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 : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: halfscot who wrote (9789)	12/29/1998 5:47:00 PM
From: Big D	Respond to of 13994

"THE FOUNDING FATHERS" WOULD HAVE PREVENTED EL DUMMO CLINTO FROM BEING ELECTO TO THE PRIMO OFFICIO. HE WOULD HAVE BEEN TARRED-O AND FEATHERED-O RIDDEN OUT ON A RAILO.

To: halfscot who wrote (9789)	12/29/1998 5:56:00 PM
From: j g cordes	Respond to of 13994

I enjoyed reading your post and agree that we need to look to the time period and original intent. Thanks for bringing Snow's work into focus. One might also look into the popular fiction of and preceeding the Constitutional period.

To: halfscot who wrote (9789)	12/29/1998 7:06:00 PM
From: j g cordes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Actually Snow's point on "malfeasance" is addressed in the impeachment defense citing Justice Story's comments (highlighted): "2. The Framers Believed that Impeachment Redresses Wrongful Public Conduct The remedy of impeachment was designed only for those very grave harms not otherwise politically redressable. As James Wilson wrote, "our President . . . is amenable to [the laws] in his private character as a citizen, and in his public character by impeachment."45/ That is why Justice Story described the harms to be reached by impeachment as those "offensive acts which do not properly belong to the judicial character in the ordinary administration of justice, and are far removed from the reach of municipal jurisprudence."46/ For these reasons, impeachment is limited to certain forms of potential wrongdoing only, and it is intended to redress only certain kinds of harms. Again, in Hamilton's words: the subjects of [the Senate's impeachment] jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse of violation of some public trust.They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done to the society itself.47/ Early commentators on the Constitution are in accord on the question of impeachment's intended purpose. In Justice James Wilson's words, impeachments are "proceedings of a political nature . . . confined to political characters" charging only "political crimes and misdemeanors" and culminating only in "political punishments." 48/ And as Justice Story put the matter, "the [impeachment] power partakes of a political character, as it respects injuries to the society in its political character."49/ In short, impeachment was not thought to be a remedy for private wrongs -- or even for most public wrongs. Rather, the Framers "intended that a president be removable from office for the commission of great offenses against the Constitution."50/ Impeachment therefore addresses public wrongdoing, whether denominated a "political crime[ ] against the state,"51/ or "an act of malfeasance or abuse of office,"52/ or a "great offense[ ] against the federal government."53/ Ordinary civil and criminal wrongs can be addressed through ordinary judicial processes. And ordinary political wrongs can beaddressed at the ballot box and by public opinion. Impeachment is reserved for the most serious public misconduct, those aggravated abuses of executive power that, given the President's four-year term, might otherwise go unchecked. whitehouse.gov

To: halfscot who wrote (9789)	12/30/1998 9:43:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 13994

Clinton, Democrats perfect politics of hate Doug Mills / Associated Press President Bill Clinton on Dec. 18 called for an end to the "politics of personal destruction." WASHINGTON It takes Olympian shamelessness to send private detectives after your enemies, use the artifice of law to hoodwink your friends, sew seeds of hatred everywhere - and then beg, as Bill Clinton did on Dec. 18, to "stop the politics of personal destruction ... (and) get rid of the poisonous venom of excessive partisanship, obsessive animosity and uncontrolled anger. ..." President Clinton is the undisputed master of practicing everything he condemns, whether it be the glib abuse of power in Iraq or the reduction of women to carnal playthings. But nowhere has he explored the possibilities of cynicism more fully than in his recent quest to portray Republicans as foaming vessels of hatred and himself as the saintly target of their rage. Rush Limbaugh, who has taken shots at Clinton and felt the heat of returning fire, recently compiled a long litany of Democratic Party quotes. It made for riveting listening because it confirmed what many conservatives have long known: The Democratic Party has become hooked on political libel. At the heart of the trend lies a debate of central importance - the argument over whether government dispenses compassion or oppression, and who best preserves the values that have defined and blessed America for the past two centuries, federal agencies or individual citizens. Conservatives have warned against undue concentrations of government power, cautioning that even the most benign ruler will become a despot if given the opportunity. They have claimed that many of liberalism's proudest monuments were in fact costly frauds: Welfare didn't work. Clean-needle programs didn't work. "Save the Children" schemes didn't work. Economic pump-priming didn't work. Medicare and Medicaid were making workers pay the high price of false promises. Social Security was primed for disaster. These are formidable arguments. But Democratic elders have chosen to fight back not with facts or ideas, but calumny. A few examples will give you a flavor of things: Congress debated a minor change in the school-lunch program three years ago - a change that would reduce federal authority over kids' meals while allocating more money for food. Rep. Lynn Woolsey of California accused the GOP of "starving children." House Minority Richard Gephardt warned that "the Republicans are taking food out of the mouths of millions of needy and middle-class children." Rep. John Lewis of Georgia took the most incendiary approach, claiming: "They're coming for our children. They're coming for the poor. They're coming for the sick, the elderly and the disabled." In similar fashion, the White House led a charge against the Contract with America, accusing the enterprise of being "mean-spirited" and "extreme." In one floor debate, Rep. Pat Schroeder of Colorado, Gephardt and four others used the phrases with almost robotic frequency. The 1995-96 debate about Medicare offers an even more dramatic view of the hate-thy-neighbor approach to politics. The White House and the GOP produced very similar plans for keeping the program afloat. Nevertheless, the president and his party portrayed the minor discrepancies as crimes against humanity. Jerrold Nadler of New York called the plan "Draconian, mean-spirited and immoral." Rep. Luis Gutierrez of Illinois complained, "Once again, they're playing Robin Hood in reverse: taking from the poor to give to the rich." Rosa DeLauro warned, "our children are being left the crumbs of the Gingrich Revolution." Or think about the Thompson committee's hearings into the systematic fleecing of Asian Americans by the Democratic Party. Rather than disputing facts, Team Clinton actually accused the Republicans of being anti-Asian! So now comes the president, depicting the GOP as driven by blind hatred during the recent debate on his impeachment. This insult has in it the stuff of the old blood libel against Jews. It depicts others as animals animated by rage rather than reason and hints that all's fair in fighting such an enemy. The White House has even tried to exploit wounds it says it wants to heal. It has incited ill will among African Americans, for instance, by accusing the Republicans of racism in L'Affaire Lewinsky. Such attacks are irrational, unanswerable - and, therefore, highly effective in inflaming suspicions. Let's be clear: Hatred is and always has been the weapon of first resort for Bill Clinton and his minions. One can review the cases of Paula Jones, Travel Office director Billy Dale, Monica Lewinsky and others without seeing a single disputation of fact - only smears. The recent Republican attempts to hold the president accountable for his behavior are not signs of "obsession" or moral putrefaction. Independent Counsel Ken Starr and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde are not psychos. What's sick is the fact that this administration, having turned the language of morals upside-down, now has the temerity to insist that Republicans - who in their worst days don't issue the kind of imprecations Democrats now utter as a matter of course - are responsible for the ugly atmosphere in Washington today. detnews.com