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: Borzou Daragahi who wrote (25962)	1/5/1999 1:56:00 AM
From: Bob Lao-Tse	Respond to of 67261

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. Thank you for this fascinating observation that had completely escaped my notice. Since I believe that a vote on removal is the only constitutional option open to the Senate, this pleases me. I really don't care that much how the Senate votes, so long as they do. The thing that concerns me now (since a vote on removal does appear to be more of a certainty all the time, Trent Lott notwithstanding) is the notion of censure. I don't have any real problem with the concept of censuring him, it's just that this is a power that is not granted by the Constitution. I believe that the only option that the Senate has is to take a vote on removal. If it passes he is removed; if it doesn't he isn't. I've never really believed that impeachment or even subsequent removal are the really important issues here. The reason that an elected official who has been charged with a crime should potentially be removed from office is because they cannot be tried while they are in office. That is, to me, the real point. Regardless of what happens, once he leaves office , whether now or two years from now, Bill Clinton must go back into court to be tried for the crime of perjury. (Well, actually there'd be a grand jury first, etc., but you know what I mean.) It's not even important how that trial works out. If he gets off on a technicality, fine. If he proves that the Jones suit was invalid or unjust, fine. If he's convicted, fine. The important thing is that he must be tried. I've said all along that we cannot allow the precedent that anyone, for whatever reason, can violate the law without facing the consequences. The first important step (only because he's an elected official) was an impeachment trial regardless of the result. The current important step is a Senate vote on removal, again regardless of the result. And the final and most important step is that he go through the full legal process that anyone else who was accused of perjury go through. This is obviously an exceptional case, but the proper venue for arguing those exceptions is in a court of law. Thanks for the opportunity to digress a bit into a point that I've wanted to make for awhile. And just to repeat for the benefit of the "Clinton-hater" haters out there: I don't care how the Senate votes, so long as they vote, and I don't care how a trial works out so long as it happens. Once again, the impeachment process sucks the lifeblood out of substantive political debate in this country. I tend to agree with this statement, except that I haven't seen much in the way of substantive debate in this country in a long time. This episode strikes me as just the latest and one of the ugliest in a long history of partisan bickering and name-calling. A different digression: I started smoking at 17. I'm now 35, so that means I've smoked for more of my life than I haven't. I hate that realization, but I still haven't developed the wherewithal to make a serious effort at quitting yet. I admire and envy the strength you've shown, and wish you continued success. And I would like to say to everybody that I was very pleased to see the truly bipartisan support that everyone displayed on at least this one issue. Regards, Bob

To: Borzou Daragahi who wrote (25962)	1/5/1999 1:36:00 PM
From: sea_biscuit	Respond to of 67261

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. Perhaps. But the other angle to the story is that the liberal/moderate supporters might no longer be so sure that their Republican representative is really moderate and independent, as he/she claimed to be. It is a common perception that a lot of moderates had their arms twisted by the extreme right during the House vote on impeachment. Take Tom Campbell, for instance. His vote on impeachment strains his credibility, regardless of whether or not he gave up anything with regard to abortion or prayer in school.