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 : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (39941)	12/18/1998 5:48:00 PM
From: Mama Bear	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

"no one but the President would have had the Paula Jones' suit brought against him (no lawyer working on commission would have taken such a weak case" Wow, think how much more than 850k Jones would have been paid if it were not such a weak case. Ken Starr's report was released before the President's lawyers had a chance to read it." Is it standard practice to let the accused read the indictment in this country? "The Judiciary Committee sent the articles of impeachment to the floor without having investigated the charges -- none of the prosecution's witnesses have been cross-examined!" The place for the trial is in the Senate. The trial is where the cross examination should take place. What sort of investigation would have changed the facts? You yourself admitted "Which Bill Clinton obligingly provided, by lying under oath about the world's stupidest affair." Impeachment is appropriate given the facts, IMO. It doesn't matter how the situation evolved, whether he 'should' have been asked the question or not, or what the motivation of the investigator is. "Think about what will happen the next time there is a Republican President with a Democratic Congress. Given the same set of circumstances I would hope for the same outcome, only hopefully the minority will not attempt to obfuscate, spin, and excuse such shenanigans as the Demopublican minority has in this case. Barb (also not a Republicrat or a Demopublican)

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (39941)	12/19/1998 6:16:00 AM
From: Kathleen capps	Respond to of 132070

Nadine, Regardless of the political undercurrents, he lied under oath, used his subordinates to unwittingly lie for him (cabinet members), mis-used and abused his position of power as president to subvert the legal process, carried on an affair with a subordinate (clearly illegal under both civil service and military regulations) and has shown no respect for the laws of this country. This is not the man to lead our country. It's not about sex. It's about honor and respect and truthfullness. That's not even touching the fact that he's risking military personnel's lives for his own personal needs. I support impeachment and removal from office. What I don't understand is how honest and sincere democratic legislators can support Clinton and still look at themselves in the morning. Kathleen