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 (29458)	1/23/1999 10:46:00 PM
From: Harvey Allen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Letter Saturday from Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, to Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist regarding a federal district judge's ruling on interviewing Monica Lewinsky: Dear Mr. Chief Justice: I am writing you on a matter of significant constitutional consequence. I ask you, as presiding officer of this Court of Impeachment, to issue an order in protection of this court's ''sole power to try impeachment'' to prohibit any questioning by or on behalf of the House Managers of any witness pursuant to the January 23, 1999, order of the District Court Judge Norma Holloway Johnson. Such questioning would violate the Senate's sole authority under Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution to try impeachments and would be a clear violation of the procedures adopted unanimously by this Senate for the conduct of this trial. It is up to the Senate, not the Independent Counsel or any Article III district judge, to determine the procedures under which the House Managers or White House Counsel may interview witnesses. In support of my request, I cite the Supreme Court's opinion in U.S. v. Nixon, wherein the Supreme Court held, and I quote: ''The first sentence in Article I, Section 3 is a grant of authority to the Senate, and the word 'sole' indicates that this authority is reposed in the Senate and nowhere else. ...Judicial involvement in impeachment proceedings, even if only for purposes of judicial review, is counterintuitive because it would eviscerate the 'important constitutional check' placed on the Judiciary by the Framers.'' As the Independent Counsel may be interviewing Ms. Lewinsky as early as tomorrow morning, I ask that you give prompt consideration of this matter. Thank you for your consideration of my request. Sincerely, Tom Harkin United States Senator

To: Harvey Allen who wrote (29458)	1/24/1999 3:23:00 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

“A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” -Hamilton “I believe [Clinton] has weakened the already fragile public trust that has been placed in his care.” -Sen. Byrd (as he announced his plan to move for dismissal) Well here we see Sen. Byrd has supported a principled argument for the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Those who believe similarly to Byrd may possibly claim it inappropriate to remove the President, but they certainly cannot claim no basis exists for having impeached him. Those who agree that Clinton has violated some public trust must concede that a principled basis exists for impeaching him because the very subjects of an impeachment court's jurisdiction are offenses that amount to abuses or violations of public trust. While the President's defenders brutally assailed them, the Republican house members have (ostensibly understanding what by Constitutional principle must occur when public trust is violated) remained determined to bring Clinton's political crimes to trial. Now that the crimes have been brought to trial, the charges are now being judged by the organ that by law has proper jurisdiction over them. The demands of principle have thus far been fulfilled, this, by none other than members of the Republican Party. This is the Republican Party's finest hour, and Republicans everywhere should be quite proud their representatives have so relentlessly pulled toward principle while dragging the heavy burden of an unprincipled nation, the head of which is a most dishonorable Democrat and his picayune gallery of fruits and nuts. I literally did not think it possible that in my lifetime I could ever witness such a wonderful phenomenon. I am no Republican, but I am having several letters drafted and sent to each of the Republican House members congratulating them on their glorious stand in this war. I encourage each of you who respect principle to do the same.

To: Harvey Allen who wrote (29458)	1/25/1999 4:54:00 PM
From: sea_biscuit	Respond to of 67261

Senator Byrd comes out as the only dignified person among the myriads of politicians, pundits, media people and sundry other talking heads that are involved in this issue. It is clear that Senator Byrd doesn't like President Clinton's actions and he has expressed his opinions about Clinton in no uncertain terms. Yet, he doesn't allow his personal dislike of the President drive him to an action that is increasingly dividing the people of this country and dragging the legislative bodies through months and months of muck. In the past, I have expressed the view that Senator Byrd lives in the past, and sadly that seems to be true. The GOP is no longer the party of Lincoln and other such stalwarts. Instead, it has become the party of thugs and moral midgets. In my opinion, Clinton had no option but to hold that post-impeachment "pep rally". I know that Byrd doesn't agree with that idea. Senator Byrd has rightly placed the people and the nation above his personal opinions. A truly remarkable thing to do these days... Hats off to Senator Byrd!