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: Zoltan! who wrote (4836)	9/11/1998 2:57:00 PM
From: cool	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

money talks s&p up 150 pts

To: Zoltan! who wrote (4836)	9/11/1998 3:10:00 PM
From: Ann Corrigan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Sorry to inform you, Zoltan, but the Ginkgo Biloba is definitely not working.......I've never made one post to the CSCO thread.

To: Zoltan! who wrote (4836)	9/11/1998 3:14:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Respond to of 13994

Maybe it was me on the Csco board you are thinking of. Although I only talk to gary? Michelle

To: Zoltan! who wrote (4836)	9/11/1998 3:16:00 PM
From: trouthead	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

"If Congress finds Slick committed impeachable offenses then the Constitution requires ("shall") that the Senate vote to remove him." The reason there will be an anti rep backlash is because in order to find these actions impeachable they will have to make an interpretation of the vague words "High crimes and misdemeanors" National sentiment will be against impeachment. If they move to impeach regardless of this sentiment it will be seen as politically self serving and not in the best interest of the nation. Th best thing for the country is to get past this entire episode as quickly as possible. jb

To: Zoltan! who wrote (4836)	9/11/1998 3:33:00 PM
From: Doughboy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

If Congress finds Slick committed impeachable offenses then the Constitution requires ("shall") that the Senate vote to remove him. Oh come now, Zoltan. The odds are still long that the Senate would impeach the President. They need two thirds to impeach, and I don't think they can count those votes yet. I think Clinton can expect to lose Hollings' vote (by loss of his election or otherwise), and some other blue-dogs--but the loyalists are deep and powerful: Daschle, Breaux, Leahy, Biden. The liberal bloc is still strong, and makes up maybe half the Democratic delegation. So the key is the moderates, and if Lieberman and Feinstein are any indication, they will hold the line against impeachment. And in the House, I think the same calculus holds, especially in the Judiciary Committee. Although the GOP could ram thru the articles, it is unlikely that a man like Hyde would want to send articles of impeachment to the Senate with a vote split down partisan lines. It would be an embarrassment for our nation. A good model for the handling of this proceeding is way in which the Supreme Court handed down every single school desegregation decision. On all of them, the Court achieved 9-0 unanimity, not because everyone believed in the decisions (in fact, Hugo Black was an avowed segregationist), but because the Court members realized that this was of no small moment to our Republic, and a united front was called for to uphold the Constitution. Congress also has to realize that it would be an embarrassment to that body and to the body politic, if this turned into a partisan battle. This is an all-or-nothing end-game. I hope the GOP has the good sense to give up when it realizes that it cannot sway Dems or the public to their side. We'll see. My guess is that Hyde will negotiate a compromise where one or maybe two articles of impeachment (perjury and abuse of power) are voted out with the support of maybe 1/3 of the Dems on the Committee. When it gets to the Senate, the Dems will rally to the idea of a censure of the President, and bipartisan agreement will break down. Lott and Nickles will see that they cannot get the 2/3rds, and on some kind of procedural vote (e.g., to table a resolution to censure the President), it will be decided not to seek a vote on impeachment. The President will be censured by a unanimous Senate, followed by a similar unanimous resolution in the House, and this will be all over. Doughboy.

To: Zoltan! who wrote (4836)	9/11/1998 3:52:00 PM
From: mauser96	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

I wonder about the Arkansas judge who dismissed the Paula Jones case. Clinton lied in her court and made her look like a real fool. One thing he said in her court was that he couldn't remember ever being alone with Monica. A man with the mental ability to be elected president and he can't remember multiple episodes of oral sex???? Could she send him to jail? Of course she is part af the totally dominant Democrat apparatus in Arkansas. Rumor has that she once took a course from him in law school, he lost her test paper,so sent Hillary to say that he would give her a B to forget it.