-=> Quoting Robert Plett to Walter Luffman <=-
 WL>Being painted unflatteringly by history would be as painful
 WL>to Clinton as impeachment, trial and conviction on the
 RP> I understand the sentiment, Walt, but believe very strongly that
 RP> following through with the Constitutional imperatives the Founders
 RP> laid down is of critical importance in our time.  Whether Clinton would
I don't dispute for a second that impeachment is the
constitutionally-proper thing to do, as well as my personal
preference (okay, I'm a vindictive sort and would like to
nail his hide to the wall, legally speaking).  Impeachment
would also send a powerful signal to present and future
politicians at all levels -- if the impeachment and trial
are successful, and I'm not convinced the odds are that good.
(He isn't called "Slick Willy" for nothing, after all.)  But
I feel as if the nation has been taking daily beatings for
over five years now; I just want it to stop.
Two questions:
  (1) Is there any way we could legally ensure that Gore
would not pardon Clinton, or would any such prior agreement
be unconstitutional?  (I think Gore would sign such an
agreement in exchange for immunity from impeachment and
prosecution on the Templegate money-laundering charges --
but I want more than just his word on it.)
  (2) If Clinton resigned and was not subsequently pardoned
by his successor, could the federal government then proceed
with ordinary indictment and criminal trial; or would we
still have to use the impeachment route because the
charges involve his actions while in office?
I ask because this would permit something even better than
impeachment of a sitting President.  We could pressure him
to leave office immediately, and still prosecute him.  But
I suspect the answer to both my questions will be "no"; the
recent court ruling on the line-item veto indicates that
constitutional authority cannot be signed away, and the idea
of prosecuting "former Prsident Clinton" is so appealing
there must be a legal impediment *somewhere*.
 RP> The ONLY thing that's iffy about impeaching Clinton is the backbone of
 RP> the Republican party.  If they ever manage the moral courage to get
I agree, but only as far as impeachment itself.  Remember that
impeachment requires a simple majority of the House, while
conviction in a Senate trial requires a two-thirds vote.
 RP> fully committed to it, he'll be impeached, unless he escapes by
 RP> resigning first, something I personally doubt he'd do.
I agree that he isn't likely to resign, no matter how much I'd
like to see it.  He's as stubborn as his party's mascot, and
proud as well.  We'll probably have to use physical force to
remove him from the White House when the time comes -- and
he'll be easy to remove, compared with Hillary.
 RP> Just getting up in the morning has its risks.  If we're unwilling to
 RP> accept risk, we might as well resign ourselves to Clinton finishing
 RP> out his term of office and getting off scott free.  There will never be
 RP> a certainty of the votes being there for impeachment, regardless the
 RP> evidence - that's something that only comes about thru the impeachment
 RP> process itself, the trial wherein the case is made and proven.
Bob, you've won me over.  Damn the risks and difficulties --
let's proceed with impeachment proceedings and go all-out for
conviction!  And if Starr has solid evidence against Gore,
let's make it a double-header!
Walter, Forked Deer River Ilks
wluffman@usit.net
... Term limits aren't enough. We need jail. - PJ O'Rourke
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/Wildcat5! v2.0
---------------