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: dougjn who wrote (3465)	9/17/1998 8:53:00 PM
From: jim kelley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Doug, I suspect this matter will be drawn out for political reasons which are not in the interests of the nation. The release of the video tape by the Judiciary Committee went down party lines. I believe that the gauntlet has been thrown down to the Democrats and that the parties will commence what will become a sexual armagedon in Washington. I believe this has already begun! Clinton does not have to be behind this because every Democrat and Republican who is up for election in November will be playing both defense and offense. This stuff will be finaced privately and leaked publicly. Clinton does not have to participate. It will still happen.

To: dougjn who wrote (3465)	9/17/1998 9:25:00 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

>I have said repeatedly that I don't think Clinton's offenses rise to a Constitutionally impeachable level.< And I have said repeatedly that I do think Clinton's offenses rise to a Constitutionally impeachable level, and how Clinton has violated public trust and how, according to the Founding Fathers, such a man should be impeached. >I have been complimented may times by many people for some of my more considered posts.< Ditto me. >I have also been rather strongly attacked from time to time, and perhaps sometimes with some merit, for my expressed distain for the mentality behind some of the attacks on the President. Who I acknowledge has done some nationally humiliating wrongs.< Perhaps I have been attacked, but I honestly am not aware of them (of course I haven't repeatedly claimed I am going to vote out-of-hand for any party in a blind reactionary stance against another <g>), though many have disagreed with my opinions. >But I think the most important course of action for the country is this. Decide this quickly.< Remarkably, we agree. >No one has any right to demand, or count on, the President's resigning.< You should not mix the demand and the expectation, but even so, you are wrong-- we have every right to do both. >That easy out is not in the Constitution. And as I have argued before, he should not do so.< It is in the Constitution, and as I have argued, he should do so or be impeached. Of course, I have always agreed that the outcome will go in your favor. > To do so would move us closer, much, much closer to a Parliamentary system of government. Where Congress reigned supreme.< Well. This is not true. Congress already has the right to impeach, and the reasons against impeachment are simply and in no way as clear as you make them to be. Your simply claiming "it has to be for a high crime and misdemeanor, and that is not high", is no argument. And merely comparing Clinton's behavior to Nixon's is no argument. You here merely claim that to be impeached, Clinton's behavior has to be a power grab when nothing in the Constitution claims it does. You claim the President can lie, and cheat other Americans from the truth in a civil court and before a Federal Grand Jury, so long as it is not associated with a power grab, and this is not only silly, it is plain foolish. And it does not matter that this began with Paula Jones. The facts are the facts, the President lied repeatedly and by definition a lie is a betrayal of some public trust. Since Hamilton claims the president can be impeached for violating a public trust, Clinton is darned well impeachable. And that is that dog-gone fact of the matter, whatever you or any other Clintonoid says about it. It is clearly before us, but our minds are too dimmed by the so called "good" economy, and all the "good things" to see it. >This conflict, given that the prosecution (and all it's attendant investigation) has, or should be deemed to have, rested, should be amenable to quick resolution. The President's case is mostly about Constitutional standards, a bit about parsing the requirements for a criminal perjury conviction, and also about factual disputes upon cross examination. And the calling as friendly and exculpatory witnesses of some of those Starr called. Such as Vernon Jordan. And perhaps Bettie Currie. It is not from here a complex, or lengthy factual case. It should be something quickly resolvable.< Agreed. >I also think quick resolution, HOWEVER IT MAY TURN OUT, is the most important thing for the country.< I am in absolute agreement with you-- however it turns out. >I think all those who pull in the opposite direction, for delay, will be acting against the national interest. Whether they be Democrats or Republicans.< Quite in agreement with you. >A few days delay for fairness is one thing. Weeks and months of delay for whatever reason is something else. Whatever the consequences.< No differences here.