Quite a reasonable, and interesting post. Perhaps it will surprise you that I agree with most of it.
What I think we really need to do now is move quickly. For outselves and the rest of the world.
In particular, I will be quite upset if the House dilly dallies. It is also not up to the House to hold a trial on the facts, with cross examination, and full presentation of Clinton's case. There should be only one trial, and the Constitution provides that it shall be in the Senate.
It also is quite clear that the House is going to vote articles of impeachment. So they should just get on with it and send it to the Senate, where the real decision will inevitably be made.
If the House Judiciary wants to reclaim some statesman like role for itself, it should carefully and with integrity examine Starr's report and the underlying evidence, and see which of Starr's claim's are well enough supported to send on. They could also examine their own views of what constitute impeachable offenses.
Re: sufficient evidence, and the like. I think the House would redeem itself a bit if they didn't just rubber stamp all of Starr's report before they adopt it and send it to the Senate. But rather throw out some of the real stretches before they stamp approved.
E.g., they should at least reject the ridiculous claim that the assertion of privelges for determination by the courts was an abuse of office. And that telling his cabinet the same thing that he was telling the press was an abuse of office.
Some of the shakier obstruction claims should also be rejected, but I don't expect even the above, much less that.
Then let the Senate get to work. That is where the President should really make his case, especially on the law, and the like. Then before we get into the more degrading aspects of cross examination (such as of Monica), lets make some sort of deal.
The only place that can happen is in the Senate.
The House should hurry up with it.
Doug |
