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: mrknowitall who wrote (22532)	12/19/1998 10:14:00 AM
From: ed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Bob Livingston will resign from the house, so where are you Mr. Henry Hyde ? Bob's decision is respectful, but the personal affairs have nothing to do with his abilibility to be a congressman or house speaker. Affairs, is just his personal life, being a good congressman is his responsibility and commitment to the nation and people and they are two different things. For different kinds of crimes, there are different levels of punishments. Resignation is too serious a punishment for affairs. We just lost a capable man who has the potential to offer a great service to the country.

To: mrknowitall who wrote (22532)	12/19/1998 10:51:00 AM
From: nihil	Respond to of 67261

re: perjuries and rebellion The perjuries I refer to are the violation of their oaths (which is not specified in the Constitution but is intended to be an oath to do justice under the Constitution). If any Republican Senator votes to convict even though he has a reasonable doubt that the President committed the crimes or that they rise to the level of high crimes or misdemeanors, he is committing perjury. Similarly, if any Democratic Senator votes to acquit, even though he believes that the President committed the crimes charged and that they are serious enough reasonably to be considered high crimes and misdemeanors, then he or she is committing perjury. I think that any Democratic Senator who votes to convict, or any Republican Senator who votes to acquit can safely be ignored in this investigation for voting against interest. Investigating the others will be expensive and time consuming, but maybe Ken Starr will volunteer to do it as related to his existing investigations. Since Senators (probably) don't have immunity from charges of perjury (being a felony), they can be set up, framed, investigated, charged, tried, convicted, and imprisoned. They will be required to answer any questions relevant to the case. Ken can wire their mistresses or lovers, and threaten their parents and children into cooperating. I'm speculating, of course. No one would be shocked by Senators violating their oaths, just as few people are shocked by the President lying under oath. As for the loyalty of American troops to a President attempting a coup against the Congress (before his conviction), check out the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Court Martial of Lieutenant Calley. Calley claimed he was ordered to commit the crimes for which he was convicted. The Court convicted him for not exercising his initiative and disobeying unlawful orders. Officers and men are only required to obey "lawful orders" and have been acquitted for disobeying unlawful orders and convicted for obeying unlawful orders. The courts have usually held that "lawful" is substantive, not procedural. Thus each soldier is responsible for judging the lawfulness of each order. The Eichmann defense does not work in Israel or the United States. I am confident that nearly all American officers at the highest level would tell the President that his orders would not be obeyed even if they relayed them to the troops. They would also refuse to relay them. Remember how deep into the DOJ Nixon had to go before he found someone craven and disgusting enough to obey his order to fire Cox. Richardson (Attorney General) and Ruckelshaus (Deputy AG) both resigned rather than do something that was perfectly legal but rotten. Neither would have resigned if they had believed that the order was illegal or violated their oath. Bork (Solicitor General) was either cowardly or political enough to do the deed. I've known a number of general and admirals. None of the ones I have known would think rebellion against Congress was lawful. None of them would resign. If necessary, they would implement Section 4 of Amendment XXV in cooperation with Congress and have the President declared unable to perform the duties of his office. I cannot imagine that the Vice President would not cooperate in these actions that would legally make him Acting President. The Vice President, of course, would have immediately been sworn in as President as soon as the Senate convicted and removed the President.