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: wonk who wrote (7382)	10/6/1998 1:46:00 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Hi wireless_wonk; Regarding the impeachable offenses discussion... We already had that discussion. Now we're waiting for news. In the mean-time, we are discussing the cost of housing, marijuana, Christians, and each other's intellectual abilities. At the risk of getting "off topic", I'll respond to your post. I think the heart of the issue is the last part of the long quote in your post: In general, those offenses, which may be committed equally by a private person, as a public officer, are not the subjects of impeachment. I believe that this is nonsensical, when compared with the rest of the Constitution. In particular, since it is not possible for any local police force to indict the President, the only thing governing his misbehavior is the Congress. Therefore, the congress is the institution responsible for all punishment against a sitting President. As an example, suppose the President deliberately tortured and killed Sox. This would constitute animal cruelty. It is clear that this crime may be committed equally by a private person, and that therefore, if the description you gave for impeachment were accurate, it would be unpunishable. Same for murder. Therefore, since the only body that may indict the President is Congress, it must be able to do so for private as well as public crimes. Therefore, misdemeanors must refer to misbehavior in general, not to only high misbehavior. -- Carl

To: wonk who wrote (7382)	10/6/1998 2:46:00 AM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Respond to of 67261

>I would hope that someone would take up the larger question of whether this proceeding, if successful, could seriously damage the our constitutional system, a system which has worked so well.< How could following a proceeding provided for in the U.S. Constitution as a critical check on the Executive Branch "seriously damage" our Constitutional system? If this is "just about sex", and whether or not the President felt up Monica, then why are so many Democrats urging "censure"? Why did a Democrat on the House Judicial Committee today describe Clinton's acts as "crying out for punishment"? Perhaps he is in favour of punishing "consentual sex" between adults? Only one person has successfully steered debate in many quarters towards whether or not Clinton touched Monica in a sexual way, and that person is William Jefferson Clinton. The man is crafty, I have to admit. I quote from the article you post: "Madison concurred, and Edmund Randolph of Virginia captured the emerging consensus, favoring impeachment on the grounds that the executive "will have great opportunitys of abusing his power; particularly in time of war when the military force, and in some respects the public money, will be in his hands." Can you say wag the dog, and remember a hastily planned missile attack on a medicine factory in Sudan, based on a soil sample taken from outside the building? And another quote: "The third position, which ultimately carried the day, was that the president should be impeachable, but only for a narrow category of abuses of the public trust." Suppose for a moment that we really felt that Bill Clinton may well have been sincere in his Paula Jones deposition, when he denied a "sexual" relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Suppose that we believe that Clinton really did sincerely believe that "sex" referred only to intercourse. How will anyone now wanting to divine the truth know what to think? I think many times a method used by courts in trying to divine the truth is they look at intent. For example did someone "intend" to commit harm; did they "knowingly" commit the act? In the case of Bill Clinton's deposition, we need to look no further than Bill's televised denial to the American people, when he said: *"I want to be firm about this: I did not* have a sexual relationship, or any improper relationship with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky."** The point the President was trying to drive home to the American people seemed very clear: He had nothing improper to do with "that woman"! In other words, since he now admits he had oral sex with her on several occassions, and actually had some kind of illicit affair with her, then that means that he clearly was intending to deceive the American people, in order to back up his lies in the Jones deposition. This naked (no pun intended) manipulation of the American people constitutes an "abuse of the public trust", which is an impeachable offense.

To: wonk who wrote (7382)	10/6/1998 9:20:00 AM
From: j_b	Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 67261

<<After posting the link twice, I note that no one — in over 200 messages - has seen it appropriate to take up the discussion of what constitutes an impeachable offense as originally envisioned by the Framers.>> The reason no one has bothered to reply, is that we had already beaten the subject to death a week or so ago. Re-hashing old arguments has proven to be a waste of time on this board. The short answer to your question is that there is a great difference of opinion as to the severity of the effects of Clinton's actions on the country. <<or had acted from some corrupt motive or other>> This is really the crux of the debate. Clinton obviously acted from selfish motives regarding Monica. He used his official position to add power to his denial, and to cover up the affair. He used his position to stall the investigation and to undermine the credibility of people that spoke out against him. <<By way of explanation, Iredell referred to a situation in which "the President has received a bribe . . . from a foreign power, and, under the influence of that bribe, had address enough with the Senate, by artifices and misrepresentations, to seduce their consent to a pernicious treaty.>> Of course, this is what Clinton is accused by some of doing in regards to China, both with the transfer of missile technology and the granting of the use of bases in Long Beach and other U.S. cities. It is also what he is accused of doing as regards the coal deposits in Utah. That's why the Republicans want to extend the hearings past Monicagate. Let's be honest here boys and girls - unless you want to stretch the perjury issue into some form of undermining the rule of law in this country, Monicagate is small potatoes. I am still not convinced there is anything impeachable here. For example, when one of Clinton's people came out with a statement that perjury was not that big a deal, a judge that was ruling on a perjury case related to the Espy bribery scandal sentenced a perjurer to a stiff sentence, basically shaking his finger at the Clinton administration and saying don't tell ME it's no big deal! They system will adapt. Parents will hopefully use this to teach their kids that lying is wrong, etc. You people that want Clinton out (and I'm one of them) are angry at the constant stream of obvious corruption that has either been whitewashed or ignored by most of America. You want him impeached for Filegate, Travelgate, Chinagate, renting the Lincoln bedroom, illegally taking Chinese and Indonesian money (we had to do whatever it took to stop the Republican juggernaut!), giving missile technology to the Chinese, etc. etc. etc. As irritating as Monicagate is, it is NOTHING compared to the other issues. The ridiculous excuses that Americans have bought off on are infuriating, and if it takes a sex scandal to bring Clinton to justice, you're willing to use it. Hopefully the other issues will be brought back out to be looked at in the light of day, with no obfuscation allowed. I've spent a fair amount of time trying to come to grips with the anger I feel toward Clinton, and that's what I've come up with. He's the spoiled rotten bully, that steals your money, beats the c*** out of you every day, and gets away with it. When you complain, people tell you to quit whining - everyone knows Billy is a good boy - you're just jealous because he's more popular than you. To those of you who support Clinton - be honest also. You support his policies, and you would support Jeffrey Dahmer if you could find a way to justify doing so, as long as he pushed a pro-choice, pro-affirmative action, or whatever your favorite issue is, agenda. The supporters of Bill are afraid that if they stop supporting Bill, their agenda will be overrun by screaming bible-waving fanatics that are trying to return women to the 18th century, and want to make sure that people only have sex through a hole in a sheet that's draped over the woman, so the man isn't sullied by that wanton. Sorry for the long post, but it is really tiresome to see bright people on both sides of the issue continue to avoid really discussing the issue. It's not about sex - it's about corruption, abuse of power, the security of the nation, and individual freedom, IMHO.