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: Lee who wrote (86022)	12/18/1998 2:29:00 PM
From: Chuzzlewit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 176387

Lee, OT when you said the following: It has been pointed out, first by Nihil and later by Reginald, that the legality of this as pertains to the Constitutional articles of impeachment have primarily to do with material untruths. You were mistaken. That has to do with the definition of perjury, and has nothing at all to do with impeachment. So far as I know, the only previous precedent regarding impeachable offenses came from the Judiciary Committee in its Watergate deliberations where it held that private bad conduct (as in Nixon attempting to evade taxes by post dating documents) was not impeachable. Robert Drinan, who sat on that Committee has written extensively about this subject. Here are two other impeachment precedents that you might be interested in following up. The House voted to impeach Justice Samuel Chase of the Supreme Court for "malfeasance" and "misfeasance" of office. The vote was a straight partisan vote, and was incited by his political comments attacking the Republicans (not to be confused with today's Republicans -- these were the predecessors of the Democratic party). This attempt failed on a straight party vote in the Senate. Benjamin Butler of Massachussets had been proposing the impeachment of Andrew Johnson as early as 1866, and a House committee had been attempting to gather evidence of impeachable activities, but without success. Johnson then defied Congress by asking for the resignation of Secretary of War Stanton in 1868. This action was in defiance of the Tenure of Office Act (which Stanton himself opposed), which he believed to be unconstitutional. In addition, one of the articles of impeachment drawn against Andrew Johnson (but voted down) claimed that he was an accomplice in the murder of Abraham Linconln (shades of Vince Foster???). I quote from Morison, Commager and Leuchtenburg's The Growth of the American Republic Volum I, pp 750 -- 752. Altogether, the impeachment of Johnson was one of the most disgraceful episodes in the history of the Federal Government, one that barely failed to suspend the presidential system. For had impeachment succeeded, the Radicals would have established the principle that Congress may remove a President, not for 'high Crimes and Midemeanors,' as required by the Constitution, but for purely political reasons. ... Certainly, the partisanship on this issue should convince you that the situation is identical. How many Republicans are voting against impeachment? How many Democrats are voting in favor of impeachment. ****** There are many inequities that exist, and to point to the military is naive, because their "standards" are fatuous, discriminatory, and occasional. If Clinton's lies are criminal, then he ought to be punished in the appropriate forum. The ambit of lies under oath is not coincident with perjury. It is for a judge to decide whether a prima facie case exists, and a jury to decide guilt, after which appropriate punishment will be meted out. In my opinion, impeachment for these kinds of transgressions is clearly outside the intention of the founding fathers, and the desires of the broad bulk of the American electorate. It seems to me that the radicals are at it again. And it seems to me that they need to be stopped. TTFN, CTC