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: greenspirit who wrote (32901)	2/9/1999 10:37:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Respond to of 67261

How Shift From Lies to Obstruction Deepened a Mire nytimes.com As a "Rule of Law" bleater, I thought you'd like this one, Michael. But the shift in sentiment over the two months since the House gave the perjury charge the most votes when it voted to impeach Clinton illuminates a number of points about this monthlong trial of the president. It touches on senators' views of what kinds of actions warrant removal of a popular president, and reflects the battles the House prosecutors chose to fight and those they did not. It shows the strange position the prosecutors were left in when the House threw out one perjury article stemming from Clinton's original deposition in the sexual harassment case brought against him by Paula Jones, when he denied having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. And perhaps most fundamentally, it displays the continuing lack of agreement on a point the Constitution leaves opaque: What standard should be used to impeach and convict a president? On this last question the House prosecutors have sometimes seemed to want it both ways. At one point on Monday, Rep. Asa Hutchinson, R-Ark., told the Senate how a jury sitting in a criminal obstruction of justice case would be instructed. Just last month, another manager, by contrast, told senators to disregard the standards of proof required in a criminal case. "The criminal standard of proof, i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt, is inappropriate in an impeachment trial," Rep. Steve Buyer, R-Ind., said in January. "Senators, you are to be guided by your conscience in your own decision." But that has left some senators with the uneasy feeling that the House prosecutors were trying to use a lower threshold for impeachment than for a criminal case. And a number of senators made clear that they were applying the perjury law -- with its requirement that the intent to lie be proved and not just that someone did not tell the truth -- to the article of impeachment charging Clinton with perjury. "When it comes to proving perjury, they say you've got to prove state of mind," said Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa. "That's very hard. That's hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt." Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, said, "I think too many of our lawyers are being lawyers and they are using the technical definition of perjury." It's about the rule of law, except when it's about politics. Then it's different. Nobody here ever had any problems with these legal technicalities, so what's with these Senators? I think all you bleaters ought to make your way to DC and bleat some more, about how stupid anybody who disapproves of the impeachment effort is. Only 21 bleating months left before the next election!