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: Jack Be Quick who wrote (31657)	2/2/1999 2:57:00 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

I am unacquainted with the source, who is more intemperate than I think is proper, but I also am not quite getting your point. Of course a number of people hoped that the investigations would come to more than this, since they believed that there was more to find. So?

To: Jack Be Quick who wrote (31657)	2/2/1999 3:06:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

The Rule of Law nytimes.com Meanwhile, just to annoy the Rule of Law bleaters and fans of Drudge, here's todays column from Anthony Lewis. He may be liberal, but he also has written respected books on constitutional matters. I think it's worth quoting in whole. The "Rule of Law" bleaters should note especially the bold part. From the beginning, Republicans leading the effort to drive President Clinton from office have spoken of the need to sustain the rule of law. But the concerns of law, and of the Constitution, have repeatedly been put aside for partisan ends. The latest example is the idea that the Senate adopt "findings of fact" about the President's behavior before it votes on the articles of impeachment. The "findings" would be, in one form of words or another, that the President lied and impeded justice. The idea has two great attractions for Republicans. Such findings, it is thought, would have more gravity -- and do more damage to Mr. Clinton -- than a censure resolution adopted after the Senate failed to convict on the impeachment articles. And, crucially, those who support the proposal say that only a simple majority instead of a two-thirds vote would be required. But the very attractiveness of the idea politically shows why it is offensive constitutionally. The gravity of what was at stake led the Framers of the Constitution to require a two-thirds vote of the Senate to convict a President. This is essentially an attempt to evade that requirement. George Will, the conservative commentator, gave the game away on the ABC television program "This Week." He spoke of a possible Senate resolution that "acknowledges, recognizes and accedes to the articles of impeachment." That would amount to the Senate convicting President Clinton without removing him from office. But the Constitution says the President "shall be removed from office" on impeachment and conviction. Virtually no student of the Constitution thinks it allows a two-stage Senate process. To try to get around the problem, some advocates of the idea that the Senate make findings of facts say they should not be phrased in legal terms. Senator Joseph Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, said he might be for a resolution if it did not "find guilt according to criminal law." But if it quacks like a duck, it will be a duck. I think Senator Lieberman will conclude, on reflection, that something labeled "findings" will sound like -- and be intended to sound like -- a judgment. There is another profound flaw in the proposal. It would have the Senate come to conclusions without the fairness of the legal fact-finding process. In court, facts are found on the basis of hard evidence, not the surmise and conjecture that figure so prominently in the House Republican managers' arguments for conviction. No legal trier of fact, jury or judge, could properly convict on the evidence presented in this case. In legal trials, moreover, the defendant has a full right to call evidence on his behalf. The President's lawyers could call witnesses now only at the risk of hurting their client -- and offending the Senate -- by delaying the ending. Conservatives are meant to have regard for history and for institutions. No doubt it is naïve of me, but I continue to be surprised at how little heed is paid to those interests by those who call themselves conservative today. The House Judiciary Committee, like other Congressional institutions, forbids partisan demonstrations at hearings. But Henry Hyde and his Republican colleagues gave a standing ovation to Kenneth Starr when he testified -- testimony so one-sided that Mr. Starr's own ethics adviser, Sam Dash, resigned in protest. After losing five seats in November's election, Republican leaders pushed impeachment through a lame-duck House. The second article, on obstruction of justice, passed by just 221 to 212, so the switch of those five seats would likely have meant its defeat in the new House. Partisanship overrode respect for the democratic process. In the Senate, despite talk of bipartisanship and concern for the institution, vote after vote has been overwhelmingly along partisan lines. My guess is that the same will happen when the Senate decides whether to show the videotape of Monica Lewinsky's deposition: anything to humiliate the President. The fact-finding idea is one more example of disregard for fundamentals. What it effectively says is, "But for the inconvenience of the Constitution's impeachment clause . . . "