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 : Should Clinton resign? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: dougjn who wrote (187)	9/13/1998 2:40:00 AM
From: Brad Bolen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 567

Doug, Just before I retire for the evening I will kneel and pray that at least once in my life I should be so eloquent and brilliant. Thank You. B.

To: dougjn who wrote (187)	9/13/1998 2:50:00 AM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 567

doug, is committing a felony that undermines the very fabric of our justice system a high crime? remember, what is america if it doesn't strive for justice, an america where its leaders thumb their nose at justice? at the very least, clinton should be brought up on charges of felony perjury. let the other chips fall where they may. btw, if one can't get a job at 7-11 with a felony... do i even need to finish the thought process?

To: dougjn who wrote (187)	9/13/1998 2:59:00 AM
From: pezz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 567

Doug,Skipped this post at first as I was catching up after an absence and thought it to long.Some one referred it.Excellent, well thought out,puts everything in it's proper perspective.I myself had been using BC's popularity in the polls as a reason for him to stay,but thanks to your well thought out comments I realize that my original arguments that his crimes were in effect "Jay Walking" had much more substance. pez

To: dougjn who wrote (187)	9/13/1998 5:12:00 AM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 567

dougjn: well put, but wrong. re: "it's a private matter". Clinton is well aware that it is a very public matter. The first thing he did when he realized his infidelity might become public, was to ask his pollster to find out how the public would respond. When he was told that he couldn't politically survive a public revelation, he made the decision to stonewall rather than admit it. He lied, under oath, and he systematically tried to get other people to lie under oath. This really isn't about sex, it's about power. Any sex between two people, where all the power is with one of them, is not a consensual relationship. It is coerced, no matter what words were actually spoken between them. That's why the law says that sex between a 14-year-old and a 20-year-old is rape, no matter what either of them say. That's why the law bars sex between doctors and patients. In terms of their relative power, Bill and Monica are a lot like Jefferson and his black slave. Clinton is, 1) a man, 2) more than twice as old, and 3)about 15 levels higher in the hierarchy they were in. Was Monica in a position to say no? Is rape a High crime? "High Crimes and Misdemeanors".....what does it mean?.....the only prior cases were in far different situations, and a long time ago, and very few cases at that (two in 200 years). Do you really think the current House of Representatives is going to be guided by medieval English Common Law, or by things Hamilton wrote down 200 years ago? They'll be guided by what they feel, and what the polls say. re: "let us never again investigate a President, while he is in office, for offenses which would not, if true, clearly and unambiguously rise to the level of High Crimes and Misdemeanors." What you are saying is that powerful people should be held to a lesser standard, morally and legally, than the rest of us. You've got it exactly backward. Power is inherently corrupting. Powerful people have the potential for causing much more harm to the rest of society than powerless people. Therefore, the more power a person has, the closer we should watch them, and the higher a standard we should hold them to. I'm a doctor in a small town. I'm married. If I had an affair with, say, a nurse's aide (someone half my age, who I supervise at work), and lied about it for months, and only grudgingly admitted it when presented with irrefutable physical evidence, then I would be asked by my fellow physicians to go find work elsewhere. My competence as a physician wouldn't matter. Patients and staff would shun me. I don't see why Clinton should be held to a lower standard, or why his punishment should be less. My standards are not really that high. Here's two of them: Don't lie (at least, don't lie to Grand Juries). Keep your promises (at least, the important ones, like your marriage vows). A society has to have standards, and enforce them. The alternative is chaos. BTW, I voted for him, twice.

To: dougjn who wrote (187)	9/13/1998 2:58:00 PM
From: halfscot	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 567

Although I disagree with much you say I commend such a beautifully written piece of work. This is how differences of opinion should be handled with dignity and eloquence instead of the shameless name calling we see too often in these forums. I personally don't think Clinton will be successfully impeached (removed from office, that is) either. At least not from this report alone. I do think he will eventually be run out of office, like a death from a thousand cuts, rather than one single causal factor. IMO there will be other women who will come forward with more accusations of boorish behavior. There will be forthcoming indictments handed down on people associated with Clinton's scandals. The coup de grace IMO will be the result of the investigations into the fund raising scandals where it will be shown Clinton sold access to the WH to foreign interests/agents, giving them top secret clearance and their own office privileges at tax payer's expense, thereby severely compromising our nation's security. You see, I think Clinton is a severely amoral person. His amorality doesn't just extend to sexual picadilloes. I find amoral people extend their relative moralism across their life's spectrum. The sex is just the first, not the only, amoral act we've discovered. halfscot

To: dougjn who wrote (187)	9/13/1998 11:35:00 PM
From: mauser96	Respond to of 567

You must have worn down your typing fingers with that post! <g> I happen to have a 1693 page book on the constitution, and it says that treason and bribery are offenses whose nature is clearly understood. Other high crimes and misdemeanors which might be cause for impeachment were those that embraced any misbehavior in office. Madison was mainly responsible for the insertion of that phrase, and he did it because he believed in a broad interpretation of the impeachment power. Madison said that any negligence,perfidy, or incapacity was grounds for impeachment. Perfidy is a deliberate breach of faith according to my dictionary. In the past 2 federal judges were impeached and removed from office. In one case it was for a non-indictable offense, and in the other case misconduct that he was acquitted of in court. The original intent of the constitution is what counts. This isn't an issue for lawyers, it's for historians. Impeachment is a congressional, not judicial responsibility, so it's clear that congress has to decide what the words mean. Whether Clinton should be impeached may be open to question, but the fact that there are grounds to do so is quite clear . I guess ultimately it depends on whether think multiple serial perjury is a breach of faith. From the standpoint of the Republicans, it would be best to keep him around, swinging in the wind as a constant reminder to voters. So if they vote to remove him they are going with the constitution and against their political interests.