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 w who wrote (3812)	9/19/1998 1:15:00 AM
From: j g cordes	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

On misdemeanor legal definition: MISDEMEANOR: Crime that is punishable by less than one year in jail, such as minor theft and simple assault that does not result in substantial bodily injury. Misdemeanor (USA) A crime of lesser seriousness than a felony where the punishment might be a fine or prison for less than one year.

To: alan w who wrote (3812)	9/19/1998 1:28:00 AM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

I take it you are being facetious. But in fact as used in the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" in the constitution, misdemeanor does not mean a small crime. It means a misuse of office. The phrase is derived from the English usage as it had evolved to the time of the Constitution's drafting. It most assuredly does not there mean a small crime. This is actually undisputed by legal scholars Hence either a serious misuse of office, which might not necessarily have to involve a crime, or a High or serious crime, and not a small one, is necessary. And example of conduct which would be impeachable, but not illegal, is taking half the year off to go play golf in Scotland, free of phones, and the apparatus of decision making. An example of conduct which would constitute a crime, but not a High Crime, and not be impeachable, is drunk driving. Perjury could often be impeachable. But not this most minor and forgivable of all possible perjuries. Concerning his private sex life, in response to questions he should not have been asked, which were merely collateral, later ruled not necessary for the case to proceed and thrown out by the judge, in a frivolous lawsuit later thrown out for failing to make any plausible case for damages, that was funded, directed, and very possibly invented, by Clinton's zealous right wing enemies. As I said, this smallest, and most forgivable of perjuries. In response to questions he should never have been asked, given their hugely prejudicial effect both to the case and in his life, and their very, very small probative value. If one is at all fair-minded. Doug.