🚀 go-pugleaf

In nyc.general Merlin Dorfman <dorfman@netcom.com> wrote:
> Chris Mauritz (ritz@ritz.mordor.net) wrote:
> : In nyc.general Jeffrey E. Salzberg <salzberg@flash.net> wrote:
> : > In article <764v0d$r2r$1@news.ncal.verio.com>,
> : >   <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.

> : > Not at all; the fact that the Republican-led House impeached the president
> : > doesn't mean that they had credible grounds for doing so.  It could, for
> : > example, be the act of a bunch of cynical, unethical demogogues putting the
> : > nation into crisis for the sake of political gain.

> : Or it could be a president that was so cocky that he eventually stepped
> : on his pecker and got what was coming to him.  History will decide.  Even
> : if the Senate does nothing to him, the disgrace he's brought to his family
> : and country will follow him into the history books.

>      That's exactly what it was, and is the best description of a non-
> impeachable offense that I have ever heard.  May I quote you?

Knock yourself out.  Personally, I don't care if he gets impeached or
not...However, I think the Senate is Constitutionally required to try
him once the House has passed the articles of impeachment.

The amusing part is all his previous work will be forgotten and he'll
go down in history as being stupid enough to get caught getting a 
hummer from an intern.  Whether he gets kicked out or serves the
rest of his sentance as a lame duck, he's effectively finished.  Of
course, the truly amusing part will be watching Gore distance himself
from Clinton as the Presidential race heats up.  I can't wait for those
hard questions when the debates begin.

Regards,

Chris

-- 
Christopher Mauritz
ritz@mordor.net