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: greenspirit who wrote (15617)	11/23/1998 6:06:00 AM
From: jimpit	Respond to of 67261

Well said, Michael. Thanks.

To: greenspirit who wrote (15617)	11/23/1998 10:43:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Respond to of 67261

Hey, why don't I get lumped in here too? I'm highly offended, though I wouldn't want to tar jbe and Borzou with guilt by association. I don't particularly like Clinton, either politically or personally, and have stated as much. Doesn't make any difference around here, I'm still a White House agent. As fair as perjury goes, yes, we hear about the unfairness of it all constantly. How many people go down for perjury in dismissed civil cases, for testimony ruled inadmissible anyway, and where the case gets settled out of court before the appeal is heard? It might have happened, sometime, I don't know. That leaves out the political motivation factor in the Jones suit too, but the people who funded her were just interested in truth and justice, right? And saving the West from decline due to the pernicious influence of Clinton, no doubt. Obstruction, well, that all comes down to insufficient respect for the Grand Inquisitor Ken Starr, right? I'm certainly guilty there. The perpetual leaks of "secret" grand jury testimony, it's just not fair to bring that up, right? That's what Ken said in his testimony. And the conflict with Starr's preexisting involvement with the Jones suit, why it never occurred to Starr that there was any conflict there. He said that. The only poster here I recall going into the perjury legalities in detail thought that the case was far from open and shut. People are evasive in depositions, I make fun of Bill Gates, but nobody's taking about sending him up for perjury. I'm sure there are blameless politicians who could stand up to the combination of independent "Arkansas Project" dirt digging coupled with a special prosecutor with unlimited resources looking into every nook and cranny. I'm sure there are others who would go down quick. Four years, and all Starr could come up with on Clinton is BJgate. You want to make a standing IC investigating every rumor concerning the President a permanent fixture of American politics? The IC act is up for renewal next year, write your representatives, see what they can do about that. Cheers, Dan.

To: greenspirit who wrote (15617)	11/23/1998 11:33:00 AM
From: jbe	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

Michael - I am genuinely concerned regarding the negative effect allowing a President to get away with perjury will have on our country. The rule of law should be protected and cherished in a Democracy. I can't remember a time when it's been so calously tossed aside in favor of political expediency. A couple of points. First, it is not at all clear whether the President will be allowed to "get away with perjury." For two reasons: 1) The impeachment process has just begun. We can't say for sure how it will proceed, although at this point it does indeed look as if it may not get through the House, let alone the Senate. 2) It is not at all clear that the President (once we get to the Senate trial stage -- if we ever do) will be found guilty of perjury. All the preliminary stages of the impeachment process (grand jury, Judiciary Committee hearings, House vote) have been, are, and will be concerned only with deciding whether an indictment is called for or not; that is, the prosecution makes its case here. Not until the trial stage, will the President have the opportunity to make his case. Perjury is a legal offense, unlike lying, which is an ethical or moral offense. Therefore, deciding whether someone is guilty of perjury often rests on legal technicalities. Hence the President's case may be stronger than you think it is. I discussed this briefly in a post last month, to which I will refer you: Message 6138165 Now, to a different question. Should we proceed with this impeachment process now, whatever the outcome is likely to be? I personally am of two minds on the question. (Fortunately, the decision on whether to proceed does not rest with me!) 1) On the one hand, if the impeachment process is cut short, questions like yours (was the President allowed to get away with perjury, in the interests of political expediency; is the President to be considered "above the law", etc.) will never be laid to rest. 2) On the other hand, the impeachment process should also be looked at in the over-all context in which it is occurring. When I do that, I can see the argument for backing off. Some of the points in that argument (IMO) are neatly summarized in the second and final paragraphs of the following post (from a completely different thread): Message 6511541 jbe

To: greenspirit who wrote (15617)	11/23/1998 12:33:00 PM
From: geneh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Bill Clinton's behavior in office is clearly outrageous, to say nothing of criminal. There is an element missing in the Constitution with regard to removing a sitting President from office; a vote of confidence or no-confidence by the electorate which would REQUIRE a President to RESIGN. I suspect Clinton in February or March would have lost such a test. Let me set up a hypothetical situation (not really that far-fetched) that would illustrate the need for just such a measure as an amendment to the Constitution as outlined above - a measure for which the American people would beg and weep. A colorful, flamboyant lawyer and life-long politician and Congressman, William Jefferson Jones decides to run for the Presidency. Whether by accident or design, he wins his party's nomination, and after a successful, hard-fought campaign, he wins a narrow victory in November and is sworn into office in January. Jones is a divorced man, having exited a rocky marriage (which produced children) some years before. That fact has not impaired his acceptance by the electorate. Further, he has not been touched by even a hint of scandal whatsoever throughout his public life. A few months after inauguration, he decides that he no longer can live a "lie". He calls a press conference and declares to the world and most specifically to the American people, that he is a "closet" homosexual and is today coming out of that "closet" forever. He must, after all be "true to his real self" and can do that only by abandoning the "closet". And he does so with a vengeance. He has a "coming-out" party at the WH and proceeds to live an even more flamboyant lifestyle now as a homosexual. He has done nothing criminal, but the America public is stunned by this new turn of events and utterly revolted by his new lifestyle. The polls indicate an overwhelming majority want him to resign. Period. HE REFUSES TO DO SO. And the American people are unable to do anything else under current law. Should WE be forced to see this man make a shameful and horrendous mockery of the Presidency and our sensibilities for the duration of his term? I think not. Clearly this is not the man the American people voted into office originally. What do we do? What can we do?