Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.

Re: the law?

Author:peter solderitsch
Posted:12/20/1998; 1:45:30 PM
Topic:Cardboard Cutout People
Msg #:1516 (In response to 1494)
Prev/Next:1515 / 1517

>>Would you have felt any better about the decision had popular opinion gone the other way (ie, 2/3 for removal of Prez from office)? <<

in a word, yes. but i still wouldn't have agreed with the vote.

>>I'd hope that regardless of the polls, each lawperson would vote their conscience. In other words, the vote would have turned out the same way no matter what the opinion polls were. <<

so all the republicans (save about 5) have the same conscience, which is diametrically opposed to all the democrats (again, save about 5), who ALSO have identical consciences? I don't buy it for a second. This thing went along party lines. Since these two parties are essentially *the same*, except for a few MINOR ideological differences, this seems to show, in MY view, that it's a PERSONAL thing more than anything.

another question to throw out to people: if Clinton is eventually forced out of office, how would you feel about Al Gore pardoning him, as Ford did for Nixon, so he was not subject to subsequent criminal charges?

>>Otherwise, I'd half agree with you if the lying [about sex] hadn't occured during a very relevant [sexual harassment] lawsuit.<<

but that's just the thing, they lying WAS irrelevant. it was consensual, Monica wasn't accusing Clinton of sexual harassment. That's like if Clarence Thomas tried to defend the charges by Anita Hill by observing that he'd had many consensual relationships with women, therefore he couldn't possibly have sexually harassed Ms. Hill.

Blanket questions about sex and relationships aren't automatically, magically "relevant" during a sexual harassment case. That's like saying "Mr. Clinton, when did you lose your virginity?" and trying to argue that the answer is vital to the Paula Jones case (which has been SETTLED, by the way.. have we forgotten that?)

Personally, I think Clinton is a sleaze. But he was voted back in and HAS NOT BEEN *PROVEN* TO HAVE DONE anything that would warrant being removed from office. Just because you did not vote for the man because of his sleaziness does not mean you ought to be personally vindicated by the voiding of his election.

Thanks,

-Pete

There are responses to this message:

This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:46:48 PM.

© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.