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: Fangorn who wrote (85286)	12/14/1998 4:47:00 PM
From: Chuzzlewit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 176387

OT Steven, you said The facts and the law are clearly against Clinton ... Are they? That your premise. What fact is against Clinton? Fact 1. There was a definition given in the Paula Jones case as to what constituted "sexual relations". According to the Clinton people "sexual relations" excluded everything but coitus. I have not read the definition myself, so I don't know if its true or not. Fact 2. Because Clinton claimed executive privilege and fought Starr in court on this issue does not constitute obstruction of justice. Had Starr lost would you conclude that he was guilty of prosecutorial misconduct by bringing suit? In any event, once the court had found against him Clinton made his lawyers available to Starr. But to turn the argument on its head, you recall that Starr also tried to force Foster's lawyer to reveal privileged conversations, and Starr lost that case in the Supreme Court. Would you argue, out of even-handedness that Starr was guilty of either obstruction of justice or prosecutorial misconduct because he lost the suit? Fact 3. There is ample precedent to establish the fact that personal misconduct does not constitute an impeachable offense. Remember, impeachment is not a criminal procedure (if it were it would constitute a bill of attainder which would, in effect, preempt criminal prosecution), so the issue is not what the law says about perjury. The issue is what the Constitution says is impeachable, and how Congress interprets the Constitution. The House could vote that a President could be impeached for public belching if it wished -- there is no legal recourse. Please give serious thought to this. The House Republicans have opened a Pandora's Box. And the dilemma they create for themselves is interesting. If they pursue this nonsense they will have transmogrified a Presidential system of government into a Parliamentary system. But they are clearly out of step with the vast number of Americans. They are banking on a forgetful electorate. I think the people will remember what they are attempting to do. TTFN, CTC