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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sea_biscuit who wrote (22476)	12/18/1998 11:43:00 PM
From: MR. PANAMA (I am a PLAYER)	Respond to of 67261

GRIM is SPEAKER of DA HOUSE....that's right when a babe asks me tonight what I do I will say SPEAKER OF HOUSE and watch as they jump me bones....GRIM feels like Great American HERO right now...SPEAKER OF DA HOUSE imagine that...just imagine that....

To: sea_biscuit who wrote (22476)	12/19/1998 12:01:00 AM
From: Dan B.	Respond to of 67261

Dipy, I think you are reaching there, but I'll just say that the Presidents needless actions against Jones are Perjuries. These Perjuries are in the class of Treason and Bribery due to both the beneficial effect his actions held for him, and the harm his actions held for Jones.

To: sea_biscuit who wrote (22476)	12/19/1998 7:44:00 AM
From: nihil	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

re: misdemeanors If there is any source that informed the Founders about the phrase "or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" it would certainly be Blackstone's Commentaries .. which was a best seller in the colonies and taught many of our unlawschooled ancestors about the common law (first American lawschool 1791). Blackstone says: "This definition comprehends both crimes and misdemeanors; which, properly speaking, are mere synonymous terms." V.i.5. There had been some important dispute. Everyone knew "treason" (e.g. arming the enemy, or giving them aid and comfort as Reagan arguably did by sending the Ayatollah a Bible in a cake) was a crime against the sovereign. When the regicides were tried in England, they were accused not only of treason by trying and executing Charles I, but of "high misdemeanors" which meant serious misconduct that did not rise to the level of treason. (Trial Regic. 1660, 113.)"He charged the Prisoner at the Bar with Treason and high misdemeanors." I believe a legal scholar (like Madison or Adams) would have examined these records if copies were available, especially if they themselves had engaged in treason against the King as revolutionaries; as lawyers they were naturally interested in what happened to traitors. They were also at this point in the deliberations engaged in deciding how to remove the chief magistrate of the United States. In 1706, Phillips (ed. Kersey), wrote "High Misdemeanour(sic) - a Crime of hainous (sic) nature next to High Treason." IMO from these quotations mean that "high misdemeanors" was not interpreted as a minor crime. Certainly as part of a phrase "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" we get an echo of these earlier citations. "[O]ther high" modifies both "Crimes" and "Misdemeanors" and not "Crimes" alone. The "or" ought to be omitted before "other ..." and there should be serial comma after "Crimes" (rarely omitted in those days) if the authors intended there to be four coordinate offenses: e.g. (1) Treason; (2) Bribery; (3) other high Crimes; and (4) Misdemeanors. IMO, the President can be impeached only for (1) Treason, (2) Bribery, and/or (3) high Crimes and Misdemeanors, and not for misdemeanors or felonies that are not so grave or serious as to rise to the level of treason or bribery. Since the Congress, a coordinate branch of government, cannot be subjected to the will either of the Supreme Court or the President, a majority of the House and two-thirds of the members present can decide whatever they wish for a definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors." If they are egregiously unlawful in this decision and, in effect, stage a coup d'etat, there is nothing the people can do about it except protest and rebel under the 1st and 2d Amendments. The President, of course, as a coordinate power, can stage a countercoup relying on his oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States (which of course includes the definition of "other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.". He is an independent judge of his own duty. Yet I am sure he won't rise up and crush the Congress as a Caesar or Napoleon would (and did). I am astonished that we are confident that the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States will quietly allow himself to be expelled from office on questionable charges. I wonder if it is only because we are confident that the Senators will almost all vote the party line, and he will not be convicted regardless of their oaths, and that if he did stage a countercoup the Army and the Navy would rebel against their lawful commander. I wonder how a new special counsel would investigate Congress for these obvious forthcoming perjuries. It would be interesting to see the whole Republican lynch mob of Congressmen on trial before a D.C. jury.