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: Jacob Snyder who wrote (234)	9/13/1998 6:52:00 PM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 567

I'll take first one strain of rebuke that runs through your argument. Here's a representative quote. <<behavior that borders on rape (given the immense disparity in power between him and her)>> Have you read at least the portion of the Starr report that touches on that claim? Frankly, I think it's a very ideological position to take even without some detailed testimony by Lewinsky herself available. She was not child, she was a 22 year old woman. Even before the publishing of her testimony, all evidence pointed to her willing and enthusiastic involvement in the relationship. And it is hardly uncommon for young women to be attracted to much more powerful men. Should all such liaisons be disallowed, and if almost rape, declared illegal, no matter how much the woman in question wants the relationship? Just how much power differential is permissible, would you say? If the man has a graduate degree and the woman a mere undergraduate pigskin, is that a problem? How much salary difference would you say was O.K? And how many years age difference? Should Tony Randall go to jail as well? I suppose you would have favored impeachment of Justice William O. Douglass for the same sort of offense. Marrying much younger women. Not once, but three times. In the case at hand, Lewinsky by her own testimony went on a concerted and most energetic flirting campaign for months before her opportunity finally came to get the President's attention, during the temporary staff reductions of the budget shutdown crisis. She clearly and determinedly pursued him at the beginning, and through the whole affair. Almost rape? Isn't an adult woman free to make her own choices? Doug

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (234)	9/13/1998 7:00:00 PM
From: James A. Shankland	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 567

Witness tampering, lying to a Grand Jury, and behavior that borders on rape (given the immense disparity in power between him and her): these are crimes. You can't get away from that. With respect, having read the report, I consider the evidence supporting witness tampering to be quite thin: nowhere near what would suffice for a conviction (or probably even an indictment) in an ordinary criminal trial. As for "behavior that borders on rape," I think that's quite a stretch, to put it mildly. If Ms. Lewinsky ever expressed that she felt coerced or even pressured into sexual activity with the president, or feared that failing to do so would adversely affect her job, it certainly isn't reflected in the Starr report. The anti-Clinton hysteria evidenced by your use of the word "rape" may ultimately save Clinton's job. The American people have historically shied away from extremism and fanaticism; they may just decide to forgive Clinton his all too obvious misdeeds and get ticked off at those who have been so single-mindedly obsessed with bringing him down. I'm not an ardent Clinton supporter, and certainly don't condone his behavior in this matter; but I think if he left office, it would set a very bad precedent. It is simply not something we do in this country, except in the most extraordinary circumstances. I don't think Clinton's misbehavior has met that test, by a long shot.

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (234)	9/13/1998 7:11:00 PM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 567

<<The only way this process will be quick is if the polls and his fellow pols tell Clinton to resign. Who will be the Democratic Goldwater, to go to Clinton and say, "You've lost all support, and have to go, and I mean now"? >> During Watergate, Republicans went to Nixon as you describe only after evidence emerged that Nixon was clearly guilty of at least many of the impeachable offenses alleged. The White House tapes were the smoking gun. Before that smoking gun, there was no Republican visit. Unlike the current impeachment crisis, in Watergate virtually everyone in Congress agreed that if some of the more serious alleged impeachable offenses had indeed been committed by the President, they clearly did rise to an impeachable level. The charges included multiple instances of the President obstructing justice to cover up illegal efforts by his subordinates to subvert the election, and to make illegal use of Federal agencies (such as the IRS) to damage the President's enemies. So in Watergate the debate was all about did he do it? And how sure do we have to be? It was not about is this serious enough. When the smoking gun did indeed appear, yes, then some of his previous supports changed his mind. Of course. And Nixon resigned. This is a very different situation. Most of the American public, and many legal scholars, do not think this alleged civil perjury, concerning only a consensual sexual affair, does not rise to an impeachable level. That it is not a High Crime and Misdemeanor. Some at least of the facts are less in dispute here. But the import of the offense which can probably well established is very much in controversy. If it is impeachable, I think it is about the lowest threshold that could possibly be supported. And it think it should not be impeachable. My central point is that the Constitution is very clear on one point. Not just any crime is impeachable. It has to be a serious one. And the constitution is very clear that the mere fact that the President is the one that commits the crime, does not automatically make the crime a High Crime. Otherwise, why the limitation? On the other hand, acts which by other people might not be so serious, if they constitute an abuse of the President's office, can be impeachable offenses under the Constitution. I think it is quite tortured to say that merely committing civil perjury to hide a politically damaging, but legal, sexual affair, is an abuse of office. Very tortured indeed. Doug