🚀 go-pugleaf

dgdsk@tiac.net wrote:
: In nyc.general Merlin Dorfman <dorfman@netcom.com> wrote:

: >      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?

: Clearly, you do not soncier Clinton's Perjury and Obstruction of Justice
: on this issue as worthy of conviction (P.S. Clinton is already IMPEACHED.
: Live with It).

     I don't consider the ACCUSATIONS of perjury and obstruction of
justice in this issue to be worthy of impeachment, or conviction.

: Are there any matters that you would consider worthy of conviction and
: removal from office upon which a Perjury and Obstruction of Justice is
: done?

     I'm not sure I can decode the question, but if the president did
something impeachable (you know, Treason, Bribery, high crimes,
misdemeanors, that sort of thing) and then committed perjury by
denying it, and obstructed justice by suborning perjury from other
witnesses, then there should be a three-count impeachment: whatever
the original impeachable act was, plus perjury, plus obstruction of
justice.  And if he used the powers of his office to derail the
investigation, say by directing the CIA to drop the investigation
on national security grounds, there should be a fourth count, abuse
of power.

: Something other than treason, like selling technology to the Chinese.

     (1) Treason is defined in the Constitution and does not include
selling technology to the Chinese.
     (2) If anybody cares to submit articles of impeachment accusing
Clinton of abuse of power for selling technology to the Chinese, or
even treason for that matter, we can debate it. It has not happened,
and it will not happen.  Need I tell you why?