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: Dwight E. Karlsen who wrote (6240)	9/30/1998 1:09:00 AM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

...the Dems still have a simmering fear of Newt. You may be right, Dwight. And as I discovered when poking around some unaccustomed (for me) web sites, Gingrich also inspires simmering distrust -- in this case, among many Republicans (of the right wing persuasion). He seems to be regarded as an embarrassment, and/or an impediment, in impeachment proceedings. You no doubt know this, but it came as a surprise to me, and it may also come as a surprise to other non-Republicans here. So let me quote a few interesting passages: From article calling for dual impeachment of Clinton & Gore: Congress, however, is denuded of leadership and is resistant to impeachment because the fund-raising ethics of some Members bear a troubling consanguinity with the Clinton-Gore unsavoriness. Nothing will happen unless citizens petition Congress for dual impeachments with a pledge of electoral retaliation for inaction. Citizens should also demand an amendment to the Presidential Succession Act needed to disqualify House Speaker Newt Gingrich from the Oval Office if the impeachments succeeded in the Senate. Without that disqualification, the impeachments would be as farcical as trading Jim Bakker for Jimmy Swaggert. From Jim Farah commentary supporting the demand of Judicial Watch Chairman Larry Klayman for Gingrich resignation: ....."Why, at the moment of truth, does Gingrich continue to frustrate House inquiries into Clinton's conduct?" asks Klayman. Klayman answers his own question. "First, in January 1997, Gingrich, in effectively pleading guilty to ethics violations for misusing non-profit monies and lying to Congress about his acts, admitted that he had brought 'discredit' on the House," he says. "This is the standard for impeachment of a speaker and a president. Thus, Gingrich cannot now support Clinton's impeachment for similar reasons. The speaker paid a whopping $300,000 fine for his actions to reimburse the American people for an investigation prolonged because of his providing false information to investigators -- a similar situation to the one Clinton finds himself in today." "Second, Clinton allies, including James Carville and others, have begun gathering derogatory information about Gingrich and have threatened to use it if he allows the House to proceed with a meaningful impeachment inquiry," he continues.... "Third, based on the experience of the last two years, it is clear that every time Clinton's conduct is debated in the House Judiciary Committee -- the body to initially conduct impeachment inquiry -- the president's actions will be, at a minimum, analogized to Gingrich's, by the likes of John Conyers, the ranking minority head. As Gingrich harbors ambitions to run for president in 2000 or beyond, this would effectively kill his chances." Those are some of the reasons Gingrich has killed or watered down every major House investigation into the crimes of the Clinton administration...... "For the good of the American people, given his latest retreat on ethics, the time has now come for Gingrich to step down as speaker," concludes Klayman. "He is too conflicted to lead the House during an impeachment inquiry." I agree. It was a mistake for Gingrich to seek the position when he knew he had brought discredit on the institution and on the people it serves. worldnetdaily.com Thoughts, anyone? jbe