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: jlallen who wrote (28286)	1/15/1999 9:26:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

Statements of the Obvious nytimes.com Since you're into being the high priest of sanctimony tonight JLA, in addition to your usual stream of 1-line insults, I dedicate this to you. I'm sure you're always willing to engage in friendly debate with people who agree with you that Clinton is the antichrist. Have fun with Rev. Pilch in the pompous Pharisee preaching section for the next two years, I doubt it will do the Republican party much good, but who can say? Maybe everybody will grow fond of being called stupid idiots over time. The most striking thing about the House managers' recitation of evidence against President Clinton was its redundancy. We know Mr. Clinton lied with persistence. We know he coached others to cover up for him. We know that he failed, through careful planning and steady irresponsibility, in his constitutional duty to see that the laws were faithfully enforced. We have long known, as Representative James Sensenbrenner pointed out in his opening statement, that William Jefferson Clinton is a terrible example for youth, as well as for adults involved in legal proceedings. What we did not hear was any new information or convincing arguments that went to the core issue before the 100 senators sitting as jurors. Is the scale of Mr. Clinton's offenses sufficient to remove him from office and put the Republic through the trauma of disrupting the electoral rhythm that has made the American Government a model of stability? The House prosecutors established in meticulous detail that Mr. Clinton is a weak man. Their announced plan is to address constitutional questions after reviewing the evidence. Even so, they were unable to foreshadow a compelling reason for the Senate to disrupt the quadrennial schedule for the transfer of Presidential power. In other words, the House team acted as if it were the facts that were mainly in dispute instead of the interpretation of the constitutional standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors." Only the White House lawyers seriously dispute the facts, and that they do at Mr. Clinton's peril. In effectively presenting the obstruction-of-justice case, Representative Asa Hutchinson demonstrated that Mr. Clinton's lawyers have to be careful about focusing on the facts and arguing the law. That strategy backfired in the House and will again in the Senate. With regard to lying under oath, and particularly obstruction, the facts are dangerous for Mr. Clinton. His defenders need to help the Senate focus on the key question of the scale of the punishment that Mr. Clinton has earned. To justify removal, the prosecutors have to show some fundamental harm to the security interests or stability of the state or some attempt to undermine the Constitution. What they have recited so far is evidence demanding a firm but lesser punishment appropriate to an elected official who has failed in his duty and has probably violated Federal statutes, but has not done irreversible damage to the Government. Yesterday's presentations also produced no revelations that seem to require the calling of witnesses for public testimony. Indeed, the House members' claim that the evidence is clear and well documented undercuts their own argument that witnesses are necessary. The prosecutors brought forth no questions that, if answered in a way unfavorable to Mr. Clinton in live testimony, would tilt the balance toward removal. But there is an important unanswered procedural question about witnesses. The Senate majority leader, Trent Lott, has failed so far to appoint the four-member bipartisan panel that is supposed to deal with the witness issue. Appointment of such a panel was part of the agreement negotiated by Democrats and Republicans last week. Instead Mr. Lott has improperly authorized a few Republican senators to meet secretly with the House prosecutors to discuss criteria for witnesses. Those clandestine discussions should stop. A joint panel is needed to stand up to the demand for witnesses to engage in the pointless exercise of repeating what we already know. By Saturday, the reciters of the evidentiary record will give way to a trio of House members who are supposed to focus on the constitutional case for removal. The three, Representatives Charles Canady, Steve Buyer and Lindsey Graham, will have a hard time showing that the facts described yesterday warrant defying the public will and expanding the constitutional definition of high crimes and misdemeanors. Personally, I wouldn't prejudge the legal defense, "innocent till proven guilty" still holds in a court of law, and there's always the DC jury question, eh? The House chose to go with the convoluted perjury in denying perjury charge, which may be hard for mere mortals jurors to fathom. Politically, just keep telling us all what idiots we are, it's an endearing trait.