Will Impeachment Make A Difference?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Uh, um, they just voted to impeach Clinton. Wonder if Gore will find himself mandatorily 'drafted' to be Pres soon?

Does anybody think Gore will seize the Y2K thing if he's his own boss and alert the public better than Clinton?

12/11/98 -- 4:26 PM, BULLETIN WASHINGTON (AP) - The House Judiciary Committee voted 21-16 today to approve Article One of impeachment, accusing President Clinton of perjury before a federal grand jury investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair.

Copyright 1998 Associated Press.


By The Associated Press ^With AM-Clinton-Impeachment, Bjt
Text of President Clinton's remarks on impeachment Friday, as transcribed by Federal Document Clearing House:

Good afternoon.
As anyone close to me knows, for months I have been grappling with how best to reconcile myself to the American people, to acknowledge my own wrongdoing and still to maintain my focus on the work of the presidency.
Others are presenting my defense on the facts, the law and the Constitution. Nothing I can say now can add to that. BR> What I want the American people to know, what I want the Congress to know is that I am profoundly sorry for all I have done wrong in words and deeds.
I never should have misled the country, the Congress, my friends or my family. Quite simply, I gave in to my shame. I have been condemned by my accusers with harsh words.
And while it's hard to hear yourself called deceitful and manipulative, I remember Ben Franklin's admonition that our critics are our friends, for they do show us our faults.
Mere words cannot fully express the profound remorse I feel for what our country is going through and for what members of both parties in Congress are now forced to deal with. These past months have been a torturous process of coming to terms with what I did. I understand that accountability demands consequences, and I'm prepared to accept them.
Painful as the condemnation of the Congress would be, it would pale in comparison to the consequences of the pain I have caused my family.
There is no greater agony.
Like anyone who honestly faces the shame of wrongful conduct, I would give anything to go back and undo what I did.
But one of the painful truths I have to live with is the reality that that is simply not possible. An old and dear friend of mine recently sent me the wisdom of a poet who wrote, ``The moving finger writes and having writ, moves on. Nor all your piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line. Nor all your tears wash out a word of it.''
So nothing, not piety, nor tears, nor wit, nor torment can alter what I have done. I must make my peace with that.
I must also be at peace with the fact that the public consequences of my actions are in the hands of the American people and their representatives in the Congress.
Should they determine that my errors of word and deed require their rebuke and censure, I am ready to accept that.
Meanwhile, I will continue to do all I can to reclaim the trust of the American people and to serve them well.

We must all return to the work, the vital work, of strengthening our nation for the new century. Our country has wonderful opportunities and daunting challenges ahead. I intend to seize those opportunities and meet those challenges with all the energy and ability and strength God has given me.

[notice he says "daunting," the same word the UN used today to describe the Y2K task facing the world -- Leska ]

That is simply all I can do - the work of the American people.
Thank you very much.
Copyright 1998 Associated Press.


Congress has said it's all going to happen quickly, the whole vote, trial, impeachment.

Does anybody think this will distract ppl from waking up to Y2K ?

Or will it be a change that will make ppl see there are consequences to actions?

Will Gore be a late knight riding in to shout "The disconnection is coming! ?"

xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), December 11, 1998



For the above little speech as impeachment became serious and real.

xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), December 11, 1998.


Impeachment get us just further off topic, not that the government is openly on the Y2K topic. It takes the newsmedia off topic, and it takes preparation awareness off topic. Truly sad.

The bigger "lesson" is about just telling the truth from the start. Fewer repercussions downstream. Hope someone in the newsmedia and government pays attention!


-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), December 11, 1998.

What is it called when the citizens impeach the *entire government* for not telling the truth?

Especially when the consequences are massive death, chaos, displacements, and destruction?

You'd think some of those officials would be nervous about now.

2000 will be interesting, indeedy.

xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), December 11, 1998.

If nothing else, the impeachment news today is going to overshadow the U.N. Y2K conference.

When Congressman Horn released a report around September 9th predicting more than one-third of the government's mission-critical systems wouldn't be fixed in time, that news was drowned out by the release of the Starr report.

I really, really hope they decide once and for all what to do about Clinton before January (1999).

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), December 11, 1998.

It will to Clinton if convicted. He will not, hopefully, be able to hide at Camp David 12/31/99.

-- curtis schalek (schale1@ibm.net), December 11, 1998.

This "do nothing" Congress is a hideous joke. I'm practically spitting at the screen! History will revile them for sticking their noses into a semen stained dress while the lights dim, the motors stop and the cries of the helpless echo in the dark.

-- RD. ->H (drherr@erols.com), December 11, 1998.

Great Idea! Impeach them all for not telling the truth, for the high crime and misdemeanors of misleading the American public!

-- Other Lisa (LisaWard2@aol.com), December 11, 1998.

Do we do that by initiatives on a ballot?

xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), December 11, 1998.

RD, is that the computer or TV screen?

xxxxxxx xxxxxxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), December 11, 1998.

Kevin, sent an e-mail to my local newsmedia about the UN, just in case they weren't paying attention.

Other Lisa, I also add that "We the people" need to FIRE the whole d* mn lot of 'em for gross mismanagement and "negligence" in the extreme. If there was time we could impeach the whole bunch! Guess we gotta ignore that rat pack and encourage preparation among the digital citizens of the internet. Major *Sigh*


-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), December 11, 1998.

What is the mechanism for impeaching all of them? We could use the system, and not involve guns. Sad thing is, don't think any of them would even notice if we started the proceedings.

xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), December 11, 1998.

Kevin: I think you have it exactly right... I remember about how Y2K awareness was growing this summer until... and in the last few weeks it has been growing big time until?????

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), December 11, 1998.

Don't they always shoot the messenger? What do you get when you tell the truth? I say it the way I see it because I think it is the truth. Others may see me as being too harsh, and to the point. But there's a big difference between me and Mr. Clinton. Clinton tries to convince us that he's on our side and we know he's lying through his teeth. We try to convince each other of our views because we are all concerned and scared for one another. We all know and see the difference, and dispite our differences, I think you are all a nice group of people.

-- bardou (bardou@baloney.com), December 11, 1998.

The ridiculness and unbelivability (are those words?) of the whole thing - Lewinsky scandal, Starr report, impeachment process - convinces me that it's all a diversion tactic to take the sheepl..uh people's mind and media off the Y2K REAL problem they have to fix. Clinton/Gore and both parties are in it. There is just no other rational explanation for this whole circus and mess of running a country.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), December 11, 1998.

Hhhmm. The crotchety obsession must be some Pres 96 Campaign thingy. This on AP Breaking News:

Viagra Maker Pfizer Hires Bob Dole for TV Ads About Impotence


Any monks running for President? Eunuchs?

xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), December 11, 1998.

Chris: Go back to some of my previous posts where I said watch the impeachment hearings and the stock market. They may be the signal as to which way you should go. Hmmmm a leading indicator????

-- bardou (bardou@baloney.com), December 11, 1998.

Removal from office seems unlikely to me for two reasons. First - the House votes as a body as to whether or not to send the matter to the Senate. If this passes it will set up a double standard as to who can lie under oath and who cannot - quite a few sitting House members have been censured for lying under oath - none have been removed from office. Shucks, Newt did not even lose his job as Speaker!

Second the Senate - the Senate must perform the actual trial. To convict requires that some Democrats must cross the line and vote for removal from office. There are not enough Republicans in the Senate to do the job by themselves if the vote splits on party lines - and you could pretty well figure it will.

So the impeachment process will move forwards - but it is very unlikely Clinton will be removed from office - unless he decides to do us all a favor and resign.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), December 12, 1998.

just talked to a friend who has extensive experience in the federal legal system and there are apparently several issues, especially with regard to future interpretation of federal law with regard to sexual harassment issues which could go down the tubes, if billy jeff is not impeached...short version: it is going to become significantly more difficult to prosecute sexual harassment in the workplace, especially when such harassment involves abuse of authority by one in a position of power.

should prove really interesting...


-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), December 12, 1998.

To suggest that the impeachment hearings are a deliberate diversion from Y2K in nonsense. If the full house votes for impeachment, and the Senate conducts a trial (which may last 6 months), I'm sure some of you will say that that is also done intentionally to take the focus off of Y2K. They are two separate, distinct news stories. Both will get coverage. Both will play out there separate courses, for good or evil.

There is no conspiracy of silence by elected officials on Y2K. The media is slowly picking up steam and will continue to do so. Does anyone actually believe that any major news event will be ignored because of the impeachment hearings? Most people don't seem to care very much, anyhow. The networks haven't carried the debate because of the general apathy.

-- Steve Hartsman (hartsman@ticon.net), December 12, 1998.

I would most sincerely hope it becomes harder to prosecute for sexual harassment. That is the very best reason I have yet heard for keeping BC in office. The sexual harassment laws as written and intended are very far from the application the courts - as guided by a woman (whose name escapes me for the moment) - who has managed to get a twisted perverted definition of harass enacted by the courts. The Paula Jones case was a joke from the beginning - it is NOT job harassment for the boss to make a pass at you after working hours. It is NOT against the law for the boss to date an employee. It is NOT presumed by anyone except the courts that a woman employed by a man is not capable of firing a couple of brain cells and saying no. And it is NOT presumed that saying no means you will suffer at work - which Paula Jones did not - as evidenced by everything she brought into the court room. It is possible she could have had BC prosecuted successfully for indecent exposure - but that is about it. BC is rude, crude, lewd - and I damn well don't like being in the position of defending him. But facts are facts - sexual harassment requires something more than the boss making a crude suggestion after working hours. And if you have another definition of sexual harassment that does not make women sound like weak kneed pushovers - and makes BC guilty of harassment - please post it. I am sure it will be entertaining.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), December 13, 1998.

Mr. Davis....

Klinton is NOT on the verge of being impeached because he "made a pass after working hours". Klinton's butt is on the line because he tried to subvert the rights of one of your fellow citizens, (whether or not you and he agree that the citizen doesn't have that right).

If he had agreed with you that "facts are facts - sexual harassment requires something more than the boss making a crude suggestion after working hours" then he would not have tried from the very beginning to get the case dropped......he would have welcomed his day in court.

Is this really the type you want representing us......even tho he seems to agree with you that sexual harassment isn't all that big of a deal? (no, wait.....maybe HE does think it's a pretty big deal now...)


-- mebs (mebsmebs@hotmail.com), December 14, 1998.

Surely it'll be just another distraction to real decision making, it'll drag on and on like Watergate, and be 10 times more boring.

-- Richard Dale (rdale@figroup.co.uk), December 14, 1998.

Whether or not Clinton is impeached or removed from office, there will be definite y2k implications. Almost all people believe Clinton is a liar. When the panic starts, do you think people are going to believe our government leaders when they say "Don't panic. Everything will be alright."??? All trust in government is gone.

-- Louise (~~~~~@~~~~.~~~), December 14, 1998.

My, my, the weekend before Christmas.
The season's calm, holy vibration has not reached DC.
The Prez *was* just impeached by the House.
The US is at the moment bombing Iraq on Ramadan, worst hits yet.
Livingston resigned. Gingrich already resigned. Hyde may resign.
US embassies are being attacked at this hour.
The behavior in the Capitol is lower than Junior High -- heehee, even Tom Brokaw just said that!
The world is falling apart before Y2K.
13 days until 1999
We are obviously on a downward spiral.
Talk about Senate trial lasting months. Ugh.
I believe, at this point, that impeachment will hamper any govt attempt to focus on Y2K.
Back to CostCo ...
xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), December 19, 1998.

In a word (well, two): not likely. Thinking traditional politics matters any more is a waste of time for the most part. It doesn't. If y2k does anything significant it will demonstrate the shortsighted, wasteful, futile and self centered nature of government (and by extension politicians) as it exists in this country today. As for me, I'm saving some of my canned popcorn for when the show trials begin- I just hope enough infrastructure survives for them to be broadcast live. Things are gonna chaaange... .

And AlGore? Get real.

-- nemo... (nemo@deepsix.com), December 19, 1998.

http://www.tamp abayonline.net/news/news1012.htm

12/19/98 -- 10:04 PM, AP
Post-Impeachment Poll Finds Clinton Job Rating Up

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Clinton's job approval rating climbed over the 70 percent mark following his impeachment by the House on Saturday, according to an NBC News poll.
xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), December 20, 1998.

http://www.tamp abayonline.net/news/news101a.htm

NEW YORK (AP) - Bill Clinton and Kenneth Starr were named Time magazine's Men of the Year Sunday, a day after the independent counsel's investigation culminated with the historic House vote to impeach the president.


Just think, by this time next year ...
You do you think will be Time's Man Of The Year?
Will it be the Y2K Posse -- Yourdon, Gordon, Infomagic, Hamasaki, North, etc? Do you think the media will "get it" by this time next year?

xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), December 20, 1998.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ