SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Bob Lao-Tse who wrote (25576)1/2/1999 4:11:00 AM
From: Borzou Daragahi  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 67261
 
Can't get to sleep because I've quit smoking. Day 1. Wish me luck! I'll take moral support from anyone, regardless of their political opinions.

As to your question, the Senate probably can try to do anything it wants. That doesn't mean that members can't object, i.e. appeal to Chief Justice William Rehnquist for a ruling. If, say, the Democrats object to the Republicans wanting to bring up certain matters, they can take it up with Rehnquist. Let's say that Rehnquist rules that certain matters cannot be brought up. A simple majority is all that's required to overrule his decision.

But voting to overrule Rehnquist won't be completely without cost, IMO. If, say, the Republicans overrule Rehnquist's decision not to allow certain matters to be weighed in as evidence, they risk looking as though they're trampling over Rehnquist's judicial wisdom in a vengeful partisan drive to get the president. That would not be politically astute, IMO.

What will be interesting is how moderate Republican Senators and especially those with presidential aspirations will behave, i.e. whether they'll want to be perceived as part of the GOP's Clinton-hating crowd. There's no guarantee that John McCain, for example, won't vote with the Democrats on certain issues. Smart candidates have always been deferential and respectful of popular past presidents of other parties. Look at all the cowtowing among presidential aspirants of both parties to JFK and Truman. Another example: Clinton's refusal in 1992 to disrespect the Reagan legacy. Abroad we saw this especially with Gerhard Schroeder, who campaigned as a successor to Helmut Kohl, and Tony Blair, who was downright cordial with respect to Margaret Thatcher.

A lot of Republicans and some Democrats say that voters won't remember this issue come 2000, and instead will focus on bread-and-butter issues like social security and healthcare. I think that is downright wrong, in one major respect. Much of American politics is based on imagery and emotion. The electorate may not explicitly decide to vote against the Republicans because they pursued the impeachment debacle. But they very well might associate the Republicans with the ugliness of the impeachment on the level of popular culture. That will hurt any potential Republican presidential aspirant who doesn't stand above the fray in this matter.



To: Bob Lao-Tse who wrote (25576)1/2/1999 4:33:00 AM
From: Borzou Daragahi  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 67261
 
The full text of the impeachment resolution appears at the end of this rambling note. IMO, the perjury charge is weak, basically accusing Clinton of failing to confess that he committed perjury in the Paula Jones deposition. No big deal at all, in itself. It's downright stupid of the Republicans to pursue this one, and even Starr and Schippers never alleged Clinton committed perjury but rather providing false statements to the Grand Jury.

Based on everything I've heard, some of the obstruction allegations are also weak, based on conflicting testimony. The obstruction charge definitely needs to be fleshed out if the Republicans want a more solid case. That one, much more than the perjury charge, could definitely stick--but only after intensive cross examination of the witnesses.

The allegation that Clinton tried to get Lewinsky a job in exchange for her silence (Article 3, Sec. 4), even if true, is particularly weak, IMO. Clinton was trying to get her a job before the whole thing hit. That he redoubled his efforts after she was named as a witness in the Paula Jones trial only shows that he was a man trying to get someone he had an affair with to shut up about it. Yes, despicable behavior. But was he trying to subvert the constitution or protect his family from his own stupidity? Note that Clinton didn't use his vast presidential powers to get her a job--he didn't call up William Cohen or some other government figure. Instead he used his personal secretary, and a non-government friend, to get her a job in the private sector. Something any adulterous man might do.

Anyone's thoughts on these matters and any comments on the merits of the articles themselves would be appreciated and welcomed.

Regards

Article I

In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of justice, in that:

On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before a Federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following: (1) the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee;(2) prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a Federal civil rights action brought against him; (3) prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil rights action; and (4) his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action.

In doing this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.

Article III

In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that end engaged
personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to a Federal civil rights action brought against him in a duly instituted judicial proceeding.

The means used to implement this course of conduct or scheme included one or more of the following acts:

(1) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to execute a sworn affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false and misleading.

(2) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to give perjurious, false and misleading testimony if and when called to testify personally in that proceeding.

(3) On or about December 28, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly engaged in, encouraged, or supported a scheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in a Federal civil rights action brought against him.

(4) Beginning on or about December 7, 1997, and continuing through and including January 14, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton intensified and succeeded in an effort to secure job assistance to a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him in order to corruptly prevent the truthful testimony of that witness in that proceeding at a time when the truthful testimony of that witness would have been harmful to him.

(5) On January 17, 1998, at his deposition in a Federal civil rights action brought against him, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly allowed his attorney to make false and misleading statements to a Federal judge characterizing an affidavit, in order to prevent questioning deemed relevant by the judge. Such false and misleading statements were subsequently acknowledged by his attorney in a communication to that judge.

(6) On or about January 18 and January 20-21, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton related a false and misleading account of events relevant to a Federal civil rights action brought against him to a potential witness in that proceeding, in order to corruptly influence the testimony of that witness.

(7) On or about January 21, 23 and 26, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton made false and misleading statements to potential witnesses in a Federal grand jury proceeding in order to corruptly influence the testimony of those witnesses. The false and misleading statements made by William Jefferson Clinton were repeated by the witnesses to the grand jury, causing the grand jury to receive false and misleading information.

In all of this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.