-=> On 02-23-98  20:24, John Sampson did testify and affirm <=-
-=> to Robert Craft concerning A new theory <=-
 RC> Nice try, John - it's truly an effort worthy of member of
 RC> the right wing conspiracy. 
 
 RC> But.. there's one problem: it doesn't make much sense to
 RC> commit two felonies - perjury and obstruction of justice -
 RC> just to evade a civil tort? Nah...
 JS> According to all of the legal pundits, El Presidente will
 JS> NOT be indicted since he's El Presidente and that it will
 JS> go to the Hill for an impeachment hearing. Since the Senate
 JS> lacks the Republican votes to ensure a conviction, he
 JS> stands a better than even chance of beating the rap. And
 JS> if, as a by product, he throws a rather large spanner into
 JS> the spokes of the Paula Jones lawsuit, so much the better. 
I have a different view of that. Although the President is
considered to not be indictable, this does not preclude the
Grand Jury returning a finding naming the Dufus as an
"unindicted co-conspirator". Indeed, such was done to
Richard Nixon. 
I find it preferable for a Bill of Impeachment to be
written on the basis of a Grand Jury Indictment naming
specific statutory violations rather than an ad hoc Bill of
Impeachment being generated by a political committee. Using
an indictment makes the Impeachment appear more an
instrument of justice as opposed to a political weapon. 
... Telling a liberal the truth is like showing a vampire a crucifix.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20
--- PCBoard (R) v15.22/5
---------------