-=> On 04-08-98  00:22, Robert Plett did testify and affirm <=-
-=> to Robert Craft concerning So THAT'S why! <=-
 RP> On 04-02-98, ROBERT CRAFT declared to ROBERT PLETT:
 
 RC> RP> I disagree. A considerable number of that Republican
 RC> RP> majority, certainly the leadership, does not want to see
 RC> RP> Clinton impeached for political reasons.
 
 RC>Why should they?
 RP> Hmmmm.   Mebbe I shoulda put a comma in there after the word
 RP> "impeach".
Particularly when impeachment is for "high crimes and
misdemeanors", not "political reasons". 
 RP> Reading thru everything a coupla times, it appears you
 RP> completely misread my statement. 
Not at all - I read it as punctuated, that the leadership
was reluctant to impeach Clinton for political reasons.
 RP> What I was saying was that the Republicans don't want to
 RP> impeach, because they have political reasons for not
 RP> impeaching, and therefore are content to overlook Clinton's
 RP> criminal behavior so far as impeachment is concerned. 
Then why not "For political reasons, the leadership is
reluctant to impeach Clinton."? 
 RP> I was NOT saying they should impeach him on political
 RP> grounds. 
But that's what you *wrote*. 
 RP> Therefore, the reason why they should impeach is because it
 RP> is right and proper, and their duty under the Constitution
 RP> to impeach any president guilty of such abuses of power and
 RP> office as this one is guilty of. Such flagrant abuse of
 RP> power as Clinton's has been defined as an impeachable
 RP> offense since the birth of the Constitution, its magnitude
 RP> labeling it as either a high crime or a misdemeanor. 
I'm not arguing that point - only your stipulation that it
was appropriate to impeach for political reasons.
 
 
 RC> RP> Sorry, Robert, but there is no excuse for Congress not
 RC> RP> having impeached Clinton already. Furthermore, we have no
 RC> RP> business granting either party a pass for their having
 RC> RP> refused to act.
 
 RC> Again, I disagree. Either repeal the Independent Counsel's
 RC> Act or wait for his results. Proceeding to impeachment
 RC> prior to completion to the independent counsel's simply
 RC> results in charges of pure political manipulation.
 RP> Two problems with that.
 RP> First, while the counsel's job is to ascertain whether
 RP> administration wrongdoing under law occured or not, it is
 RP> not his mandate to search out grounds for impeaching the
 RP> president.
Moot point - any violation of the law by definition
constitutes either a high crime or misdemeanor and thus
qualifies as an impeachable offense. 
 RP> Any such findings on his part are actually incidental to
 RP> his function. 
Incidental *and* inevitable.
 RP> Second, high crimes and misdemeaners as they apply to
 RP> impeachment are not things soley defined by law. 
No, but any felonies or misdemeanors discovered by the
special prosecutor *do* constitute impeachable offenses. 
 RP> It has long been established that such crimes and
 RP> misdemeaners exist when congress says they exist,
 RP> regardless how the law defines them. 
And abuse of that power reduces impeachment to a tawdry
political maneuver a al Andrew Johnson.
 RP> Neither do courtroom rules of evidence apply. 
True if speaking of the Bill of Impeachment. False if
speaking of the Senate trial.
 RP> It is because of those things that the Constitution states
 RP> the impeached party is still in jeopardy under law and may
 RP> still be tried under law after having been impeached. 
Nope, the impeached party is still in jeopardy because
impeachment is not a punitive measure.
 RP> That means, of course, that he can be impeached and then
 RP> found not guilty in criminal court of any crime under law
 RP> whatever.
A situation which confirms to many that impeachment is
simply a tawdry political tool. 
 RP> It is actually the latter that is the real province of the
 RP> independent counsel. 
You've only confirmed my point that an impeachment based on
actual indictment is the ethical manner in which to
procede. 
 RP> Congress has more than enough evidence to impeach Clinton
 RP> based on what it already knows about campaign money, FBI
 RP> files, witness tampering and obstruction of justice, to
 RP> name only a few. The White House campaign against Starr is
 RP> alone sufficient evidence to impeach on grounds of
 RP> obstruction of justice, as is the failure to be forthcoming
 RP> which directly interferes with the Constitution's mandate
 RP> of congressional oversight. 
All items which will be added to Starr's indictment
according to Henry Hyde. 
 RP> By placing the burden on Starr, Congress shirks its
 RP> Constitutional duty. 
Where in the Constitution is there specified a time frame
and manner in which such investigations shall be done?
... Youth + confidence + myopia = naivete.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/Wildcat5! v2.0
---------------