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.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas Sprague who wrote (14913)	9/12/1998 10:39:00 PM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Almost. What I am saying is that you don't give someone five years in jail for stealing a loaf of bread. What I am saying is that perjury in certain circumstances should lead to very light, or no, punishment. In other circumstances it is very serious indeed. Those that commit it are taking their chances. It would be hard to conceive of a circumstance in which perjury was more minor, or more inconsequential, than this one. The only thing that makes it so consequential is who committed it. Under the circumstances if ordinary person had committed the same perjury, no prosecutor would have given any thought to pursuing it. Our Constitution makes very clear that that many acts which rise to the level of crimes, are nonetheless not impeachable. Only High Crimes and Misdemeanors are impeachable. (Misdemeanor as used in the Constitution does not mean a small crime, it means a miss use of power.) So yes, I'm saying loud and clear that Clinton does not deserve to be impeached, under the standards of our Constitution for perjury under these circumstances concerning this subject. And he does not deserve to be impeached for encouraging his adulterous partner to lie about the affair either. Even if you call it obstruction of justice. Ordinary people would never be even prosecuted for either. Neither are High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Those who say that because the President is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the land, and accordingly should be removed for any illegal act, are either ignorant of the Constitution, or urging the Congress to act unconstitutionally. He should be removed for office only for very serious crimes, or crimes that involve very serious misuse of office. That's what it says. And just because the President did it doesn't make it automatically very serious, under the wording of the Constitution. (To claim so is completely circular, and make the words of the Constitution meaningless.) If you aren't careful, I will unleash a detailed discussion of these Constitutional issues. <gg> Doug

To: Thomas Sprague who wrote (14913)	9/12/1998 11:08:00 PM
From: gdichaz	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Re Dougin: To Doug also. Doug, we must endure your lecture on the Constitution I suppose, so let her rip. For the chief executive of this nation who is sworn to not only carry out the country's laws and to enforce them on others as the head of the executive branch to not only break those laws personally by perjuring himself twice at least, ain't no small matter and it is the political equivalent of an oxymoron to have the primary law enforcement officer flaunt the laws he is supposed to enforce. Is some perjury OK and other not? In what law or where in the constitution is that provision? Will your constitutional lecture cover that? Chaz