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: Harvey Allen who wrote (27920)	1/14/1999 2:30:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Sensenbrenner's an old warhorse Cheesehead, from an ultra safe Republican district in suburban Milwaukee. Gets 90% of the vote against token opposition, typically. Maybe that's why Hyde put him up there. There was a whiff of scandal about him many years back, something to do with a fire in DC. He's way up there in seniority but not know as any kind of bright light/ mover and shaker. Not very good at bringing home pork either, but that's a universal failing of Wisconsin politicians. Only state in the country without a major federal military base / institution of some kind.

To: Harvey Allen who wrote (27920)	1/14/1999 3:47:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Historic Impeachment Trial Opens nytimes.com On Sensenbrenner, this came across the wire: Rejecting White House arguments that the offenses did not meet the constitutional standards for removing a president, Sensenbrenner noted that the Founding Fathers explicitly considered bribery as an impeachable offense and that perjury carries an identical penalty under statutes. ''Perjury is the twin brother of bribery. ... It follows that perjury ... be considered among the high crimes and misdemeanors the framers intended to be grounds for impeachment,'' he argued. Well, that's one way to look at it, I guess. I don't know what that would say about what the Chief Justice said during his confirmation hearings, maybe Senate testimony doesn't count. Then there's the convolution factor, where the articles talk about perjury in not confessing to the Grand Inquisitor about the Paula Jones deposition, not the Paula Jones deposition itself. Who can say? Personally, I think the Founding Fathers might find the whole thing mordantly amusing too, the press was supposed to have been pretty rough and tumble in those days.