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 : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: James Strauss who wrote (9419)	12/15/1998 12:37:00 PM
From: Zoltan!	Respond to of 13994

You have swallowed the Dem swill, hook, line and sinker. Nixon did not have advance knowledge of the underlying act, Clinton did. Nixon never had the IRS investigate anyone, Clinton did. Nixon never perjured himself, Clinton did. At the time Hillary was working for the impeachment committee Clinton declared that Nixon should be removed simply for lying to the American People. Nixon never did that so boldly as Clinton. Maybe you should read David Broder today, he says that the Reps are doing their duty: Members of both parties focused on the proper question, whether the president's actions are compatible with his constitutional duty to see that the laws "are faithfully executed." The consensus -- and I use that word advisedly -- is that they are not. Democrats, in opposing impeachment, concede in their censure resolution that this is a president who has "violated the trust of the American people, lessened their esteem for the office of president and dishonored the office which they have entrusted to him." Republicans go further and say he lied in sworn testimony on multiple occasions. At Least We're Learning By David S. Broder Tuesday, December 15, 1998; Page A27 When it was suggested here a few weeks ago that the impeachment process, then about to begin in the House Judiciary Committee, could be an instructive experience for the country, many readers responded incredulously. But despite many obstacles, that process has begun to work. We have had a healthy debate about the constitutional standard for removing a president from office, and we are now having an equally important discussion about the role of public opinion in a republic. The national conversation has not been all that it might have been, in part because the television networks, in flagrant disregard of their public interest obligations, refused to interrupt their entertainment schedules to carry the Judiciary Committee debate. That debate was more nakedly partisan than it was during Watergate, which was no surprise. Judiciary is, as noted here previously, the most ideologically polarized committee in the House, dominated by conservative Republicans who joined in order to fashion social-issue amendments to the Constitution and by liberal Democrats -- almost half of them from three Northeastern states -- who signed up in order to thwart those very amendments. With the single exception of Rep. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who broke ranks with his fellow Republicans to oppose one of the perjury counts, party lines held firm on all the final votes. No one demonstrated the statesmanship that compelled almost half the Republicans on Judiciary to vote to impeach Richard Nixon. And no one yet has done what the late Barbara Jordan did -- in lifting the tone of the debate to the level such issues deserve. The oratory so far has been pedestrian. Notwithstanding all of this, for those who were watching, listening or reading, the Judiciary Committee debate settled two important points. First, it banished such irrelevancies as the cost and duration of independent counsel Kenneth Starr's investigation and the motives that impelled Starr to pursue the case. The "war room" tactics of James Carville and some White House aides in attempting to make Starr the issue got deservedly short shrift in committee debates. Members of both parties focused on the proper question, whether the president's actions are compatible with his constitutional duty to see that the laws "are faithfully executed." The consensus -- and I use that word advisedly -- is that they are not. Democrats, in opposing impeachment, concede in their censure resolution that this is a president who has "violated the trust of the American people, lessened their esteem for the office of president and dishonored the office which they have entrusted to him." Republicans go further and say he lied in sworn testimony on multiple occasions. Honorable men and women can and do differ on whether these actions meet the constitutional standard for impeachment. The public -- which judges him guilty of the crimes of which he now stands accused -- says they do not. A Gallup poll released Dec. 10 by CNN and USA Today found that majorities of the public believed the charges in all four of the counts to be true but opposed impeachment on any of them. On the charge of perjury before the Starr grand jury, for example, 71 percent said it was true, but 57 percent said it was not serious enough to justify impeachment. So now we will have a second useful debate -- about the nature of our system of representative government, the deference elected officials owe to the opinion of their constituents and the latitude they should enjoy to substitute their own views for those of the voters on a matter of huge public significance. This too is well worth considering. The whole system of representative government has been under challenge. Congress has suffered from persistent voter disapproval, even as individual members have won reelection year after year. In half the states, where the initiative process is available, voters increasingly have chosen to bypass the legislature and enact laws themselves. The Founders deliberately put the impeachment process in the hands of a political branch, Congress, knowing that its members would be held accountable for their decisions at the next election. That is certainly the case now; 80 Republican members of the House, including most of the uncommitted who hold the president's fate in their hands, represent districts that voted for Clinton in 1996. Those men and women will undoubtedly weigh the political consequences as they consult their consciences on the impeachment vote. And that too is exactly as it should be -- not government by public opinion poll but by officials accountable to the voters. washingtonpost.com