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: James A. Shankland who wrote (222)	9/13/1998 4:11:00 PM
From: Joe Btfsplk	Respond to of 567

Official Clinton rebuttal at Message 5734989

To: James A. Shankland who wrote (222)	9/13/1998 4:15:00 PM
From: Who, me?	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 567

81% of this 10M apparently do not agree with you! Guess it all depends on who you're talking to!! STARR REPORT: High crimes - or low gossip? Is Kenneth Starr's report enough to impeach the president? * 10796 responses Yes, Starr's report cites "high crimes and misdemeanors." 81% No, this is just lowly gossip. 19% msnbc.com

To: James A. Shankland who wrote (222)	9/13/1998 6:30:00 PM
From: dougjn	Respond to of 567

An excellent and well written post. Which I largely agree with. One thing which makes these impeachment hearings in some ways much more difficult than the Watergate ones, is that the principal issues are probably ones of Constitutional judgement, rather than fact finding. In Watergate, certainly many of the accusations against Nixon were sufficiently grave that almost everyone agreed Nixon should be removed from office, if they were proven true. So the arguments, which initially did break down on quite partisan lines (although the governing rules adopted for conducting the inquiry were quite fair and bipartisan), had to do with whether the available evidence was sufficiently compelling. When the White House tapes and other evidence finally did emerge, none could doubt that Nixon had obstructed justice in multiple ways to cover up the efforts of subordinates to subvert the election, and illegally damage Nixon's enemies. At least. So his Republican supporters switched their views, and removal from office was inevitable. That is when Nixon resigned. Here it is true that if there is no strong evidence that Clinton committed any of the acts which Starr has called impeachable offenses, Clinton will be acquitted. But I think Starr does have quite strong evidence, though perhaps not an absolutely iron clad case, that Clinton committed perjury, even according to the definitions Clinton has said he was rightfully following. And I think it quite possible that that evidence will be regarded as persuasive by many Democrats as well. On the other charges, obstruction of justice, suborning perjury, misuse of office, the evidence is much weaker, and in some cases simply not sufficient to further consider. On the other hand, unlike in the Watergate case, proving the facts is not the only issue. It is by no means clear to all that these alleged offenses rise to an impeachable level. Does civil perjury, concerning only Clinton's consensual sex life, under the circumstances that it was elicited, rise to the level of an impeachable offence. I don't think so. Apparently a majority of the American people don't think so. Many Republicans apparently do think so. It is an issue of Constitutional and legal judgement, rather than fact finding. It is a judgment that for Congress and for many people, is very politically colored. Partisan warfare of an intense sort probably continues to lie ahead, and to continue to worsen. I'm afraid. Doug

To: James A. Shankland who wrote (222)	9/13/1998 7:35:00 PM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 567

>>There has always been a hard-core cadre of Clinton haters who seem obsessed with the man. You have an active imagination. Anyone who tells the truth about the Clintons is called a "Clinton hater" by people who have no understanding of the issues involved. Calling yourself a "moderate" is no excuse for being so sadly uninformed. You don't understand that we are talking about historical precedent. Establishing permissible conduct for future presidents. No serious person can maintain that Clinton did not commit serial perjury. That is sheer foolishness. A President cannot be allowed to lie under oath before a Federal grand jury in a criminal investigation and then remain in office. Clinton can no longer lead. There will be an impeachment. And Clinton will resign or be removed. There is no allowable alternative if we are to remain a Republic.