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: dougjn who wrote (14933)	9/13/1998 5:51:00 AM
From: gdichaz	Respond to of 152472

To Doug: Curious that you use the word "required" re the need for Congress to abide by [some? any?] Constitutional intent re High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Who and what "requires" the Congress to do that Counselor? What is the enforcement mechanism? In actual fact, the democrats control the President's destiny. There are two choices. Not necessarily mutually exclusive. An attempt by key democrats to persuade Clinton to resign. Hopeless IMO, since power is the be all and end all for him by every sign we have. (Altho one argument might be that if he resigns before Jan 20, 1999 - less than half his term - he would be eligible to run for President again in the future - near or distant - with a crack at 10 years total vs the limit of 8 now) And/or proceeding down the impeachment road with the long drawn out process that would entail. Sadly that is the only practical option IMO. How can the democrats keep cosy with Clinton and run for election in Nov? Hmmm? How practical is that? The point is that actually fine legal points are irrelevant here IMO - ordinary people - perhaps only the few left who are not lawyers :-) - have had it up to here with legalisms. There is an old idea of what is right. Out of fashion of course but might be some slight residue left. Cheers. Chaz