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 : The Republican Crash 1999 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J.B.C. who wrote (374)	12/16/1998 10:39:00 AM
From: j g cordes	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 609

JBC.. its obvious you took the time to consider your views in depth. We don't see the totality of this process in the same light. As citizens that's our right and obligation. For me there is far too much evidence of a decade long concerted right wing effort to catch Clinton. It goes back well before Paula Jones and represents the worst type of government abuse, which is using the law to subvert the confidence of the public. Both sides are guilty and we don't know all the players. Do I object to lying under oath, of course I do. Did I watch Starr lie under oath. Yes, he squrimed and failed to reveal "the whole truth and nothing but the truth" with every tough question on when and how he proceeded through the tape episode with Tripp, holding without arrest (.. a legal lie if ever there was one) Lewinsky at a hotel room subverting her rights to prompt council and many other choices he made. The law is not absolute, it is not black and white. If it were we'd all be in jail for something because there is a law on the books somewhere that can at this moment put you or anyone else in jail if it were enforced. Thus we are left with some of your cogent arguments on the responsibility of elected officials and their not bending to the will of an ".. inflamed majority." I suggest that its the inflamed majority party which best fits your description. We live by consensus. Consensus and tolerance, not rule of law, is the bedrock of this nation. If were any other way, then all laws would forever be on the books with no room to reconsider the ills they inadvertently propagate. Law is a living sense of justice. Justice may demand that in your conscience you find impeachment right. I have doubts that the evidence is substantial and reasonable, and I have doubts that the process getting here was legitimate. Further I feel certain the founders of our country did not consider the source of this impechment quest as being relevant to government interest. As for Jones being denied her rights, that's absurd, she's had more rights and time in court given to her than any similar case in this century. Why? Because she's a tool being manipulated by strings we don't see. Their motives and practices should see the light of day also. My duty as a citizen is to view justice as the sum consideration of this long and bitter hunt to bring down Clinton and weigh that against Clinton's obvious trangressions. Many entrenched and powerful people from before his being elected by the most profound aspect of our system, the vote of the people, have dogged him. In total I don't excuse the right, I don't excuse the Republican zealots, or those who have unwittingly collaborated in this effort. As a Republican I resent my party being forced to this extreme in order to re-win a lost election. I resent our being led like sheep into a yes or no answer where none exists. Its more complex than perjury, as that's not the whole story. As a voter like you, its my task to see that. I'm not bound by a yes/no appraisal when anyone can plainly see this event is far larger. I can and do seek the middle ground between two extremes because the whole process stinks. Clinton will have his day in court and be rightfully judged, meanwhile the electorate should have their will in office.