Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Re: Ken Starr's Report to Congress Online[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: Christopher Wright <chrisw(--nospam--at)skypoint.com>, seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
- Subject: Re: Ken Starr's Report to Congress Online
- From: Bill Polhemus <poly(--nospam--at)flash.net>
- Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 10:05:55 -0500
Christopher Wright wrote: > >So you're saying that, since "some of us never really got over Watergate," > >that we need to ignore Congress' responsibility under the Constitution > >(namely Article I, Section 2) with regard to its impeachment authority? > > That's a non-sequitur. The Congress's impeachment authority covers high > crimes and misdemeanors. What Clinton did (Boinked someone he wasn't > married to and lied about it) was reprehensible and stupid, but no > ordinary citizen would be prosecuted for it. THERE'S your non-sequitur. In the first place, "high crimes and misdemeanors" are whatever Congress says they are. Do yourself a favor: Read Federalist No. 42. Secondly, "no ordinary citizen would be prosecuted" for adultery in this day and time, but that's not what the report alleges. It alleges that he committed adultery, THEN lied about it under oath, both to the Paula Jones jury, and later to the grand jury. THEN he tried to cover up by "rehearsing" others to say things that weren't true, THEN he abused the power of his office by having government employees in the White House go out and lie about it (although THEY were probably unknowing, most of them), THEN he abused the power of his office by directing that White House personnel such as the Secret Service and Bruce Lindsay, put up a fight to keep from having to testify about what THEY knew. He did this, KNOWING that he was using the fig-leaf of "executive privilege" to cover up his own lies. If you'll remember, this is what Nixon got in deep doo-doo for doing. In short, if you want to believe the White House spin, go right ahead. But this is NOT about a legal matter under juridical law, it is about "high crimes and misdemeanors" of the President, under the Constitution. There is a distinct difference. > Politicians aren't in the moral leadership business, and we all know it. That's funny, apparently Joseph Lieberman, Barbara Boxer, Pat Moynihan and other members of the President's own party aren't quite so sanguine about that as you are. The fact is: The President is required to uphold standards. This one does not, and I am one of those who believes he really never has (although even THAT is beside the point). And his lack of moral leadership extends to all areas of his job performance. For example, he has never had any problem with lying about those who oppose him in matters of policy, or about the effect of his administration on such things as the economy. Like Mr. Nixon, it is far, far more important to this man to hold onto his power, no matter what and come what may, than to uphold the office. The most righteous thing that Mr. Nixon did was to resign, realizing that he had failed in his attempt to hold onto that power. It remains to be seen whether the present Chief Executive is made of as stern a stuff. > We've also known they've told whoppers since the political promise was > invented. I don't like it but I'm not going to cast my eyes skyward and > invoke divine judgement as though a president never got caught in a > whopper before. I also can't get terribly exercised over lying to > Congress. They do it to each other, to the public and to anyone else > who'll listen so often no one pays attention, in fact we expect it. Then you are an example of why the tenor of public service has become so downcast. Imperfect people are elected to office with high hopes. It's true that none of us meets every challenge. But to equate campaign promises, e.g., with the kinds of abuses of power that we now have hard evidence concerning with this President, is very foolish. > Clinton's real crime is that he wore his hair long in the '60's, smoked > dope and married an ambitious, non-dowdy woman with brains. Again, it saddens me that one obviously so intelligent as you would prefer to stick his head in the sand, and recognize the truth. The "60s mentality" does pervade much of what the President and First Lady are about, it's true. But the problem isn't those who are averse to the "legacy" of that era. The problem is that the "morally relativistic" chickens have finally come home to roost. These people don't see anything wrong with anything they do, and the fact that other people have absolute moral precepts is lost on them (except that they know enough to be able to exploit it--witness the bravura performance at the "prayer breakfast" yesterday morning). > (a > description that fits a great many men we call 'successful') Starr > couldn't find a real crime so he settled for small potatoes and smarm. He > couldn't even make sexual harassment stick. Actually, he was not involved in the sexual harrassment proceeding against the President, as I'm sure you realize. > >N.B.: I think it hilarious, that the same sorts of people who were so angry > >when "the system" allowed Nixon to resign, and then be pardoned, are the > >ones who think all this stuff needs now to be "dropped." > > There are a lot of parallels. Lots of people hated them both obsessively; > both had some shady dealings in their past and Nixon's associations with > Joe McCarthy carried the same stigma among some as Clinton's hippy image > carries among others. I've never really thought so much of his "hippy" image, as I have of his image that he will do anything, not excluding possible treason, to hold onto power. I would remind you there are more shoes to drop. I believe the White House has made a tactical error in reminding us that there are no mentions of "Whitewater" or "travelgate" or "filegate" in the report. The conventional wisdom is that there is considerably more to come on these. There is even speculation that an indictment of Mrs. Clinton is forthcoming--which does much to lend understanding to her desire to be seen on the "moral forefront" of forgiveness of her husband. She may still need his protection. > As a result lots of people wasted lots of time > trying to compile evidence of conspiracies and skullduggery. The > difference is that Nixon was an accessory to a real crime, and he did in > fact obstruct justice. No difference. Both Clinton and Nixon committed real crimes. Yes, Clinton's crimes are real. The "naysaying" of his lawyers notwithstanding, he committed perjury and obstructed justice, and used his office to accomplish same. He is in deep trouble, and no "spin" is going to save him. > In Clinton's case the evidence of a crime is > sketchy at best, and I daresay you can't prove obstruction of justice if > there's no crime involved. There is a crime involved: Perjury. This President committed perjury. He committed what alone are impeachable offenses, merely by having sex with the woman in the White House. Read Federalist No. 42. > If you find political or ideological battles hilarious, you got a strange > notion of how a representative government works. Congress is pissing away > good economic times being self-righteous when they should be taking care > of business. I agree that they should be taking care of business. It's too bad that the Clinton camp doesn't see it that way, since his prompt resignation would help us all get back on course. Clinton is determined to fight this, to spare his "legacy." He doesn't give a d*mn about this country without himself as its President. > I think that's the reason people outside the Beltway > generally aren't all that worked up--they have more on their minds than > scoring points on the opposition. I disagree with your assessment. I think the Starr Report is having a great deal of impact.
- Prev by Subject: RE: Ken Starr's Report to Congress Online
- Next by Subject: Re: Ken Starr's Report to Congress Online
- Previous by thread: Re: Ken Starr's Report to Congress Online
- Next by thread: RE: Ken Starr's Report to Congress Online