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: Peter O'Brien who wrote (28253)	1/15/1999 6:29:00 PM
From: sea_biscuit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Just because Clinton may have been unfairly attacked in the past doesn't automatically* mean he is innocent of all charges against him... That logic is simply absurd!* Nope. The fact that Clinton has been unfairly attacked in the past only means that those who didn't complain then have no grounds whatsoever to whine now about the Hydes and the Barrs of the world coming under similar attacks. Just because somebody (like me) is critical of Clinton regarding these impeachment charges doesn't automatically mean that they must also be a religious-right Christian conservative.. That, too, is simply absurd! Nope. The fact that the vast majority of the lay people in this country (at one end of the "knowledge spectrum") and 900 constitutional scholars (at the other end of the spectrum) regard that the allegations, even if proven true, are not worthy of impeachment, means that people like you have nobody for company other than those religious right-wing nuts who wanted Clinton to be impeached the moment he became President.

To: Peter O'Brien who wrote (28253)	1/15/1999 6:38:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Go wax sanctimonious with Rev. Pilch if you want. I don't pretend to be a lawyer. I think a vote to acquit is defensible on the "what is an impeachable offense" question. I wouldn't say that's an absolutely correct position, but neither is it clearly wrong. Beyond that question, the legalities would mean something in a criminal court, where they may or may not end up. Before the Senate, it's a matter of politics as well as law, and all the bleating in the world won't change that. As is, the farcical aspects of the current proceedings are perfectly consistent with Presidential impeachment precedent.