🚀 go-pugleaf

(TO REPLY VIA E-MAIL, STRIP 'XYXYX' FROM THE ADDRESS)

anthony@alphageo.com writes: 

>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.

No.  The House vote for impeachment is like the House vote for impeachment.
The comparison is something people advance because the two procedures seem
to bear a superficial resemblance to one another.  That's not a basis for
proof that how and whey a Grand Jury indicts suspects is _supposed_ to be how
and why the House of Representitives impeaches Presidents.

>It is perfectly legitimate to vote to proceed with a trial, then say that
>something less than the maximum penalty is probably warranted.

And it's perfectly legitimate to suggest that impeaching a president without
a good reason - or much chance that the Senate will convict - is a crock.

Fred