistic. Years is an overstatement. >> Ah yes, we will be witnessing the ever efficient, greased wheels of politics at it's best. <g> I think that you are oversimplifying the issue. There are boxes and boxes of legal documents. The documents have to be reviewed and discussed. Then, the house has to relate the documents to the rules of impeachment. They have to decide which documents fit the rules and which don't. Of course, this is only true if they can agree on how the impeachment rules pertain to the evidence. If the issue gets to the Senate, and we go into a full fledged trial, the trial will be bogged down significantly by parlamentary procedures and constitutional matters, not to mention how difficult it is going to be to fit the crime(s) to the rules of impeachment. << The handwriting should be on the wall once the public responds to Starr's findings. >> Well...... if the findings are not much more than what has already been reported, the public is not going to be in favor of impeachment. << The politicians will simply bow to the polls and vote accordingly. >> You could be right. And...... if the public forgives Clinton, and the majority wants him to stay in office, are the politicians going to bow to the polls? << And the President may preempt with resignation if the public reaction is bad. >> If the public reaction is bad, I agree with you on this point. << Even if it goes to the gavel with a 2/3 vote of the Senate, it's going to be over by March '99 at the latest. >> We'll see. To me, if it goes to the Senate, and public opinion polls favor Clinton, the trial will drag on forever, similar to other complex trials. The main reasons: We are not dealing with well defined laws. The issue of what constitutes issues for impeachment, which is not clear at all, will cause significant amounts of time. Then, if the President is given full legal rights to counter the impeachment and to defend against accusations, some of which might not be true, it is going to take forever. Simply because of it's constitutional importance, it will take a couple of years. Let's see. I'll be hanging around here for a while. Today's Sept 9, 1998. Let's mark Sept 9, 1999 on the calendar and see how far the impeachment has gone on that date! <g> Regards, Bob