On 01-29-98, DAVID HARTUNG declared to ROBERT PLETT:
DH> RP> First, what do you mean by admissible evidence?  Congress is not 
ound
DH> RP> in any way by the rules of evidence of court proceedings.  They can
DH> RP> reach a conviction of impeachment on evidence that would never hold 
p
DH> RP> in court.  Note that the Constitution says that the person who is
DH> RP> impeached is still subject to trial and punishment in criminal court.
DH> Robert, I must disagree with you to an extent. I believe that while
DH> Congress may not be legally bound by court rules, those rules are a
DH> good thing to go by, in order to ensure that they do not go of half
DH> cocked.
Since they refuse to begin with truckloads of sound evidence at their
disposal, there's precious little danger of that.
DH> RP> Second, the idea that a failed impeachment process would result in
DH> RP> slaughter of Republicans at the poles is simply unwarranted fear.  Do
DH> RP> you honestly think that had Nixon remained in office the DemonRats
DH> RP> would've been the victims of such a reaction?
DH> How have you reached this conclusion?
Observation.  |-)
Consider all the attacks DemonRats have made on Republican presidents
since and including Nixon.  I submit that there is no evidence that the
DemonRats suffered in the least from any of it, but to the contrary may
actually have benefitted a bit.  Republicans are not the majority
because of backlash against attacks on Republican presidents.
The greater danger to Republicans, IMO, is inaction in the face of six
years of criminal behavior.  Doing the right thing won't sway liberals
one way or the other, but failure to act will certainly cost the
Republicans conservative votes they need, including in this election
year favoring incumbents.
Bob     /\-/\   - proud Ilk   homebody@galstar.com
C.A.T. ( o o ) Chapter Ilks
       == ^ ==
Green Country - Oklahoma      http://www.galstar.com/~homebody/
 * SLMR 2.1a * Do right, and risk the consequences. - Enyart
---------------