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: John Lacelle who wrote (6107)	9/29/1998 4:10:00 PM
From: dougjn	Respond to of 67261

Your knowledge of history gives you away! Only a Southerner would have known that much about the only impeachment proceeding in U.S. history. Nope. Even Mainers don't generally consider NYC boys "Southerners". <g> Well anyway, what is your take on old W. J. Clinton? I think we will see a trial in the Senate some time this Spring. I don't know if there are enough votes to remove him from office. History is in the making, and it is going to be interesting. I think this thing will get to the point of the preliminaries of starting a trial in the Senate. At which point a "censure plus" deal will be struck. There's an outside chance of impeachment if the Republicans really clean up this November. (Not so much because that's in the realpolitic farsighted interests of the Republican party, but because the demands of the most vocal parts of the Republican base will be harder to resist .) The House will clearly vote to begin impeachment hearings. Even a lot of Democrats will want the cover of voting for that much. I think some (but perhaps not all) of Starr's charges will be voted as articles of impeachment to send to the Senate. If the House Judiciary throws out any it won't be the less serious charges (Jones deposition perjury). It will be the charges which Starr's evidence doesn't very well support, or which are real stretches as illegal. E.g., asserting privileges for the courts to rule on; telling his Cabinet and others the same thing he was telling everybody else, knowing they would repeat it. From the point of view of Republicans, that will enable them to look judicious and evenhanded, or more so anyway, without giving up what they will regard as the dead ringer proven charges of perjury. But I think they'll probably send it all on. (Well, maybe only accepting the improper assertion of privileges charge.) The public mood really will effect the judgement in the Senate, I think. Doug