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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alan Markoff who wrote (3226)	9/16/1998 6:05:00 PM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

The thing about Kelly Flynn is this. Her adultery had been discovered, and she was given a second chance. There was no ambiguity about her situation under the military code of justice. She could have been cashiered on the initial discovery. Instead she was given a direct order to break it off. And she (unlike the President) is subject to direct orders from her commanding officers, and must absolutely obey them. She did not. And when confronted with that, she also lied about it. This was no collateral matter in some politically motivated witch hunt to get her, for something that virtually never goes punished in the military world. It was a question whose primary purpose was to investigate her insubordination. Maybe the order was harsh or unfair. (Actually given the clear military rules making such adultery a serious offense, unlike in civilian life, that's hard to maintain.) But in any event, you cannot have military officers that disobey direct orders, and lie about doing so, for purely selfish purposes. It goes to the heart of her reliability of functioning within the chain of command. Even though we all perhaps tend to try to find more excuses for misbehaving women. While we would all rather have a President who would never lie about his sex life under oath, when it is in a frivolous and dismissed lawsuit, with respect to a line of questioning only remotely related to the claims of that suit, which were subsequently throw out as unnecessary by the judge...its a much smaller matter. There is a tendency in this country to want to punish our highest for the least. That's not what the Constitution says about impeachment. Specifically with respect to the President himself, not just any crime (because he is the highest law enforcement officer of the land, or whatever), but only a High Crime and Misdemanor (read abuse of office) is required. This smallest of all possible perjuries is not a High Crime. Even though it was committed by the highest of all possible officials. Perjury could sometimes, and possibly usually, be impeachable. Perjury to cover up misuse of office, for example, would be impeachable. It would go to the core of our trust in the President to not overstep his authority and subvert the Constitution. Not this perjuy, under these circumstances. People feel he should be impeached because they think he has lost moral authority, they just don't like him, and they are disgusted. Those are not the Constitutional standards. Which the American people, most of them, know in their guts. You only impeach a President for something really big. This doesn't cut it. Though it does cause us all to be digusted. Doug