>>> mrknowitall - before you make "legal" arguments, you should get a little more exposure to the law:
"Are you implying judges are not now referring perjury to DA's if it occurs in a civil divorce deposition or in a proceeding in their court?"
If there's nobody serving a sentence for a civil deposition in a dismissed case like this, and the talking heads on the news shows say there are few or none, then this is a special case, constructed just to entrap Clinton.
"Separation of powers doctrines specify the supreme court has no
jurisdiction over the results of a Senate impeachment trial."
They have jurisdiction over conduct of the impeachment, because they can rule on the conduct of any matters constitutional that affect the other branches. Now whether this particular Republican-heavy court will intervene is another matter. Look for motions in court when this thing proceeds.
Probably November 3 will have more effect on the process. After November, neither the repubs or the demos will care as much about all this. It may get settled then, but who knows. They let a guy like D'Amato go, and they let Newt go, but they were repubs.
"He is not yet a "convicted criminal" but the acts were crimes."
As an ACLU member, your understanding of proof and crime gives me the chills. You assume you are right. I say a real court should decide that, if it is to be decided. Frankly, I think Clinton should ask for a court trial, because any federal court would throw this joke out.
Ta,
Chaz |
