🚀 go-pugleaf

Jeffrey E. Salzberg wrote:
> 
> In article <3281EDF1.3FBF@io.com>
> Jeff Gaer <doggey@io.com> wrote:
> 
> > Jeffrey E. Salzberg wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <3280C644.36CB@io.com>
> >> Jeff Gaer <doggey@io.com> wrote
> >
> > No, read the constituion. You only have to convince 2/3 of the senate
> > to vote for conviction. That is IMHO an EXTREMELY lose standard of
> > proof.
> 
> It may be a loose standard of proof, but it IS a standard of proof.

You think that IF 2/3 of the senate votes that something is true,
it is therefore proven true?????? Sorry jeff, you can not
say there is NO evidence, ( we have resolved that already), and
you can not say that proof is required, ( since proof of any event
by empirical evidence is basically impossible, if you don't beleive
that try arguing with a religious fundamentalist :) ). WHat is
required is sufficient evidence to motivate 2/3 of the senate to vote
a particular way. Since that would require Democrats voting to
convict clinton, I suspect that proof is NOT the major an issue. 

> 
> >> True; however, practically speaking, there's no point in impeachment > without a reasonable expectation of conviction.
> >
> > There would be if the GOP was on a politically motivated witch hunt
> > as you previously suggested.
> 
> I didn't suggest it; I said it explicitly.  ...and their motivations are irrelevant.  If the president were impeached and acquiited
> 
> in the Senate (as he most certainly would be, based on the "evidence" currently be presented), the ethical bankruptcy of his
> 
> persecutors would be displayed to the entire country.

Why because democratic senators refused to vote to impeach him?
I think you overestimate the voting public. As we have seen on 
this thread even most politically aware Americans don't understand
the process, the news that Clinton was 'Impeached' might have
been sufficient to change the election outcome.


> 
> "They" are the majority of the Congress members.  The witchhunters are not in the majority; they are merely the most vocal.

I'm having difficulty with your arguement, help me out. First you 
say its a GOP witchhunt, then you say the witchhunters are not
in the majority. WHich is it? Or do you simply just not know 
the GOP is in the majority in the House. :)