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: Bob Lao-Tse who wrote (25582)	1/2/1999 11:10:00 AM
From: Rose Rose	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

>>I believe that the precedent that would be established by his removal could not possibly harm this nation. The worst case scenario would be that, in the future, the President (and maybe any elected official) could be booted out of office for even bending the law.<< It most certainly could, and would, harm this nation. I consider this a rather academic debate, since I don't believe there's any chance Clinton will actually be removed, but nevertheless... If Clinton is removed, then precedent will show that it is OKAY for a group of partisan extremists to carry out a personal vendetta against a President; that it is OKAY to use means of dubious legality to pursue this vendetta; that it is OKAY to put the matter into the hands of an OBVIOUSLY partisan figure (i.e. Starr)...etc etc etc. Future Presidents will have every aspect of their lives carefully examined under a microscope, and we will be subjected to yet more information that the majority of us do not want to know (I know that I would have been quite happy to never have known the details of Clinton's relationship with Lewinsky). The charges against Clinton are so vague and unsubstantiated (love the wording "one or more"...WHICH one? and where's the proof?) that the precedent we would be setting is that a duly elected President of this country can be impeached on what amounts to little more than hearsay. Now a question for all you Reagan-lovers out there...would you be as supportive of this impeachment process if we went back in time and it was Reagan who was under scrutiny? I know, I know, you all love to say that it doesn't matter that Reagan lied because he didn't lie under oath, but of course if he'd been put through the same process as Clinton, he most likely WOULD have lied. But we don't KNOW that he would have lied (just as we don't KNOW that Clinton lied under oath), so my question is...would you have been supportive had the Democrats spent $40 million for a liberal special prosecutor to interrogate every aspect of Reagan's life, and would you have been supportive if the liberals had been constantly and publicly labeling Reagan a murderer for his part in Iran-Contra? Or would you have called the entire thing a "partisan witch-hunt"? Rose

To: Bob Lao-Tse who wrote (25582)	1/5/1999 12:39:00 AM
From: Borzou Daragahi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Bob, I agree that the Republicans must tread very carefully, and I question the ability of many of them to do so. I thought they had learned something after getting their butts kicked over the shutdown of a few years back, but... You know what's interesting to watch is how Clinton has given Republican moderates, who fear the wrath of the Republican-Christian base, something easy to latch onto. By taking a hard stance in favor of a full Senate trial and a vote on removal, Republican moderates can shore up their rightwing base without having to give anything on issues such as abortion or prayer in school, which would alienate their liberal/moderate supporters. Once again, the impeachment process sucks the lifeblood out of substantive political debate in this country. Thanks for the encouragement on quitting smoking. I'm on day 4 without a smoke. I guess I thought I smoking was kinda cool when I was 22. But I'll be turning 30 on Saturday. I don't want to be a smoker into middle age.