SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Pastimes : Ask Mohan about the Market -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Zeev Hed who wrote (17274)12/9/1998 9:11:00 PM
From: Wildstar  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 18056
 
>>The impeachment process should be, IMHO, reserved for the rare case when the Executive is indeed found using the power of his office to tyranically muzzle the opposition (which I believe was really the "causus Belli" in the Nixon case), and of course for those instances (treason and high crime) specifically cited by the founding fathers.<<

But suppose that he's caught doing something serious like embezzling money or some crime like that in which no tyranical harm to the opposition is done. Should he then also not be impeached? I think a more appropriate standard is that if he does anything that a citizen would go to jail for, he should be impeached. He cannot, as the chief law enforcement officer, stay in office in such a situation, all the while telling everyone else to obey the law.



To: Zeev Hed who wrote (17274)12/9/1998 9:54:00 PM
From: Knighty Tin  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 18056
 
Zeev, The problem I have with that is that the guy lied straight face to a Grand Jury and to the American people. That undermines the system as much as an impeachment trial, IMHO. And Congress is also our elected representatives, as much as the President is. We can vote them out if they step over the line.

So, though I don't think it will happen and I think many Presidents have committed worse crimes, I think that Clinton has done great damage to the office.

MB