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: jlallen who wrote (4567)	9/22/1998 10:33:00 AM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

It's not her reading of the Constitution that bothers me. In fact she hasn't said much if anything about that which isn't utterly conclusory that I've heard on her talking heads appearances. I.e., she says stuff such as, "of course its impeachable". It's the utter vehemence, evident hate and loathing, and complete lack of balance and fairness of temperament that turn me off so much. BTW, I've said repeatedly that obstruction of justice, certainly if it were crude and aggrivated, or involved covering up a serious misuse of office, would definitely be impeachable. As might perjury, under many circumstances. If one can find perjury or obstruction here at all, it is the closest possible and most ambiguous case, concerning the least momentus subject matter with respect to his use of his office, that I can imagine. I think those that are so determined to get rid of the President here are using perjury and obstruction as excuses. The real heat comes from hatred of the sexual transgressions. I hear it all the time. And it is interesting how little the haters are driven to parse the technical issues of perjury, when it looks like the Pres. may have a pretty good case there, after his GJ testimony. The subject gets changed to the Misdemanors side of the High Crimes and Misdemeanors. I.e., maybe we should do it for unfitness for office even if there isn't a provable crime, under the ordinarily applicable standards of proof. Shows the true underlying motiviation, does it not? Doug Doug