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: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (6869)	10/3/1998 2:54:00 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

I see you read minds in addition to your other much touted talents. JLA

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (6869)	10/3/1998 3:00:00 PM
From: Who, me?	Respond to of 67261

Impeachment is the only possible option Founders set standards on misconduct of public men, violation of public trust By Dennis Shea MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR WASHINGTON, Oct. 2 — Bill Clinton must be impeached. While the polls show the public is understandably reluctant to remove a sitting president, let's remember we do not govern our country by plebiscite. This is a representative democracy. We expect those we send to Congress to demonstrate a quality we call wisdom. Are impeachment hearings the right response to charges that President Clinton acted illegally in trying to conceal his relationship with Monica Lewinsky? Yes. Congress has a constitutional duty to pursue Starr's allegations. No. It's a partisan witch hunt designed to run Clinton out of office I don't know. AS PHILOSOPHER Edmund Burke once observed: “Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serv[es] you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.” So what are the facts upon which an informed judgment can be constructed? Here they are, unvarnished and beyond dispute: the president repeatedly lied under oath in the Paula Jones case. He lied under oath before a federal grand jury. For seven months, he lied to the American people and to his top aides, who then proceeded to compound the president's deceit by publicly repeating the party-line lie. These aides, also known as lawyers, continue to lie today by falsely insisting the president did not lie under oath. WINKING AT THE WITNESS The president also attempted to obstruct justice, another felony. Let's concede that Ken Starr has failed to prove the president tried to purchase Lewinsky's silence by working behind-the-scenes to obtain a job for her. Let's also concede there was no conspiracy between Clinton and Lewinsky to conceal the subpoenaed gifts. Starr nonetheless makes an extremely compelling case that the president attempted to undermine the Jones lawsuit, and thereby broke the law, on at least two counts: He encouraged Lewinsky to file a false affidavit denying their relationship and he coached his secretary Betty Currie about what she should say if and when called to the witness stand (“Monica and I were never alone, right?” Wink. Wink.) The president appears to have coached White House Secretary Betty Currie about what to tell prosecutors about Monica Lewinsky. Wrong. Wrong. For it is doubly wrong when a man who is the nation's chief law enforcement officer, someone vested by the Constitution with the solemn responsibility to “take care that the laws [are] faithfully executed,” breaks faith with the American people by attempting to subvert the “rule of law,” a phrase the president himself frequently invokes. Clinton's relationship with Lewinsky was both wrong and forgivably stupid. Clinton's proven deceit about this relationship is both criminal and politically unforgivable. He must leave. But he won't. At least not without a fight. So, in the coming months, expect to hear the president and his enablers (I mean “defenders”) make the following arguments as they attempt to salvage the political wreckage known as the Clinton Administration: The Lewinsky investigation is just about sex. Well, actually, it's about sexual harassment. The president was questioned under oath about his relationship with Lewinsky in the context of a sexual harassment lawsuit. Judge Susan Weber Wright allowed this line of questioning because the Paula Jones' lawyers were trying to prove the president had a longstanding habit of hitting on government employees. If the president didn't want to answer these questions, he could have told his inquisitors to take a hike. Bill Clinton believes words have no fixed meanings. He has infected the Democratic Party, the party of straight talkers like Harry Truman, with the same virus. But once Clinton opened his mouth, he had an absolute obligation to respond truthfully. And guess what? Sexual harassment lawsuits are by their very nature about sex. The gritty details of these suits can be very embarrassing. Is it the president's contention that all defendants in sexual harassment cases are entitled to lie because of the embarrassing nature of the allegations? Because these suits often probe the deepest, darkest secrets of the sex life of the accused, is it A-okay to prevaricate once the blood rushes to the head and the blushing begins? The Lewinsky investigation is the fruit of Linda Tripp's poisonous tree and is, therefore, illegitimate. We still do not know whether Linda Tripp actually violated Maryland's anti-taping law. Apparently, the Maryland State Attorney lost some of his prosecutorial zeal after the president's semi-confession on Aug. 17. We do know, however, there is plenty of evidence to corroborate many of the details mentioned on those tapes. In fact, there is so much evidence to make the tapes largely irrelevant to any investigation. This evidence includes Monica Lewinsky's own sworn testimony; Lewinsky's many contemporaneous statements to her family and friends; the infamous stained dress; the sworn testimony of other witnesses; E-mails, letters, and other documentary material, and even the president's own admissions. Even if the allegations against the president are true, they do not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. This is a plausible argument, but it is hard to see how lying under oath, particularly before a grand jury, is not impeachable. As Alexander Hamilton pointed out in Federalist Paper 65, the impeachment power extends to “the misconduct of public men” or the “violation of some public trust.” So those who insist that impeachable offenses include only great “abuses of power” or “grievances against the state” are just plain wrong. VERBAL SOPHISTRY The president's defenders argue that this investigation is the fruit of Linda Tripp's poison tree, thus is irrelevant. They are wrong. Expect the president's defenders to insist that, even if Clinton was misleading or lied under oath, he did not technically commit perjury. The appropriate answer to this is “so what?” The Watergate Committee specifically rejected the notion that “the various elements of proof, defenses, and other substantive concepts surrounding an indictable offense” would carry over to the impeachment process. Perhaps that's why the word “perjury” does not appear anywhere in the Nixon articles of impeachment. Instead, Nixon was charged with having made “false statements” to investigators. Of course, we've come to expect verbal sophistry from Bill Clinton, our Deconstructionist-in Chief, who believes words have no fixed meanings. Even worse, he has infected the Democratic Party, the party of straight-talkers like Harry Truman, with the deconstructionist virus. It began when 138 Democrats, 70 percent of the House Democratic Caucus, endorsed a resolution authorizing the public release of the Starr materials. It is precisely because words do have fixed meanings and actions do have consequences that Bill Clinton must be given his pink slip. Yet that didn't stop the tag-team duo of John Conyers and Barney Frank from attacking their release, insisting the resolution didn't mean what it said. It continued when a White House spokesman complained the House Judiciary Committee was moving too fast — at the “speed of light rather than the pace of justice.” Then Dick Gephardt shows up on television, harumphing that the speed of light is too slow — that warp speed is in order, that the House Judiciary Committee should wrap up its work within 30 days “for the sake of our children.” And remember all those Democratic paeans to Rep. Peter Rodino and the Watergate Committee's “bipartisanship?” Yet, when the Republicans press for an impeachment inquiry resolution that tracks Rodino's Watergate resolution word-for-word, all hell breaks loose. Democrats are outraged. I guess all that rosy Watergate talk was just a ruse; they really didn't mean what they said. And that's the point: It is precisely because words do have fixed meanings and actions do have consequences that Bill Clinton must be given his pink slip. Dennis Shea is an attorney in Washington, D.C. and a regular contributor to MSNBC. msnbc.com