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?
Hmmmm.   Mebbe I shoulda put a comma in there after the word "impeach".
Reading thru everything a coupla times, it appears you completely
misread my statement.  What I was saying was that the Republicans don't
want to impeach, because they have political reasons for not impeaching,
and therefore are content to overlook Clinton's criminal behavior so far
as impeachment is concerned.  I was NOT saying they should impeach him
on political grounds.
Therefore, the reason why they should impeach is because it is right and
proper, and their duty under the Constitution to impeach any president
guilty of such abuses of power and office as this one is guilty of.
Such flagrant abuse of power as Clinton's has been defined as an
impeachable offense since the birth of the Constitution, its magnitude
labeling it as either a high crime or a misdemeanor.

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.
Two problems with that.
First, while the counsel's job is to ascertain whether administration
wrongdoing under law occured or not, it is not his mandate to search out
grounds for impeaching the president.  Any such findings on his part are
actually incidental to his function.
Second, high crimes and misdemeaners as they apply to impeachment are
not things soley defined by law.  It has long been established that such
crimes and misdemeaners exist when congress says they exist, regardless
how the law defines them.  Neither do courtroom rules of evidence apply.
It is because of those things that the Constitution states the impeached
party is still in jeopardy under law and may still be tried under law
after having been impeached.  That means, of course, that he can be
impeached and then found not guilty in criminal court of any crime under
law whatever.  It is actually the latter that is the real province of
the independent counsel.
Congress has more than enough evidence to impeach Clinton based on what
it already knows about campaign money, FBI files, witness tampering and
obstruction of justice, to name only a few.  The White House campaign
against Starr is alone sufficient evidence to impeach on grounds of
obstruction of justice, as is the failure to be forthcoming which
directly interferes with the Constitution's mandate of congressional
oversight.
By placing the burden on Starr, Congress shirks its Constitutional duty.
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.
---------------