-Caveat Lector-
In a message dated 1/10/99 2:29:32 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(snip beginning)
I can't disagree with you (I rarely do).... I only assume that you are right,
that the Senate can do pretty much anything that it wants since it's not a
criminal trial and there's not much precedent for presidential impeachment
trials. It just seems that bringing evidence, including slips of the tongue by
witnesses, would turn the whole thing into a circus. Don't get me wrong
though, I would like to see it come down just as you describe. I've said long
ago that the Democrats' worst nightmare is having to actually vote on this
thing. Of course I felt that this would apply to the committee hearings first,
but that came out down party lines. Then I figured that there would be more
honest Dems who would vote for impeachment in the House. Wrong again. So, with
limited testimony and limited evidence presented in an abbreviated trial, we
can expect the same thing - Slick will slide. The only hope is that the
scenario that you hope for plays out.... and then it will only be effective if
it changes public opinion. This is what the Dems most fear. In my opinion a
charge of treason could be proved conclusively in this trial and if the polls
didn't change, nothing more would happen. Even if all hell breaks loose in the
trial, as you and I hope, you'd probably have to have people go around to 90%
of the homes in the US and physically lock their TV sets onto C-Span. BTW,
yes I'm aware that the Republicans are just as slimey as the Democrats, they
just happen to be lucky enough to be on the right side of this particular
issue.
> >The Constitution says something like, ...not to exceed removal from
office.
> >This would indicate that the Senate could do any number of things as
> >punishment but leave him in office.
>
> "Says something like"??? In cases like this, one should make it a point
> to find out the EXACT wording....
>
> "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all
> Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they
> shall be on Oath of Affirmation. When the President
> of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall
> preside. And no Person shall be convicted without the
> Concurrance of two thirds of the Members present.
>
> "Judgement in Cases of Impeachment shall not
> extend further than to removal from Office, and
> disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of
> honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but
> the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and
> subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment,
> according to Law."
>
> -- The U.S. Constitution
> Article I, Section 3
>
OK... what I said has precisely the same meaning as the EXACT wording. They
don't have to kick him out of office. What I was wondering was whether the
wording in the Articles of Impeachment mandated removal.
> >See above. However, when the Articles arrived at the Senate they contained
> the
> >wording, "and removal from office." Are you saying that since the Articles
> >contain this wording this precludes any other action by the Senate? I
might
> >not be up to date on this little wrinkle.
>
> The Senate could decide to put a dunce cap on Clinton and make him sit in
> the corner...but it's highly unlikely...especially if even more damning
> stuff comes out in the trial, the Senate would be hardpressed to do
> anything but to agree to remove him from office based on the charges sent
> to them...
But do you know this for sure? However, it's probably not a very important
point.
>
> >Starr has supposedly agreed not to pursue a criminal trial if there is a
> >censure agreement.
>
> So they appoint another independent prosecutor...
>
> It's highly unlikely that if evidence of something like TREASON comes out
> in the Senate trial, that the matter would just be dropped if Clinton's
> removed from office...
>
>
> >Do you think that they could effectively appoint another
> >special prosecuter against Clinton?
>
> On something like treason? Sure.
>
>
> June
>
> =
Anyway, keep on daydreaming! I am too. It's just that I'm getting awakened too
often.
Thanks,
Jim
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
