To: DMaA who wrote (7419 ) 10/6/1998 10:40:00 AM From: Daniel Schuh Respond to
Personally, I don't think it would have been appropriate to impeach George Bush, though he certainly did worse than Clinton. Various lying and obstruction matters that actually had something to do with running the government. He probably could have been prosecuted after he left office, but he took care of that matter good too. And no, I wouldn't have advocated prosecuting him then, either, but it would have been nice to finally pin him down on "the truth". But anyway, let's go back to the post I was responding to. I know it's hard for you guys to handle more than one thought in your heads, but try to humor me."If lying under oath is tolerated, and, when exposed, is not visited with immediate and substantial adverse consequences, the integrity of this country's entire judicial process is fatally compromised and that process will inevitably collapse," Schippers said. "The subject matter of the underlying case, whether civil or criminal, and the circumstances under which the testimony is given are of no significance whatever. It is the oath itself that is sacred and must be enforced." (Dwight) (well, there goes the neighborhood--we can't even lie in court about our office sex). Schippers went on to add his personal opinion as a "father and grandfather," telling lawmakers that the law protects citizens from "evil and tyranny" and warning them that "our fellow Americans, many of whom are reposing in military cemeteries throughout the world, are looking down on and judging what you do today." (Dwight)(refreshing to hear, sobering...)
