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.

Pastimes : Impeachment=" Insult to all Voters" -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rose Rose who wrote (502)	12/21/1998 10:03:00 PM
From: Augustus Gloop	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2390

<<<BUT. If he DID commit perjury, then he should be prosecuted, because it's against the law, and my own personal opinion that it's not a big deal is irrelevant when placed against the judicial system>> Now that is fair. I can live with all your logic on this entire post.

To: Rose Rose who wrote (502)	12/21/1998 10:34:00 PM
From: Gersh Avery	Respond to of 2390

Rose .. I saw BC state on that video tape deposition to the grand jury, that he did not even touch Monica. The prudent thing for him to have done was to claim the fifth. He didn't because that would have looked bad. As a lawyer, he knows how hard it is to prove perjury. Because it is so hard to prove it was more important to him, at the time, to avoid looking bad than to fear misleading the court system. For starters.. he should be disbarred. Gersh

To: Rose Rose who wrote (502)	12/21/1998 10:55:00 PM
From: jimpit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2390

<"...So, in short, yes Clinton should be prosecuted and yes Clinton should be punished. But impeachment was never intended as a punishment, and impeachment will only hurt our country, and therefore I am against it."> So, please correct me if I'm not interpreting you correctly, but: Are you saying that it's better for the nation to have a person who has committed multiple felonies, while in office, remain as president... rather than remove him/her from office ?

To: Rose Rose who wrote (502)	12/22/1998 1:36:00 AM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 2390

'Tis said that true intelligence is the ability to hold two conflicting ideas in one's mine simultaneously and still be able to function. I will try not to misinterpret what you said. But where we disagree is whether impeachment is the right remedy for perjury, assuming that the trial in the Senate shows that he did indeed commit perjury in front of the grand jury. Is prosecution enough? If he were not the chief judicial officer of the nation, it would be. But he is charged with enforcing the laws. It is a position of enormous trust, and of leadership by example. If he can violate the laws for personal gain, or to avoid embarrassment, how can he be a moral (not in the sexual sense, not in the "moral majority" sense, but in the plain, simple, ethical sense our parents used when they used the word) leader of the country and enforcer of its laws. I think this is precisely what impeachment IS for; to say to him, if you cannot obey the laws yourself, you cannot enforce them on others. And I think it will be not a bad but a good thing for our country to see that the laws reach all, including the most powerful; that our nation is truly a nation of law, and that we will enforce that law. I think on the contrary that leaving him in place will be a terrible thing for our country, showing that the high and mighty are not judged by the same standard as the "ordinary" person is. If it takes a village, it also takes village headmen and headwomen who set the right example, who lead by what they do. If we don't practice what we teach, we are teaching something else.