-=> On 02-20-98  18:01, Robert Plett did testify and affirm <=-
-=> to Robert Craft concerning So THAT'S why! <=-
 DH> This is the thing to keep in mind. No matter what
 DH> importance we may place on Bill Clinton's marital fidelity,
 DH> the whole thing will depend on whether or not Starr can
 DH> make a case of perjury, et al.
 
 RP> Not so. Congress must make the case.
 
 RC> Correction: Congress must write and pass the Bill of
 RC> Impeachment. Nothing precludes that Bill of Impeachment
 RC> simply being a transcription of any relevant Grand Jury
 RC> indictment gained by Starr.
 RP> Except Starr doesn't believe it's legal to indict the
 RP> president.  |-)
Not just Starr - but also large proportion of prosecutors. 
Think about it - how can a prosecution proceed when the
accused has Constitutional oversight of the prosecution and
that oversight makes him privy to the entire prosectutorial
case? For that matter, why would the Founders have bothered
to formulate impeachment proceedings if it were intended
that malfeasors be prosecuted in office? 
 RC> From what I've seen, the intent is to write the Bill of
 RC> Impeachment around an indictment,
 RP> I agree that's what they're doing, but IMO, that's shirking
 RP> their Constitutional duty. 
I suspect that's a minority view.
 RC> but... add all the
 RC> malfeasance from FileGate to TravelGate to demonstrate a
 RC> *pattern* of malfeasance and abuse of power.
 RP> That alone is sufficient for impeachment.
In your eyes and mine, yes. But, the two of us don't
constitute a Senate majority. 
... An armed man is a citizen.  An unarmed man is a subject. -- RAH
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20
--- PCBoard (R) v15.22/5
---------------