On 03-08-98, JOHN SAMPSON declared to ROBERT PLETT:
JS>What Trent Lott said about Starr was that it was time for Mr. Starr to
JS>either "put up or shut up" (my words, not Lott's) The idea was that enough
Close enough to what I heard him say.
JS>time has elapsed that either Starr has enough to go on or he isn't going 
o
JS>find it as it relates to the Zippergate matter.
And right there is where he's off base.  Starr has plenty to go on all
right, but he's not finished with the follow-up, and some of that is and
has been delayed by court actions on the part of the Whine House in
addition to plain stonewalling.
If Lott thinks things are going too slow, he's got a simple remedy
available to him.  All he's gotta do is use his influence on the House
leadership to get 'em moving on impeachment proceedings.  They never
have needed Starr for that.
JS>As for censuring Clinton, it may be the best we can hope for. Absent any
JS>direct evidence or the proverbial smoking "gun", the REALITY is that we do
JS>not have sufficient votes in the Senate to CONVICT on a bill of
JS>impeachment. All an impeachment trial under these circumstances will
JS>accomplish is create a wonderful election issue. It would add fuel to the
JS>"right wing conspiracy" argument or the "evil Republican" argument.
If there aren't sufficient votes for impeachment, there aren't
sufficient votes for censure either, and censure, IMO, would be seen as
more pure politics than impeachment would.
JS>If Congress censures Clinton, THAT would go down in El Presidente's 
egacy,
JS>a legacy he is overly preoccupied with. He wants the history books to 
reat
JS>him well. It isn't going to happen, but to be censured would certainly get
JS>him upset.
So would an impeachment trial, regardless how it turns out.  That's what
Andrew Johnson is famous for, in fact, about the ONLY thing he's known
for, and that was an *unsuccessful* impeachment.
JS>I do not recall any other President in the history of the Republic ever
JS>having been censured by Congress. And assuming there are enough votes to
JS>pull it off, it would send a clear message to El Presidente and La Primera
JS>Mujer that they aren't "bulletproof" like they think they are.
JS>If Starr is unable to perfect an obstruction of justice case or perjury
JS>case against El Presidente, then the best we can hope for is what Lott is
JS>suggesting.
JS>Forgive me. I'm mission oriented. Sublte messages, IMHO, aren't worth a
JS>darn. Results are. Substance over symbolism. Not symbolism over substance.
Spector has stated doing such a thing is improper for Congress to do,
and that it has no business even considering such a thing.
Constitutionally, they only have impeachment available to them.
Bob     /\-/\   - proud Ilk   homebody@galstar.com
C.A.T. ( o o ) Chapter Ilks
       == ^ ==
Green Country - Oklahoma      http://www.galstar.com/~homebody/
 * SLMR 2.1a * Congress is supposed to defend the Constitution too.
---------------