-=> On 02-23-98  20:24, John Sampson did testify and affirm <=-
-=> to Robert Craft concerning A new theory <=-
 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. 
RC>I have a different view of that. Although the President is
RC>considered to not be indictable, this does not preclude the
RC>Grand Jury returning a finding naming the Dufus as an
RC>"unindicted co-conspirator". Indeed, such was done to
RC>Richard Nixon. 
RC>I find it preferable for a Bill of Impeachment to be
RC>written on the basis of a Grand Jury Indictment naming
RC>specific statutory violations rather than an ad hoc Bill of
RC>Impeachment being generated by a political committee. Using
RC>an indictment makes the Impeachment appear more an
RC>instrument of justice as opposed to a political weapon. 
Yep. That certainly makes sense. It could be the thing needed to get the 
votes needed to vote for conviction in the Senate. Now, who would be the 
INDICTED co-conspirators?
John , jnsampson@ibm.net 
 "To find reasonable doubt, one must first be capable of reason."
___
 * WR 1.33 [NR] * UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COPY
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------