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: Daniel Schuh who wrote (538)	9/24/1998 12:58:00 PM
From: MikeyB	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 567

I'm gonna butt in here just to put my two pennies in. The answer is YES. The House has only TWO responsibilities. That is to determine that there is enough evidence to INDICT NOT CONVICT the President. 2nd is to determine whether the alleged crime is impeachable. It is the SENATE's responsibility, not the HOUSE's responsibility to determine guilt or innocence. It is my opinion that the Starr Report provides more than enough evidence to INDICT the President. Is perjury (and obstruction of justice) an impeachable crime? I think so because the President WILLFULLY broke his solemn oath of office to enforce the laws for his own personnal benefit. My opinion is that there is no need for much debate in the House and that the House has a RESPONSIBILITY to the american people to impeach the President. Please note that I think that the President has done a reasonably good job to date. I would be happy if the Senate decides to keep him. But I still feel that the House would be derelict in their duty if they have long drawn out debates, etc and/or fail to impeach. Thats why I think we have a right to know how a candidate plans to vote on impeachment. MikeyB