🚀 go-pugleaf

rocket@ccnet.com wrote:
: Merlin, if you were to say, "In my opinion, this is not an impeachable
: offense" I would have a lot less to argue with you about.  To state that the
: president has not committed impeachable offenses after he is impeached is
: somewhat silly.

     I stand by the statement that he has done nothing impeachable, and
cite as evidence the several Republican congresscritters (perhaps even
enough of them to reverse the impeachment vote) who are now asking the
Senate to do something other than vote to convict, perhaps even not to
hold a trial.  The impeachment clause of the Constitution says that
the impeachee (is that a word?) upon conviction shall be removed from
office and disqualified from any futher office of trust or profit under
the United States.  These congresscritters are saying that is not what
they meant--they just wanted to show how strongly they disapprove of 
his actions.   (Not to mention the threats from the Republican
leadership.)  An impeachable offense is "treason, bribery, or other
high crimes and misdemeanors" and one for which the culprit should be
removed from office and disqualified etc.  Clinton has done nothing
that serious.
     I see what you are saying--I am no more qualified to say what
is impeachable and what is not (the Constitution gives that power to
the House of Representatives) than various posters to this group are
qualified to say whether or not Clinton's deposition in the Paula
Jones case was or was not material (the law gives that  power to the
judge in the case).  But I know a political power play when I see it,
and the use of the impeachment power by the House Republicans in this
case is a much worse "abuse of power" than anything Ken Starr
charged  Clinton with.