On 02-24-98, ROBERT CRAFT declared to ROBERT PLETT:
RC> RP> Except Starr doesn't believe it's legal to indict the
RC> RP> president.  |-)
RC>Not just Starr - but also large proportion of prosecutors.
RC>Think about it - how can a prosecution proceed when the
RC>accused has Constitutional oversight of the prosecution and
RC>that oversight makes him privy to the entire prosectutorial
RC>case? For that matter, why would the Founders have bothered
RC>to formulate impeachment proceedings if it were intended
RC>that malfeasors be prosecuted in office?
Hey, you've no argument from me - I'm the guy who keeps saying it
doesn't take the kind of evidence needed for a criminal indictment to
impeach a president.
RC> RC> From what I've seen, the intent is to write the Bill of
RC> RC> Impeachment around an indictment,
RC> RP> I agree that's what they're doing, but IMO, that's shirking
RC> RP> their Constitutional duty.
RC>I suspect that's a minority view.
What minority would that be?  Minority or not, it's in line with the
view of the Founding Fathers.
RC> RC> but... add all the
RC> RC> malfeasance from FileGate to TravelGate to demonstrate a
RC> RC> *pattern* of malfeasance and abuse of power.
RC> RP> That alone is sufficient for impeachment.
RC>In your eyes and mine, yes. But, the two of us don't
RC>constitute a Senate majority.
True enough.  Shows how far the integrity of the Senate has fallen.
Bob     /\-/\   - proud Ilk   homebody@galstar.com
C.A.T. ( o o ) Chapter Ilks
       == ^ ==
Green Country - Oklahoma      http://www.galstar.com/~homebody/
 * SLMR 2.1a * Only people can make the simple so complicated.
---------------