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: Ish who wrote (31960)	2/3/1999 6:52:00 PM
From: Harvey Allen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Don't Tinker With Impeachment By Robert C. Byrd Wednesday, February 3, 1999; Page A17 While the lawyers are busy deposing witnesses in the Senate impeachment trial of the president, a number of senators are continuing to work quietly behind the scenes to chart a course that will end the trial with a minimum of political carnage. One route currently being investigated is a so-called "findings of fact," an extravagant novelty by which a simple majority of the Senate could condemn the president's behavior within the framework of the impeachment process without being forced to remove him from office. This convict-but-don't-evict strategy appeals to some senators who have no appetite for prolonging a trial whose outcome is all but certain. At the same time, they are squeamish about the likelihood of an all-but-inevitable acquittal without having some vehicle to first register their condemnation of the president's actions. No doubt their motives are sincere, and I applaud their ingenuity, but this findings-of-fact proposal is not the answer. While the Senate sits in the impeachment trial, it is not in legislative session. The insertion of such a legislative mutant into the impeachment proceedings would subject the process to some very experimental genetic engineering. The notion of trumping the articles of impeachment with even a "broad" findings of fact flies in the face of what the Framers of the Constitution intended. They deliberately set the bar high when it came to the vote on articles of impeachment, first by requiring a supermajority of two-thirds of the Senate to convict, and second, by fusing the penalty -- removal from office -- into the question of guilt. In voting on articles of impeachment, senators must answer not one but two questions: Is the president guilty or not guilty of committing high crimes and misdemeanors, and, if he is guilty, do his actions warrant removal from office? This was not a casual coupling on the part of the Framers. Their intent was to force senators to set aside their own passions and prejudices and focus instead on the best interests of the nation. To lift this burden from the shoulders of senators by offering them a way to convict the president without having to accept responsibility for removing him from office would, in effect, bastardize the impeachment process. Moreover, the aftershocks would be felt long after this impeachment has faded into history. No longer would senators be confined to the articles of impeachment formulated by the House of Representatives. No longer would senators need a two-thirds majority vote to pronounce a president guilty. From this time forward, they could cite the precedent set by the Senate in the 106th Congress as giving them carte blanche to write, and approve by a simple majority, ersatz articles of impeachment cloaked as "findings of fact." And why stop at findings of fact? If the Senate can ignore the intent of the Framers to combine a guilty verdict with removal from office in an impeachment trial, maybe senators can find a way around the constitutional prohibition against bills of attainder, or legislative punishments. The Senate impeachment trial takes place in a quasi-judicial setting, and findings of fact would move the Senate headlong into an area reserved for the judicial system, where the Senate, under the separation of powers principle, dares not go. Findings of fact would become part of a quasi-judicial record that could not subsequently be amended or overturned. Could such a record of findings of fact be later used by an independent counsel before a federal grand jury in an effort to secure an indictment? If this or any president were to be indicted, could such findings be introduced as evidence in a subsequent trial in an effort to sway a jury and bring about a conviction? Who knows what monsters this rogue gene might spawn in future days? The impeachment process, as messy and uncomfortable as it may be, is working as designed. This is neither the time nor the place for constitutional improvisation. No matter how sincere the motivation, our nation and our Constitution will not be well served by this sort of seat-of-the-pants tinkering. A post-trial censure resolution that does not cross the line into legislative punishment is something else. It can and should be considered by the Senate after the court of impeachment has adjourned sine die. Censure is not meaningless, it will not subvert the Constitution, and it will be indelibly seared into the ineffaceable record of history for all future generations to see and to ponder. For those who fear that it can be expunged from the record, be assured that it can never be erased from the history books. Like the mark that was set upon Cain, it will follow even beyond the grave. The writer is a Democratic senator from West Virginia. © Copyright 1999 The Washington Post Company washingtonpost.com

To: Ish who wrote (31960)	2/4/1999 10:19:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Right, Ish. I've been saying "Jane Doe 5" because I was unsure of the spelling. You're correct, though. Juanita Broaddrick. Mercifully, people here have quieted down a bit about that particular Drudge "story of the year" after Robert Barry pointed out her affidavit, which can be viewed at shamema.com . I will append the full text at the end, since you seem to have a problem with URLs. I have to compliment you on you well honed sense of irony, though, following up the Jane Doe business with "Also the Miss America that fled to Canada because of Clinton's threats." You wouldn't care to substantiate that one, would you? Put a name behind that "Miss America"? There aren't that many of them, you know. Is this going to be like your Jim McDougal story, where first Clinton had him offed in Arkansas prison, then had him offed in federal prison (where Starr had put him), because of this secret book he was working on that was going to blow Clinton out of the water? The book that actually got published, to no apparent effect, because, well, poor Jim was dead, so he couldn't verify any of it for Starr? 1. My name is Jane Doe #5. I am 55 years old and have been married since 1981. I have one child, age 28. I currently reside in Arkansas. 2. In November of 1997, two private investigators retained by Paula Corbin Jones approachedme at my residence. I declined to speak with them, but provided the name of my family attorney.I subsequently was served with a subpoena seeking the production of documents and purporting to require my testimony at a deposition in the civil action between Paula Corbin Jones and President William Jefferson Clinton (Civil Action No. LR-C-94-290). I have never met Ms. Jones, nor do I have any information regarding the allegations that she has advanced against President Clinton. In this regard, I have no knowledge or information regarding the events she has alleged occurred on May 8, 1991 at the Excelsior Hotel or, for that matter, any knowledge or information regarding any interaction between herself and Mr. Clinton. 3. I met President Clinton more than twenty years ago through family friends. Our introduction was not arranged or facilitated, in any way, by the Arkansas State Police. I have never been an Arkansas state employee or a federal employee. I have never discussed with Mr. Clinton the possibility of state or federal employment nor has he offered me any such position. I have had no further relations with him for the past (15) years. 4. During the 1992 Presidential campaign there were unfounded rumors and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies. Newspaper and tabloid reporters hounded me and my family, seeking corroboration of these tales. I repeatedly denied the allegations and requested that my family's privacy be respected. These allegations are untrue and I had hoped that they would no longer haunt me, or cause further disruption to my family. 5. I do not possess any information that could possibly be relevant to the allegations advanced by Paula Corbin Jones or which could lead to admissible evidence in her case. Specifically, I do not have any information to offer regarding a nonconsensual or unwelcome sexual advance by Mr. Clinton, any discussion offer or provision of state or federal employment or advancement in exchange for sexual conduct, or any use of state troopers to procure women for sex. Requiring my testimony at a deposition in this matter would cause unwarranted attorney's fees and costs, disruption to my life and constitute an invasion of my right to privacy. For these reasons, I have asked my attorney to advise Ms. Jones's counsel that there is no truth to the rumors they are pursuing and to provide her counsel with this sworn affidavit. Maybe the Grand Inquisitor could put the screws on Broaddrick, too, like with Julie Steele. Only Starr knows the truth, it just takes a little work sometimes to get other people to back him up.