-=> On 02-27-98  17:45, Robert Plett did testify and affirm <=-
-=> to Robert Craft concerning So THAT'S why! <=-
 
 RP> Except Starr doesn't believe it's legal to indict the
 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?
 RP> Hey, you've no argument from me - I'm the guy who keeps
 RP> saying it doesn't take the kind of evidence needed for a
 RP> criminal indictment to impeach a president. 
It does if one wishes to rebut the inevitable charges
"witch-hunt" and "political lynching". 
 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. 
Not in today's political environment. Presentation of a
Bill of Impeachment based on a Grand Jury Indictment
meeting statutory requirements effectively nullifies the
accusations of political chicanery.
 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.
 
 RC> In your eyes and mine, yes. But, the two of us don't
 RC> constitute a Senate majority.
 RP> True enough. Shows how far the integrity of the Senate has
 RP> fallen. 
Not at all - it shows how far the integrity of the Senate
minority has fallen - that minority which constitutes the
difference between the Republican majority and the 2/3's
majority necessary for Impeachment. 
... Clinton flunked the SHINOLA test.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20
--- PCBoard (R) v15.22/5
---------------