Weighing Clinton's fate
Most of the e-mail we're getting is still about President Bill Clinton's impeachment trial.
Here's some of the latest, and if you'd like to comment on the trial or other events in the news for our next installment of Voter's Voice, drop us an e-mail message. Be sure to include your name and home town.
'Following the law'
Since when did the American public's voice decide if we should prosecute alleged criminals? It is so stupid to think that the American people can simply say no, we won't prosecute this person or give them a trial because we think he/she is a great person. This is so hilarious to me.
And no one has called me for polls to see what my family thinks. In fact, I know of one individual who was called in the southern U.S. region and when the individual said he was for impeachment, the pollster hung up on him. Now, you tell me, was that vote counted? If you poll a bunch of liberals and only liberals, you'll get the answer you're looking for on our current president. But their opinion doesn't matter. These senators are following the law!
-- Deborah Griffin, Sturgis, Mississippi, January 28
'An unlucky number'
The 13 House pallbearers carried Clinton into the Senate and will carry the Republican Party out. I guess 13 is an unlucky number.
-- Becky Bunch, January 28
'President will not be removed'
It is clear, after the vote on the motion to dismiss, that the president will not be removed from office. So now, what are the Republicans up to?
Apparently they are trying to put together some type of "findings of fact" that state that the president is guilty of crimes. This, I am supposing, would be passed by a majority vote -- of Republicans of course. What would be the point? Clearly, they now wish to give Ken Starr of the Star Chamber a leg up in trying to put the president in jail as soon as he leaves office.
In my opinion, Janet Reno, as her last act in office, should fire Ken Starr, and she could easily publish a heavyweight "white paper" on what an independent counsel should and should not be spending our tax dollars on.
-- C.J. Brown, Lawton, Oklahoma, January 28
You think Henry Hyde and his 12 apostles would present their indictment of President Clinton with professional standard. But they are full of holes; I'm tempted to label it amateurish. Just read the excerpts of Ms. Nicole Seligman's dissection of the prosecuting managers' presentation ...
You wonder how Henry Hyde and his lawyer managers got their law degrees!
-- Robert Li, New Jersey, January 27
'Above the law'
If we try Bill Clinton, the citizen, for the same offenses -- obstruction of justice and perjury before the grand jury -- will he be convicted based on the evidence before you?
Most of the senators from the Democratic party seem to concede that Bill Clinton did something wrong and illegal. Why are you putting him above the law?
Is it because, as we have read it, he's one BIG HELP to soliciting of campaign support funds for the Democratic party? If he was not so popular, will the Democrats still rally behind him?
Can the Democratic Party senators please inform the American people and the world why Bill Clinton should be acquitted of the charges leveled against him despite the evidence?
-- Victoria Griengo, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, January 27
'It's not everyone'
Listening to the political talk shows lately would tend to make one believe that words like "everyone," "everybody" and "all" must have picked up new meanings when spoken by Clinton defenders.
I don't recall that "everyone" voted for Clinton, or that "everybody" wants him to remain in office or "all" of the American people want this to end quickly.
The real problem with the folks who talk this way is that they really believe what they're saying. Do the math. I don't believe the polls myself, but assuming they do, a 68 percent approval rate still means that at least 32 percent don't approve, and while 68 percent is a majority, it's not everyone, everybody and all!
-- Tom Madracki, Yorba Linda, California, January 27
'Arrive at the truth'
I am glad the Senate decided not to dismiss the trial. I hope they will take their time and arrive at the truth. I hope that "Slick Willie" will not get away with this one!
-- Daniel Butler, Franklin, Pennsylvania, January 27
Clinton just happens to be one of the dumbest persons in the United States.
He deserves to be booted out!
-- Wendy Roy, Lake Oswego, Oregon, January 27
You know, I think those Republican senators are being hoodwinked by the House managers. Every time the senators give something to the managers they come back with more demands. Ok, Ok, Ok; we'll give you a few depositions, they go; but just watch, once the depositions are over they will be demanding to hear the witnesses live on the Senate floor, once those witnesses have testified they will demand more witnesses, and on and on and on. I think there's a con game going on here on the part of the House managers -- and the Republican senators are walking right into their traps.
If we all know the president will not be convicted -- i.e., no way on earth will 12 Democratic senators vote to convict the president -- there is no reason to prolong this trial unnecessarily.
Marc Sandalow's article of today in the San Francisco Chronicle is very revealing here: On the one hand he quotes Republicans as saying that they have to do this for the Constitution, etc. But then in the next paragraph he says that some Republicans are doing this because they're afraid that otherwise they will lose support from their base. Well, which one is it, guys? The Constitution or the political base? Sorry, they can't have it both ways.
-- Frances Del Rio, Oakland, California, January 27
'Not about an affair'
I am very tired of hearing that other presidents have had affairs. This is not about an affair. This is about sexual harassment in one instance (that we know of), and the manipulation of the government and perjury in another. This is not about someone's private sex life; anyone in office or in the public eye does not have any type of private life.
I am really beginning to wonder about the voters in this country who defend a man who long before his first election was a noted philanderer, and then continue to defend him because they are in denial.
-- Holly Manley, New York, New York, January 27
'Adulterous, immoral, lying perjurer'
Directors of "Crossfire":
How in the hell can a man in his right mind have a person like Barbara Boxer on "Crossfire?" She is a bigger liar than Bill Clinton. She took a oath to be impartial in the impeachment trial but I bet she had her fingers crossed. You know she will never vote to impeach the most adulterous immoral lying perjurer that this country has ever had for a president. Barbara Boxer is the worst thing to happen to California except the earthquakes and floods. You must have had the White House tell you to have her on your program. I do not think any person in his right mind would even think of having her as a impartial guest. She and Bill Press will make a real good ultra-liberal pair.
-- John Daniels, Woodland, California, January 26
Thursday, January 28, 1999
Senate Democrats, White House critical of GOP witness plan
Transcript: Senate votes on deposition procedure plans
Democrat bucks party line to vote with GOP in Clinton hearing
Clinton promotes job-training expansion
Steve Forbes hires key Iowa operative
Regional primaries backed for Midwest
Police: Man tried to bring knife, explosives into Capitol
Democratic attempt to force impeachment vote: How senators voted
Republican trial blueprint: How senators voted
Democratic trial blueprint: How senators voted
Greenspan says saving Social Security could require tough medicine
Clinton eulogizes Lawton Chiles
Gov. Jesse Ventura gets license to pack heat
Military pay raise on GOP agenda
Presidential hopefuls find pot of gold in Virginia
Washington Post moves to color front page
AP News Analysis: Mannerly Senate turns partisan
Impeachment trial could haunt GOP senators in 2000
$100 million-plus sought for child health initiatives
NAACP chairman critical of mayor in Washington word flap