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 : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pezz who wrote (8271)	10/15/1998 11:40:00 AM
From: Rick Slemmer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

The point I'm trying to make is that the Constitution has specific criteria for impeachment. No it doesn't, and it purposely leaves the interpretation of "high crimes and misdemeanors" wide open to cover contingencies. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say burglars, batterers, and cannibals have to be removed, yet I'd be willing to bet that a president indicted on charges of burglary, battery, or cannibalism would be impeached. After all why would it be only high* crimes and bad behavior? Makes no sense.* Sure it does. They didn't want to impeach a fellow for any old violation of a civil law: neglecting to clean up after his horse, or insulting a neighbor over a property line dispute, for example; the Colonial equivalents of jaywalking or public drunkenness. They did, however, want to set down rules that allowed serious crimes to be prosecuted, even if the defendant was the President. The Presidency was made vulnerable to prevent the absolute power they saw in King George. They couldn't impeach the King. So we come back to perjury. It is a high crime, and there are (according to CNN) 115 Americans now serving time for conviction on charges of perjury. Judges have been removed (impeached) for perjury, and for good reason: the entire American justice system depends on witnesses being truthful under oath. That's why there's so much "selective amnesia" and verbal acrobatics displayed by the Clintons et al in their depositions. They know that perjury is a major crime and their only hope is the exploitation of legal loopholes and the vagaries of language. Whatever you may think of BC I believe it would be a dangerous precedent to make any exception to the Constitution in order to get rid of him. It's not an exception to the Constitution; it's the *purpose* of the Constitution. RS

To: pezz who wrote (8271)	10/15/1998 11:46:00 AM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

>>The point I'm trying to make is that the Constitution has specific criteria for impeachment><< later.... >>After all why would it be only high crimes and bad behavior? Makes no sense.<< It makes perfect sense, but it would appear that you are so conditioned to Clintonspeak that you do not understand plain-spoken statements. I'll try to help you. High crimes.... A subjective determination. What constitutes "high" crime? As opposed to what? "Low" crime? YES. A president could commit a "low" crime (speeding, jaywalking, parking violation, you name it) and most would agree that those would not be impeachable offenses. Thus "high" crime. Now the debate ensues......does perjury, subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice constitute "high" crimes. I say yes, my opinion is that those crimes cut to the very heart of our judicial system and most especially should not be permitted by the chief law enforcement officer of our country. Bad behavior Again, subjective determination. What makes behavior "bad"? If the president has "bad" behavior (poor manners, boorish, insulting comments to a dignitary, etc.) at a state function, is that impeachable? I think not, an embarrassment to be sure, but unworthy of impeachment. How about drunkeness? Absolutely. Not a crime, but a president in a frequent (subjective determination again) state of drunkeness most assuredly could be considered potentially impeachable. Issues of national security are directly related. So you see, the constitution does NOT specify which of the crimes or bad behavior are impeachable, only that those categories of conduct of the president should be open to scrutiny and it is ultimately the responsibility of the Congress and Senate to decide if a president has "crossed the impeachment line". <edit> I just read Rick's response to your post, we are basically saying the same thing, although Rick's answer is more succinct. Nice going Rick. bp

To: pezz who wrote (8271)	10/15/1998 11:48:00 AM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

pezz, A few questions if you would. If the President lied every single night for a thousand different issues would you consider that grounds for impeachment? Do you believe we should have one standard of laws for the President and another for the people? What would you consider high crimes and misdemeanors? Since you appear not to know what misdemeanor means, and have admitted to such, why are you so adamant that he shouldn't be impeached? It's clear in my readings of the Federalist papers and the Constitution that the Senate is to determine what constitutes impeachment. Do you disagree with that tenant? And would you rather see it decided by national polls? If we are to ignore perjury from the President, what is to prevent Joe Q citizen from claiming the same right in court? Or Joe Q Sailor, Marine, or government official? Do you believe sexual misconduct laws in the work space should be removed? Should Fraternization and sexual harassment laws also be removed from the books? Should we reinstate the two Federal Judges who lost their appointments to the bench for sexual misconduct? Should we have a National Day of apology for what we put Judge Clarance Thomas through? Should we reinstate Senator Packwood because it was only about sex in the workspace? Michael