🚀 go-pugleaf

cfortunato@aol.com wrote:

> In article <3675AFAC.3128@serious.com>,
>  What makes you think they won't impeach Gore?

I don't know!  Perhaps from the fact that there is no evidence they will?

>  They've already shown that
> they don't need real charges.

If perjury and obstruction of justice aren't "real" charges, what the hell are?

> Three out of the four charges against Clinton
> they have no actual evidence for, and they're charging him with them, anyway.

Bullshit, there is overwhelming evidence that he committed all four, and
additional evidence he has committed all sorts of crimes they *aren't* charging
him for.

>  If Gore gets in, how long do you think it will before they impeach him over
> campaign financing - even if they have no real evidence for it?

If they have no real evidence for it, it will never happen.  If they do, it will
certainly take long enough for President Gore to appoint a V.P., and if he knows
what's good for him, it will be someone who isn't tainted by scandals, impeachable
or otherwise.

> They don't
> need real charges, and they don't need public consent.  So how is that
> different from a dictatorship?

You seem to be as unclear on the concept of a dictatorship as you are on life in
general.  Dictators are all but impossible to impeach without bloodshed.  American
Presidents can be impeached by Congress and removed from office by the Senate,
when it is warranted.  History suggests that if anything, both houses are too
reluctant to use this tool. Even if they overused it, your objection boils down to
the argument that our system isn't dictatorial ENOUGH.