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: Who, me? who wrote (16601)	12/1/1998 8:59:00 PM
From: sea_biscuit	Respond to of 67261

The only gathering of people that can be really called "robots" is the well-groomed, formally-dressed folks with glazed eyes that sit in front of Rush Limbaugh! Of course, those idiots refer to themselves by some name other than "robots" -- "dittoheads", or "dickheads", or something like that...

To: Who, me? who wrote (16601)	12/1/1998 9:09:00 PM
From: jimpit	Respond to of 67261

No, I didn't. I got home late today and didn't even hear much in the way of news all day. But, thanks to your mentioning it, I'll try to surf with RealPlayer and see if it's being rebroadcast anywhere. jim

To: Who, me? who wrote (16601)	12/2/1998 7:00:00 AM
From: jimpit	Respond to of 67261

'morning, Who,me? I got sidetracked last night and never found the Dershowitz performance. This morning's Washington Times has an Editorial about it, though. Thought you'd enjoy it: The Washington Times Published in Washington, D.C. 5am -- December 2, 1998 washtimes.com Copyright © 1998 News World Communications, Inc. washtimes.com EDITORIAL The Dershowitz epiphany The House Judiciary Committee didn't learn anything new about the law yesterday. Perjury is bad -- that much was known before, and several of the witnesses attested to the fact. Except that in some cases perjury isn't that big a deal -- it was known that most of the president's allies are of that convenient belief, and several of the witnesses obliged by expressing it. But that is not to say that the hearings were uninformative. Late in the day there was actually a moment of startling, revelatory clarity --an epiphany that should enlighten the mind of anyone currently tempted to waffle on the issue before the committee: Waffling will win them no friends. The moment came in response to a question from Rep. John Conyers, the committee's ranking Democrat. Mr. Conyers seems to believe that some momentum is building for a compromise solution -- one in which the House would express its sentiment that Bill Clinton has been a very naughty boy -- and hoped to elicit just such a recommendation from the committee's illustrious guests. "How," Mr. Conyers asked of the afternoon witnesses, "can we find some path of reconciliation that will get us with some small measure of honor out of the door altogether?" The definitive answer came from the legal scholar famous for helping the famous escape the consequences of their crimes: Alan Dershowitz. The Harvard law professor is a cable-TV regular, where he shouts the liberal take on the finer points of law at other heads in boxes. He is also an ardent defender of the president, having recently written a hardcover pamphlet entitled "Sexual McCarthyism." This was Mr. Dershowitz's opportunity to extend an olive branch to his polemical enemies, an opportunity to encourage a scandal armistice. Instead, Mr. Dershowitz let loose with a rant worthy of professor Geraldo's seminar in comparative ethics. Lawmakers seeking compromise should read Mr. Dershowitz's remarks carefully, for they are an honest portent of things to come: "I think history will not be kind to this committee." Mr. Dershowitz intoned. "History will not be kind to this Congress. I think this committee and this Congress will go down in history along with the Congress that improperly impeached Andrew Johnson for political reasons. I think there is no exit strategy that will permit this committee and this Congress to regain any place in history which is going to look positively. It made a dreadful mistake by ever opening up an impeachment inquiry on the basis of sex lies and coverups of sexual events. It's down that line. Now it's getting worse. It's like my typical client. First he commits the crime and then he compounds the crime by making it worse. Now it's becoming worse, because now we are seeing incredible hypocrisy introduced into the debate: 'Oh, we care so much about perjury -- what a terrible thing perjury is.' The only reason the majority of this committee cares about perjury is because they believe that President Clinton, their political opponent, is guilty of it." There you have it. No amount of compromise, no proposed appeasement, no effort at a brokered end-game is going to satisfy Mr. Dershowitz and his ilk. To the extent that any lawmaker was thinking about taking it easy on the president for fear of looking partisan or extreme, he should take note: He will still be denounced by those currently doing the denouncing; he will win no laurels for his wisdom and sweet reason. Republicans try to win praise (or even grudging respect) from the left at their peril. It's just as well: a desire for public approbation is a lousy reason for voting impeachment one way or the other. Lawmakers need to make up their minds on the basis of the facts before them. The president, his lawyers, his congressional allies and his historio-legal irregulars have had every opportunity to dispute those facts, and they haven't even tried. That leaves the facts, pre-eminent among them that the president lied under oath, lied before a grand jury and then topped it off by lying to Congress.