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.

Technology Stocks : Dell Technologies Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SecularBull who wrote (84479)	12/9/1998 8:45:00 PM
From: Lee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 176387

LOD,..Re:.*Off Topic* Re:. If someone uses the power of the Presidency to break the law- any law- isn't that impeachable? Apparently we can break the law and not be impeached if it's a personal issue. Just like we can get acquitted for murder if we have enough money. Personal lying to a grand jury is different from professional lying to a grand jury. Regards, Lee

To: SecularBull who wrote (84479)	12/9/1998 10:54:00 PM
From: Chuzzlewit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 176387

LOD, OT If someone uses the power of the Presidency to break the law- any law- isn't that impeachable? No, clearly not. There have been many instances where the President has been sued in his capacity as President concerning breaking various laws. Never has that resulted in impeachment, with the exception of Andrew Johnson. I think that the spirit of the Constitution is clear. What the founding fathers had in mind was removing from office (not punishing mind you) a public official who has done violence to the Constitution and the nation. Besides Richard Nixon, who used the power of the Presidency through the use of the FBI, CIA, IRS etc. to punish political enemies, I can think of only one other President where the facts clearly point in that direction: James Buchannan, when he failed to take steps to stop the southern states from seizing federal garrisons and arming themselves. Perhaps Lyndon Johnson would also fit in that category for the fabricated Gulf of Tonkin incident. And just who would you pick to be the one to decide whether or not the matter to which the perjury is related is important (or relevant) enough to support impeachment? The Constitution is clear on this matter: the House of Representatives. But just as history harshly judged the House when it impeached Andrew Johnson (who was quite a rascal), so too will history render a harsh verdict on Mr. Hyde and his cohorts. LOD, the problem that I have with this entire sorry episode is that the motivation is entirely political, and does violence to the spirit of the Constitution. If we want a parliamentary form of government, with votes of no confidence, I think we would need a series of Constitutional Amendments, not a kangaroo court. TTFN, CTC