🚀 go-pugleaf

Lloyd R. Parker wrote in message <768k11$bve$1@curly.cc.emory.edu>...
>Ron Conroy (rcconroy@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: Lloyd R. Parker wrote in message <768c0h$43d$1@curly.cc.emory.edu>...
>: >Ron Conroy (rcconroy@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: >: Lloyd R. Parker wrote in message
<763fk6$g5e$1@paladin.cc.emory.edu>...
>: >: >Streek53 (streek53@mindspring.com) wrote:
>: >: >: <<Clinton is a criminal, and more dangerous now than ever before.>>
>: >: >:
>: >: >: Yes, he's got nothing to lose. And everybody in the country knows
he
>: had
>: >: a
>: >: >: sexual affair with Monica...though he still won't admit this under
>: oath.
>: >: >
>: >: >He has admitted he had sex with Monica.  Under oath, he denied he had
>: >: >"sexual relations" with her as the term was defined to him then
(meaning
>: >: >intercourse, according to him).
>: >:
>: >:
>: >: He has NEVER admitted to having "sex with Monica."  He did admit to
>: having
>: >: an "inappropriate relationship" with her, but that's all.
>: >
>: >No, he has admitted tom having sex with her.  Oral sex, which by his
>: >interpretation of the definition of "sexual relations" given at the
>: >deposition, didn't fall under that definition.  And Lewinsky testified
>: >that she didn't believe oral sex constituted "sexual relations" either.
>:
>:
>: Wrong, he has NEVER admitted to having "sex with Monica."  Once again, he
>
>Sorry, not so.  You must have tuned out after day 1.


Sorry, you're mistaken.  What the President said was "Under that definition,
yes," and that's all!  It was not forthright.  It was not clearly stated,
and there was no strong admission of his wrongdoing or "sex with Monica".

>: did admit to having an "inappropriate relationship" with her.  As far as
the
>: definitions are concerned, they are irrelevant.
>
>No.  The attorney for PJ said, "for the purposes of this deposition,
>sexual relations will be defined as..." and read 3 sections.  Clinton's
>lawyer objected, and the judge threw out 2 of the sections.


Regardless, that doesn't matter at this point.

>:  In his grand jury
>: testimony, clarification of the definitions may have been established,
but
>: he has never admitted to having "sex with Monica" forthright.
Furthermore,
>: some of the censure proposals coming from the Senate suggest that Clinton
>: would have to admit to his crimes of perjury and to his dishonesty about
the
>: relationship with Monica.  In other words, he will probably be forced to
>: admit that he has "had sex with Monica" under oath in front of Congress.
>
>He doesn't have a problem with this; what he's said he didn't do was
>perjure himself, and his position so far is that he won't say he did.


Agreed...

>Some GOP Senators are talking about a trial, vote, and then censure.  What
>makes them think the president would accept censure if he's acquitted, or
>that censure would matter if he's convicted?


I believe what the GOP Senators are suggesting is not necessarily a trial.
They do want to conduct hearings to review the evidence and examine
witnesses, but I don't think that an actual trial leading to either
conviction or acquittal is desired...  Otherwise, it wouldn't matter as you
have stated.

>: >: Furthermore, it's a matter of law, not public opinion.  If you recall
>: >: correctly, Nixon had 65-75% approval ratings before the House
Judiciary
>: >: Committee's vote.  Realizing that law would prevail, he resigned...
>: >
>: >Wrong!  Polls while the impeachment hearings were going on showed most
>: >people wanted Nixon out.
>:
>:
>: Wrong!  Nixon had strong support even on the day of his resignation.
Yes,
>: as the hearings progressed, Nixon lost a great deal of support, but even
on
>: the days before his resignation, polls showed that only 40-45% of "the
>: people" wanted him to leave or be removed from office.  Those are the
same
>: figures Clinton had the day after the House impeachment...
>
>Sorry, NOT true.  Majority opinion had turned against him _before_ the
>House committee vote.  That's why some moderate Republicans were saying
>early on that you shouldn't impeach a president unless the nation is
>behind it.


In a sense, we're both correct.  Immediately after the Watergate scandal
broke, public opinion polls for Nixon still showed 65-75% approval.  As the
House investigation/proceedings continued, there was a shift in support.
However, while there was a 40-45% poll showing that "Nixon should either
resign or be removed from office", there was still a >50% "approval rating
for his performance" as President.  Along with all of this, there was also a
continual 65+% poll suggesting that "Congress should investigate the
President for potential wrongdoing".  At one point, a similar poll showed
80+% in support for the investigations/proceedings.  This means that
regardless of his performance or public opinion, there were still supporters
of Nixon who also supported due process.

As a pollster recently pointed out in a PBS "town hall" meeting, questions
are sometimes worded to disregard certain facts.  An "approval rating"
doesn't necessarily suggest that individuals approve of everything the
President does.  In fact, if a "public opinion" poll was taken tomorrow
asking whether or not Clinton was a good role model for morality and virtue
in America, he most undoubtedly would receive ratings against him in the
70+% range.  That brings us to another recent Clinton poll.  During the
recent action against Iraq, a public opinion poll was taken asking about
individual approval of the President's actions regarding Iraq.  A remarkable
73% approval rating was reported.  Does this say that 73% of the American
people approve of all of the President's actions?...  not at all.  Days
after these polls, other polls were taken after the President was impeached
by the House.  These polls reported 40-45% of the American people supporting
either a Clinton resignation or a conviction by the Senate removing him from
office.  Has public opinion changed?... not necessarily, as many of those
who approved of the President's actions against Iraq may also approve of his
removal from office.

Basically, the proves that public opinion polls mean nothing...

>: BTW, Nixon still had high job approval ratings...
>:
>:
>
>Never a 73% approval.  Even Reagan never had that.


Hmmm...  Actually, I don't recall, but a recent discussion on C-SPAN
revealed that Nixon had support in the 65-75% range before the Judiciary
Committee proceedings.  I suppose that I could bring up Bush with his 93+%
approval ratings, but that would be silly and irrelevant...