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.

Pastimes : Don't Ask Rambi -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas C. White who wrote (12420)	9/14/1998 1:17:00 PM
From: DScottD	Respond to of 71178

I agree. If the findings in Starr's report are the only impeachable offenses he could find, they certainly do not rise to the level of something worth paralyzing the government over. My guess is the House will hold impeachment hearings, probably vote before election day to adopt Articles of Impeachment and then, prior to the Senate trial, Clinton will agree to a severe censure in exchange for dismissal of the Articles of Impeachment. The House seems much more eager to get rid of Clinton than the Senate, probably because it's good local politics and all the seats in the House are up. The Senate will be much more deliberate, and I think the Senate has a much better sense of history and of the awful precedence an impeachment conviction in this context would create. I still think Clinton should resign to spare us any further embarrassment. In a debate in 1974 when Clinton was running for Arkansas Attorney General, he was quoted in a debate as saying that any President who lies to the American people should resign. How times have changed.