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 : Should Clinton resign? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mrknowitall who wrote (537)	9/24/1998 11:25:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 567

Oh dear. One more futile attempt. Do the voters have the right to know whether the candidates have an opinion as to whether the evidence in the public version of the Starr report is sufficient grounds for impeachment? And do the voters have the right to know what that opinion is? I have no idea what this "lack of a sense of constitutionally-defined duty" business is supposed to mean. Non incumbents can read the oath before they take it, and read the Constitution too. Or do they have to wait for Newt to explain it to them at their swearing in? It would seem that given the massive push to get the whole lurid mess out in public as quickly as possible, you might expect the candidates to come up with some opinion one way or the other by election time, maybe? Or were Starr and Newt just trying to get all the "facts" on the table, so the candidates could ignore them? Feel free to ignore those last two question, but do we have the right to know what their current opinion is? Or should we just trust them to "do the right thing"? oops, scratch that last one too. Cheers, Dan.

To: mrknowitall who wrote (537)	9/24/1998 3:26:00 PM
From: MikeyB	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 567

Okay MrKnowItAll, what part don't you understand? Impeachment is NOT judgement. Impeachment is indictment. Impeachment is NOT conviction merely sending a matter to trial. Do you not agree that there is substantial evidence that a crime MAY have been WILLFULLY committed by the Man who has a solemn oath to uphold the laws? I am NOT asking if he HAS committed a crime. If you agree do you think that the crime is impeachable and should go to trial? Thats two questions of the Yes or No variety. Please answer. MikeyB