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 (3684)	9/18/1998 5:16:00 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

>The stakes involved in removing a twice elected President from office, by a Congress where the other party holds the majority, are also pretty high. (Nowhere near as high of course, but high.) A proper reluctance, and respect for the Constitional standards is called for. As were shown, for the most part, by the Democratically controlled Congress during the Watergate impeachment process.< The problem here is that your words have little meaning, as your "proper standards" are so weak and arbitrary as to allow flagrant lies both directly to the American people, and more importantly repeatedly to the American judicial system. If the President lies about the numbers of calories he consumed in a day, it is no great issue in that it does not violate public trust. The exact same lie, told in context of case before a Federal Grand Jury, a case the justice of which might possibly depend upon the truth being given to the question, a case wherein the question was allowed to stand, is perjury and any lawyer and President who vows to uphold our law who tells such lies, this to short-circuit justice, has violated his oath of office as well as any public who trusts in the legal system to do its job. Sir. The facts are facts. You merely claim "that is not bad enough", and that is nothing. Congress will nevertheless vote with you, not because of a proper view of the Constitution. They will vote with you because of a public that has rejected moral outrage for the economy. I actually would like to get this over with. But it would be at least some consolation to me that, whatever happens, we somehow leave the Constitution intact enough to reject flagrant perjury in future Presidents.