<<The Republican Congress plans to ignore the "High Crimes and misdemeanour" definition for impeachment>>
Untrue - I direct you to my post regarding an article written by one of the Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee regarding perjury and high crimes and misdemeanors.
Message 5946459
<<This was a dastardly thing for the Republicans to do.>>
First of all, the Republicans didn't do it, all but 63 member of the House, including 2/3 of the Democrats did it, with the permission of the judge. All perfectly legal and bipartisan.
<<GJ testimony was also leaked to the public.>>
Both sides leaked information. Reporters have claimed that most leaks came from either the people giving testimony or from the WH.
<<President Clinton was entrapped.>>
That's your opinion. I don't agree, but either way, the House and the Senate will make a decision regarding that. If he was, he will be vindicated. If not, he may be impeached.
<<Starr went beyond his mandate, possibly illegally, to get at Clinton.>>
Starr stayed within his mandate - every move was approved by Reno and the 3 judge panel.. As to illegality, there is a proper venue for pursuing that. Neither the Democrats nor the White House has filed any protest with either the DOJ or the 3 judge panel even suggesting such a thing. If they felt they had a case, why wouldn't they file? They did regarding the leaks, so it can't be that they are averse to filing.
<<The threat to our democracy comes when a political power, thru unlawful and unscrupulous means, can overthrow a democratically elected President. >>
Of course, this can't happen unless the Senate consists of a 2/3 majority of one party. That isn't the case, so no unilateral removal is even possible, let alone likely. As to unlawful, the entire process is mandated by the Constitution. How can following it be unlawful? Unscrupulous, maybe, unlawful, ridiculous. |
