|
|
|
|
||
|
Based on what you now know, do you think there are sufficient grounds to impeach the president? Many washingtonpost.com readers sent us their opinions. Read excerpts below.
It's 12:30 CST on Nov 19. Now I've heard from Starr. Is this string of conjecture the best the "special prosecutor", excuse me the "independent counsel", can muster after inheriting an investigation in August 1994 and spending $40 million? What ever happened to high crimes to bring someone so distinguished a person as Starr so low? The President was re-elected 26 months after Starr began collecting nothing while he padded his payroll and his pockets pursuing in a highly partisan witch hunt into the life of a re-elected President. And despite his "love of the law" and his crocodile smile, he continued after finding no wrong-doing with the express purpose of over-turning the democratic process. I AM angry at the President for his actions and deceit, but insensed that the reactionaries would stoop so low as run a sting against the president to manufacture and coerce evidence in what was a private matter. Finally sir, have you no shame?
Isn't it amazing how one man can put a halt to the wheels of democracy. He seems to have a plan to stay in the lime light day after day with leak after leak and charge after charge. Find someone to identify Mr. Starr's childhood problem, appease it and let our elected officials get back to work.
I have always supported the policies of the President. I think he is basically a good person and a great American. Unfortunately he has a terrible fatal flaw. He apparently can not control his basic urges and when confronted with them, can not accept responsibility for his actions. I think he should get counseling. Hillary, bless her heart, must be morified. It's just a sad, sad situation. I do not think he should be impeached, but I think he should have the grace to resign. Unfortunately, I'm afraid he no longer has the credibility to effectively lead the country. It really is a shame, because I generally think his Presidency has been good for America.
A personally driven Kenneth Starr was the right choice of the Republicans on their continuing seige to wrestle the White House from a Democratic president. Don't they have qualms and scruples? The U.S. Constitution should be amended to include lying about sex an impeachable offense. The Americans must be nuts.
The legacy of Puritanism, I guess. It's amazing to me how many people STILL think the president should be impeached for these "high crimes". And it's frightening to witness the power the conservative Christian right still has in this country. And how does Reagan, whose crimes in office far surpass any committed by Nixon, get off without serving time, while Clinton is shot down for these sexual misdoings.
Grounds for impeachment and removal are probably not there in this tragic and degrading story. I feel that resignation months ago, sad to say, would have been preferable. No American can find any joy in this story. We all have been lessened by it.
This argument has nothing to do with presidential integrity or constitutional law. If Bill Clinton had Richard Nixon's looks, or if the unemployment rate were at 8%, Al Gore would have been sworn in 6 months ago.
Maybe we can add the defeated Senator D'Amato,chair of the Senate Select Committee on Whitewater, to the witness list to report the results of that collateral investigation to the House Judiciary Committee. The only remaining mystery is whether or not Mr. Starr will be held accountable for abuse of prosecutorial discretion. Amendment: the other mystery is whether the Republicans ever will get it.
When an employee, Bill Clinton lies to his employer,
that's us, he should be fired, ie impeached. Bill
Clinton could have said that it was none of our
business, I could have respected that, but he is
obviously a practised liar, so he did what he has
gotten away with in the past. He lied, just as
Nixon lied with his "I was not a crook" line.
Well, after watching Ken Starr do the Reagan equivelant of "I do not recall" for an hour I can now see why his "investigation" has taken so long. From the little information he did divulge it sounds as though he was never actually in any room in which anyone actually said anything. Ever time he was asked about something someone said he tefloned it off to a "staff" person. So either Ken has been paying no attention or he's incompetant. Either of which makes Monica's "confession" to Linda "I'm dead in this town" Tripp luck on his part. If Monica had kept quiet no one would have ever known about any of this-except maybe the person that really needed to know-Hillary. Does this make Clinton's activities permissable? No. Would that have made any of this permissable? No. But we would have saved the several million dollars paid to an incompetant lawyer who had sexual allegations fall into his lap. (Pardon the obvious pun) That, boiled down, is essentially what our 4 million dollars went to.
So the bottom line becomes; We paid an incompetant puppet of
conservative Republicans to investigate an immoral puppet of the liberal
left. What did we gain out of this? The insight that Americans aren't
this vindictive and don't like it when "our" political parties are
(particualarly when they're spending our money) AND we desperately need
a third party in America!
In a Country that grew up with the idea that a person is only as good as their word, it is scarry to have a President whose word is never good!
I think irony is rich!! Starr accuses Clinton of misuse of power. Yet, Starr uses millions of dollars to run roughshod over our Bill of Rights. Close down the independent counsel statute and send Starr home forthwith.
Yes! Why does no one mention the possible
breaches to national security? The most powerful
man in the world voluntarily put himself in a
position to be blackmailed. If he doesn't have
the discretion or control to avoid compromising
himself in this situation, I don't want him
running our country in any situation.
What bothers me about this whole thing is that the same people who claim that "lying under oath" is an impeachable offense are the same people who cheered Oliver North when he defiantly claimed that he not only had lied but would do so again. I think that the whole drive for impeachment is based in the fact that Mr. Starr knows that if he takes this into a real court with a real jury where opposing lawyers could ask real questions he would get his tail shot out from under him.
Ye.Yes.Yes.Yes.Yes. After today, definitely, unequivocally, absoluteley. He lied! Dammit! Lied under oath! Doen't that amount to anything? Are we a society where it is now hip to be stupid and illogical. I am shocked, yes, even today that people still continue to support tjhe President and give him a free reign on committing and involving himself in more scandals. Have the people lost their minds? Do we have to follow everything that the White House pits forth to us. The President is a congenital liar. He should resign if he has an iota of honor and integrity. Most people think he doesn't have and yet accept him as a President. That defies logic! Think before you act or say anything. The President should RESIGN!!!! As for the democrats, I will NEVER vote for them again. I cannot believe that you would think its okay for a President to lie! If you have'nt followed the facts of this case as I have then you have no right to comment.
The President used extremely bad judgment.
He did something very stupid. But his offenses
are definitely NOT impeachable. The President
should not be impeached.
I thought only the Japanese committed hari kari.Looks like your politicans have the same mentality. Here in Australia we call it "cutting down the tall poppy" Might make you feel good, but boy does it do damage to your Country.
© Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company |
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||
 |
||
