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: Bob Lao-Tse who wrote (1156)	1/2/1999 6:05:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2390

OK, so what do you think should happen to the congresspeople (most importantly the member of the judiciary committee) that Larry Flynt exposes as having lied under oath in their divorce proceedings? The options I suppose would be 1) they stay in office, 2) they resign, 3) some sort of charges filed (not sure if that is possible). Apparently there is one person on the judiciary committee like this and a few others.

To: Bob Lao-Tse who wrote (1156)	1/2/1999 6:11:00 PM
From: jimpit	Respond to of 2390

BLT, You've done it again. Bravo! Thanks for an excellent post. jim

To: Bob Lao-Tse who wrote (1156)	1/2/1999 6:17:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2390

Bleat, bleat, Bob. On the much flogged perjury issue, remember, the House voted down perjury in the Jones deposition, so all that's left is insufficient cooperation with the Grand Inquisitor Starr. To repeat from the other forum, from Anthony Lewis: Mr. Clinton denied, famously, having had "sexual relations" with Ms. Lewinsky. The definition of that was so obscure that no jury was likely to convict him of perjury in his denial. And the House of Representatives evidently took the same view. It rejected the article of impeachment charging him with perjury in the deposition. Mr. Starr had another string for his bow. He called the President before a grand jury, where he was asked about his statements in the Jones deposition. Then Mr. Starr charged that Mr. Clinton's answers were false. Again, I doubt that a jury would have convicted Mr. Clinton of perjury. Millions of Americans saw the videotape of his grand jury appearance and most sympathized with him -- indeed, were outraged at what he was put through. . . . In truth, many House Republicans who cited perjury as their ground for impeachment had deeper reasons. They do not like this President. An unmistakable venom ran through the whole process. An astute foreign eye saw it clearly. Philip Stevens of The Financial Times wrote: "This was not about the sacred Constitution of the United States. It wasn't even honest politics. The impeachment of Bill Clinton was personal. It was an act of vengeance." Conservatives have hated Bill Clinton since the day he took office. Some conservative commentators, broadcast and print, seem obsessed by the man. Robert Livingston, before he gave up the Speaker's job, showed his distorting animus when he said: "Richard Nixon's crime was covering up a crime he did not commit. Clinton is covering up a crime he did commit." There are reasons for politicians, Democratic and Republican, to distrust Bill Clinton. He has not played straight with many of them. And the public has reason to have been offended at his false assurance that he had not had sexual relations with that woman. But those are not grounds for impeachment, or resignation, unless we are going to make the impeachment process a vote of no confidence and move toward a parliamentary system of government. In the end, I do not believe that the Senate or the public will want to reward hatred. I do not believe they will want our political fate to be decided by Linda Tripp, Lucianne Goldberg and Kenneth Starr. (from nytimes.com , emphasis from original) And to go back to an old post of yours, this whole thing is utterly mundane compared to Iran-contra. You say no elected officials were to blame there, except for Reagan, who didn't know what was going on? How about George "out of the loop" Bush? He sat in all the NSC meetings, he was a former CIA head, he was the expert in foreign policy. Indications are he knew exactly what was going on. Reagan sort of claimed to know what was going on at some point, but of course who knows what he knew when anymore? I wouldn't say Reagan or Bush should have been impeached. They were at least embarrassed by that affair, although the coverup and obstruction by participants there never ended. But for trust, honesty, ethics, morals, whatever, I can't see any big distinction, and that affair had much more to do with running the executive branch than this ongoing soap opera.

To: Bob Lao-Tse who wrote (1156)	1/3/1999 10:32:00 PM
From: the gator	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2390

If you think Starr, Hyde,,Nixon,North,Limbaugh,Chenowith,Livingston, Coats, Helms and many many many more all are all people of principle you have some serious problems. I wish I could examine your self-righteous, pious life I am sure I would find something you would lie about to protect your name and family. Bieng a recovering Catholic I know first hand of the cruelty and threats you self-righteous ones try to throw on everyone to get control of their thoughts, minds and deeds. Would a Livinston lie in court to keep his family from finding out if he knew or thought he could get away with it you bet. Instead he gets caught in a lie with his pants down and gets a standing ovation from the partisan phonies who crucified him for coming clean when he was caught. Sorry this cannot be reduced to your nice simplistic black and white legalism, this is a moral battle and the right is losing it. Enjoy and prosper the next two years under Bill Dow 11,000