The following exchange is from Dialogue Group 8, Thread 1.

209. Ok - lets be the jurors!
Fri, Jan 15, 1999 - 3:47 PM/EST
Joy

What do you think? Do the Republicans have a case? We have stated our personal opinions about the situation. We have stated our opinions about how our political process works. Now from the standpoint of the senate - How would you vote? How are you reacting to each days senate sessions?

So far I havent seen anything presented on the Senate floor which would change my mind on this matter. While watching the OJ trial there were new ideas presented daily that caused a person to waffle back and forth. We all know the President did exactly what he is accused of. But should he be impeached?

So far, I would still vote not to impeach. How does everyone else feel?

211. Joy/case
Fri, Jan 15, 1999 - 10:07 PM/EST
cclinx

In the words of the Bard, Much ado about nothing. This is simply an attempt by one party to bring down the leader of the other.

212. How would I vote?
Sat, Jan 16, 1999 - 11:54 AM/EST
mostrain

I'd vote not to remove from office. I don't think the offenses presented by the Republicans rise to the heights envisioned by the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors," and they are certainly not bribery or treason. Those phrases evoke for me offenses against the NATION not offenses occasioned by a straying husband who is trying to save his family from embarassment and public humiliation.

I, too, believe this is a situation where one political party is attempting to overturn a national election. If they succeed, then no election will be deemed complete and individuals holding the office of president will wield much less authority. Do we want that? Perhaps some do. Perhaps some who feel all government is bad do want a crippled presidency. But comes the time when there is a serious threat to the country, we will want and need a strong leader.

So far, the House Managers seem to be boring everybody who is even moderately interested in the proceedings. There is more interest, I think, in last week's ups and down of the stock market than in the proceedings in the Senate. The nation seems to be taking a bye -- having determined than there aren't enough votes to remove the President from office -- and so far it's one big yawn. We'll see what next week brings.

213. If like mostrain you believe
Sat, Jan 16, 1999 - 1:08 PM/EST
donald

that this is only about sex, then the cocclusions are logical. In August, the proof was there about the sex. Clinton still persisted in his lies. That was when it ceased being about sex and became about perjury and obstruction of justice.
Paula Jones case was without merit and only Clinton's cowardice moved him to lie when even if the truth were known Paula Jones could not have prevailed. In January/February Bill Clinton was Kennedy like. When he went before the grand jury in August and lied he became Nixon like, putting his well being before the rule of law. In August Bill Clinton could have stopped it all by having hte courage to say yes I did, so what. He didn't.

214. My vote
Sat, Jan 16, 1999 - 2:35 PM/EST
Gemini2

My vote would be to censure and move on. Nothing new is coming to light, as you mentioned, Joy. We've heard all this before, and the American people still don't care much. Not that the will of the people has any bearing on this matter. Evidently, it does not. My senator sent me a response letter that sounded like a Christian Coalition speech. I reminded him that his CC friends might be behind him in this, but the majority of his constituents are not.

I disagree that this is simply one party trying to destroy the other. I think it is indicative of a rift in the nation between the moderate majority and a fanatical Religious Right. The RR has a holy mission, they think, to smite anyone who doesn't uphold their moral standards; to override the will of the majority to further its own agendas in many areas, not just this one. The RR is undemocratic. When one *knows* one is right, because one thinks God is on one's side, then one is justified in doing whatever it takes to make things go one's own way. Witness murders of doctors who perform abortions in the name of "saving lives." No matter how you feel about abortion, you must admit this is scary and crazy. How about good old book-burnings and censorship resulting in loss of access to books like "Huckleberry Finn" and anything that might have a naughty word in it or portray anybody doing anything the RR deems immoral? We don't need protection from books, we need protection from moralists!

As the Millennium approaches (in 2001, not in 2000, as you know), I believe the forces of the Old Ways (the Religious Right) will stage more and more vindictive campaigns like this one in a futile attempt to further their basically Fascist agendas. As they come further and further into the open, I believe America will see them more and more clearly for what they are, and the collective wisdom of the people will defeat their agenda of control.

215. My vote
Sat, Jan 16, 1999 - 3:37 PM/EST
Hillfarmer

If I were to vote now, I would vote for aquittal because I do not think that the impeachment charges constitute a high crime against the United States. However, I still wish that the Congress would have asked the Supreme Court for a definition of 'high crimes and misdemeanors'. The Supreme Court is made up of constitutional scholars, and as such they could give a definitive answer to that question. Then I believe that it would be fairly simple to determine whether the President committed an impeachable offense or not.

216. Hillfarmer
Sat, Jan 16, 1999 - 4:26 PM/EST
Gemini2

I didn't know the Supreme Court could give a final answer to what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors." I guess I'm glad nobody asked them. I think the Framers intentionally left it rather vague, so as not to dictate to future Senates what they must convict Presidents for. The Supreme Court is supposed to be non-partisan, but at present it is made up of extremely conservative justices, and I wouldn't want a conservative Court ruling on this. If they did, could later, more liberal Courts ever change it?

217. Finally, a reply to Joy's Poll
Sat, Jan 16, 1999 - 4:35 PM/EST
Hey-Mike

The lines here are clearly drawn and a choice must be made between the letter and the spirit of the law. That is, to me, what this debate has been about from the start. The letter of the law requires removal from office. Perjury is clearly a most serious offence. The spirit of the law, the high crimes stuff, has not been satisfied in any way shape or form.

Personally, I feel the following:
... The evidence gained was based upon illegally obtained recordings of telephone conversations.
... The behavior of the Republican house has been nothing short of scurrilous and mean spirited.
... Monica's testimony is too jaded to be given broad credibility.
... That while he did not cooperate, neither did he truly perjure himself.
... That he may have tried to guide potential testimony but did not outright suborn perjury.
... That there was no linkage between Monica's job offers and her silence.
... That he has been a most singular steward of the economy.
... That Ken Starr's behavior does not deserve the validation Clinton's removal would lend it.

There are more, but these will do. I am also struck by one other relatively small incident that took place. It happened right after his, "I did not have sex with that woman," speech to the nation. When his allies came to him and asked for the truth, Clinton lied to them and let them go forth staking their reputations on that lie. Diane Feinstein was at the forefront of this. Bill was willing to let everyone of 'his team' get slaughtered to protect him.

It is the same attitude that let him justify dodging the draft. Let them risk their asses and as long as I live through it, great. Not wishing to rejoin the debate on Viet Nam, I'll say only that, the reasons we went there were proper, if not what happened afterwards. Legally, we said we would. The SEATO Pact was the law of the land.

Morally, we were required to; a militaristic society was knocking the socks off an agrarian one. At that time, he (and many others) flaunted both legal and moral imperatives, and this attitude still pervades his existence as shown by his sending Feinstein and others off into the fray, knowing he was lying. You NEVER lie to your troops, and you NEVER sacrifice them just to keep you alive.

I have listened to each of you and that has had no small impact on the tempering of my thoughts. So it is that, just this day, I made my personal choice. My decision is that, in the name of justice overall and Karma, I reluctantly side with the letter of the law; a stance I find repugnant and distasteful almost always. In the interest of fairness, justice, and for the guys I lived with who never came home because they obeyed the law, I arrive now in favor of removal. In that act, I would find justice and for me at least, justice is what this whole affair has really been all about from the start.

For those of you still reading and not already on the counteroffensive, I thank you.