🚀 go-pugleaf

dorfman@netcom.com (Merlin Dorfman) wrote:

>: >     I noticed in the news this morning, however, that some of the
>: >Impeachment Party members who voted for impeachment are now saying
>: >that Clinton really should not be removed from office; some form of
>: >censure is what is needed.  These guys all voted for a resolution
>: >that said Clinton deserves to be removed from office.  Is that like
>: >lying under oath, or what?

>rocket@ccnet.com wrote:
>
>: What a dufus!  The House vote for impeachment merely indicates that they
>: feel there is enough for the Senate to consider removing him from office,
>: not that he should be removed.  Pay attention to the details my man.

dorfman@netcom.com (Merlin Dorfman) wrote:
    
>     Read the resolution.  I don't have the exact wording, but it says
>that Clinton SHOULD be removed from office and disqualified from any
>further office of profit or trust under the United States.  It doesn't
>say that the Senate should consider whether or not it is true.  It says
>it IS true and the Senate should act accordingly.

The House vote for impeachment is like a Grand Jury vote to indict -
there is enough evidence, considering essentially only the prosecution
case, to convict.  Whether the defense case, or other mitigating
circumstances, warrant acquittal or conviction on a lesser charge, or
an easier punishment, is not the province of the Grand Jury, nor of
the House.  It is perfectly legitimate to vote to proceed with a
trial, then say that something less than the maximum penalty is
probably warranted.

Anthony Argyriou