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 (5012)	9/23/1998 2:38:00 PM
From: j_b	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<It is also not up to the House to hold a trial on the facts, with cross examination, and full presentation of Clinton's case>> Interesting point - I don't quite agree, since it would be impossible to decide if articles of impeachment should be adopted without giving both sides a fair hearing. However, overall I agree - the trial is in the Senate. One thing to consider - Congress delegated it's fact-finding role to the OIC. It seems to me that since the OIC was "hired" to do all the fact finding, the only thing left for Congress to do is figure out how to word the articles. Then it's off to the Senate. That's why I so dislike the OIC statute. Congress has that responsibility, and it's remarkably cowardly to delegate it. <<carefully and with integrity examine Starr's report and the underlying evidence, and see which of Starr's claim's are well enough supported to send on. They could also examine their own views of what constitute impeachable offenses.>> Again, I agree completely. Also, again, why I don't like the OIC statute.

To: dougjn who wrote (5012)	9/23/1998 2:50:00 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

>>The House should hurry up with it<< I'm afraid you can't have it both ways. On the one hand you say they shouldn't "rubber stamp" "all of Starr's report before they adopt it and send it to the Senate." and then you say they should "hurry". The only way the House is going to be able to make the judgements that you ask for is to take adequate time and resources to review all of the evidence (I forget, what is it now, 17 or 18 boxes?) and then decide whether the evidence supports articles of impeachment. I agree it should not be unnecessarily drawn out, but I fully expect a thoughtful, methodical review and that can't be "hurried". bp