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: MulhollandDrive who wrote (5023)	9/23/1998 4:23:00 PM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

The Congress has delegated the prosecutorial side of its evidence gathering to the OIC. That side should be deemed to have rested, other than to counter Presidential side legal arguments or new evidence. Having a role similar to that of a Grand Jury, the House's responsibility is to determine if any of the evidence provided by the prosecution side, in this case the OIC, is sufficient for impeachment. This involves not independent evidence gathering. It should involve a formal inquiry to the OIC as to whether they have provided all evidence, including any exculpatory evidence, they have gathered on this matter. The President should also, I suppose, be asked if they have any exculpatory materials they would like the House to consider. But full cross and the like should be left for the trial, which is in the Senate. So what the House should do is determine if the evidence is sufficient to prove Starr's charges, BEFORE the other side is even fully heard. And second, if those charges in the House's view meet the Constitutional standard for an impeachable offence. And then send on as articles of impeachment any that do. My problems with the way the House released evidence TO THE PUBLIC, who in some measure constitute part of the jury, is that they didn't first provide it to the WH, so the WH could present more or less contemporaneously how they thought those materials should be interpreted. In other words, the effort should be to get out all evidence, good as well as bad for the President, at one time. Except for the sort of evidence that can only come out on cross or after WH side subpoenas and testimony, etc. The House should certainly not get bogged down in evidentiary hearings. Starr did that for the prosecution. Most or all new evidence on the Pres. side is for the Senate. Other than arguments by the WH as to how little Starr really has proven with his own evidence. There should not be two full blown trials. Or another prosecution side gathering of evidence. In the case of Watergate, much of the initial case against the President was left to Congressional committees to gather, and develop. The OIC statute changed that significantly. Doug