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: j_b who wrote (8315)	10/9/1998 12:04:00 AM
From: jbe	Read Replies (7) \| Respond to of 67261

j_b, I checked out the text of the Democratic impeachment proposal (which was voted on BEFORE the Republican proposal). Here is the URL: washingtonpost.com The major features of the Democratic proposal: 1) The Judiciary Committee is instructed to "act upon the referral from the Independent Counsel, hereinafter referred to as 'the referral.'" (You will recall, I hope, that the original resolution from the House to the Judiciary Committee also directed them to look at "the referral." You should also recall that ALL of the counts in Starr's referral were related to Monicagate. It was the Judiciary Committee that recommended expanding the inquiry to an investigation of anything and everything.) 2) Although limited to investigating "the referral" for the time being, the Committee is instructed to investigate ANY FURTHER REFERRALS from the Independent Counsel -- should he produce them. In other words, the Judiciary Committee will look only at material that Starr gives them. 3) "The committee shall thoroughly and comprehensively review the constitutional standard for impeachment and determine if the facts presented in the referral, if assumed to be true, could constitute grounds for the impeachment of the president." The point here is that the Committee would not waste time doing additional (beyond Starr's) investigation of those charges that, in its judgment, would not be impeachable anyway. 4) The Committee is instructed to wind up its investigation, if possible, by December 31 of this year. If it cannot do so, it can request an extension from the House. 5) If the Committee decides against recommending impeachment (fat chance!), it may consider whether "alternative sanctions" are in order. By this, I presume, is meant a motion of censure, or a fine, or whatever. I think this is a reasonable proposal, limiting the investigation to those charges the Independent Counsel thinks he can prove, setting a flexible time limit, and keeping the Committee focussed on "impeachable" offenses. And I think that, in their hearts, a lot of moderate Republicans might have preferred to vote for it. I agree that they did not do so because crossing over "would have been political suicide." I can't agree, however, that an additional reason was that "they really do feel that a hearing was justified." The Democratic proposal provided for a hearing -- of the original "referral," and of any subsequent referrals Starr may produce. Maybe Starr WILL produce something on what you consider the "really impeachable gates," like filegate, travelgate, and so forth. But maybe he won't. What makes the House think that the Judiciary Committee can find something on these gates that Starr could not?? What amazes me, as I have said before, is how nobody seems to grasp that the House's decision to expand the inquiry is a real vote of no-confidence in Independent Counsel Starr. And, as a matter of fact, if you check out some of the hairier ImpeachClinton sites, you will see that they regard Starr as a wimp, practically a co-conspirator with Clinton. (By the way, j_b, did you actually hunt for any websites dedicated to "Saving Our President"? I would be interested to find out whether you found any; I could not, and I really looked.) In any event, the Democratic proposal was voted down, 236-198. One Republican actually DID vote FOR the Democratic impeachment proposal: Rep. Jay Dickey -- of Arkansas, of all places!! Interesting. 10 Democrats voted against it: 5 because they opposed any inquiry at all, and 5 because they planned to vote for the Republican proposal. In short, 26 of the 31 Democrats who ended up supporting the Republican proposal did so only after they had first voted for the failed Democratic proposal. Again, interesting. jbe