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: Mama Bear who wrote (40037)	12/19/1998 7:32:00 AM
From: Hound	Respond to of 132070

Your still slick but usually right.Remember the old fibr days with you,elf,and T-bone.Stock turned out alright tho.

To: Mama Bear who wrote (40037)	12/19/1998 7:35:00 AM
From: Mama Bear	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 132070

Is this Michael Burke in the holiday spirit? laughingsquid.com Barb

To: Mama Bear who wrote (40037)	12/19/1998 2:18:00 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

"Impeachment is the equivalent of indictment if we're going to equate it to a criminal trial." Look, it's useless to argue about normal rules of trying or settling cases--none of them apply to the President. All the considerations are political. The point I am trying to make is that if Henry Hyde had been concerned about being fair and seeming fair he would have given the defense a chance to read the Starr report & a chance to question the witnesses. Peter Rodino did all of these things twenty-five years ago. Henry Hyde conducted the Judiciary Committee hearings in a purely partisan manner--which is why he has built no consensus in the country as a whole for impeachment. Aside from the fact that people disagree wildly about the severity of the charges. They are certainly minor compared to Nixon's real abuses of office. Now if I say "He tried to cover up an affair while testifying in a politically-motivated sexual harrassment civil suit," that doesn't sound so bad. If you say "It's about honor and lying and perjury," it sounds much grander. A matter of interpretation. I still say that no normal prosecutor would bring an indictment on such a charge with such evidence. BTW, the House just voted down Article 2 (perjury) of the impeachment counts.