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: Catfish who wrote (9799)	12/30/1998 10:12:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

>>."keep repeating the lies until it replaces the truth." This disinformation (lies) campaign started during Clinton's first run for president......especially during the debate with Bush......and, it has now become standard operating procedure.> Heck, that's the reason for Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr's existence. He's the keeper of the Kennedy lies, just as his father was for FDR. They were salaried court historians in effect, i.e., hagiographers for rent. Not that Jr isn't an extreme Leftist too. Why there will be no censure: December 30, 1998 Censure Would Prolong The Ugliness By Mike DeWine, a Republican and U.S. senator from Ohio. A growing chorus implores the Senate to take the easy way out: Censure the president and spare the country the "agony" of an impeachment trial. I will not be a part of any such maneuver. The Senate should either convict or acquit the president--nothing else. The framers of the Constitution granted the Senate a singular power over the president: "removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honour, trust or profit, under the United States." Both the Constitution itself (the offender would "nevertheless, be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment according to law") and the historical record demonstrate that the Framers intended that any other punishment would be meted out not by the Senate but by the courts "in the ordinary course of the law" (Federalist No. 65). And this is wise. To allow Congress to censure, fine or otherwise punish a president would dramatically alter the balance of power between the president and Congress, and significantly weaken the institution of the presidency. The Framers also required a trial in the Senate if a president is impeached in the House. In an impeachment proceeding senators take a special oath and sit not as a legislative body but as a jury. The jury model appropriated by the Framers long has been recognized as bestowing civic benefits that extend far beyond its capacity to reach the truth. A trial announces not simply that a verdict has been reached, but vests that verdict in the legitimacy that comes from the scrupulous adherence to pre-ordained procedures and formalities. Whether worked out with the president and his attorneys or negotiated just among individual senators, a censure resolution is simply a deal. Whereas a trial follows established rules and precedents, in a deal the participants make the rules up as they go. Neither side gets to present its case. There is no pretense of impartial decision making. It is simply a piece of political craftsmanship. And while logrolling and favor-trading has its place in the crafting of legislation, I do not believe that this is the proper manner to dispose of duly enacted articles of impeachment. If a censure deal is adopted, the deep wounds opened in this country by impeachment will remain unhealed. The president's defenders will continue to view the House impeachment vote as a naked exercise of partisan political power, but will forever lack the historical recompense of a Senate acquittal. Those who wish to remove the president will forever be denied the opportunity to have their case heard by the Senate. Denied the closure provided by the constitutional process, I fear that censure will not end, but rather prolong the civic ugliness in which we are mired. I have seen first-hand the costs of avoiding a trial on a contentious issue. One of my lasting regrets about the time I served as a county prosecutor was allowing a plea bargain in a case that had deeply divided our community. While I believe the result was just, the lack of a trial was detrimental to the community. Both sides were dissatisfied with the result, and remained divided for years. A trial would have provided closure, and cloaked the result in a legitimacy that even the fairest plea agreement could not. I also deeply disagree with those who argue for censure on the basis that a trial would be too much of a distraction for the Senate and the nation. To say the Senate does not have time to carry out its constitutional duty is to suggest that we rewrite the Constitution. History will pay little attention to how long the Senate spends on this matter. (Who remembers how long the Andrew Johnson impeachment trial took?) What it will judge us on is the fairness of the proceedings, and the condition in which we leave our constitutional framework. In my view there are only three permissible outcomes: (1) 51 Senators may vote to dismiss the case at any point, the most logical time being after the House managers have presented their case; (2) acquittal; or (3) conviction and removal from office. That is all. Under no circumstances will I vote to censure the president. The Senate's role is not to punish to president, it is not to force the president to take responsibility for his actions, and it is not to force him to recite some public act of contrition. The Senate's role is simply to decide whether he is fit to remain in office. It should do so quickly and move on. interactive.wsj.com Censure was an extra-constitutional diversion by Clinton defenders, nothing more. Republicans will oppose it for that principled reason and Dems will not support it after its raison d'etre has vanished. It is sad to see Moynihan go out taking the low road to sophistry. I guess they have his FBI file too.