To: j_b who wrote (8432 ) 10/9/1998 1:15:00 PM From: Machaon Respond to of 67261
<< I believe it is possible for an impeachment hearing to be legal, but still go against the original intent. Is that what you are describing, and if so, in what way would the current process go against the intent of the Constitution? >> The Republican Congress is blatantly open about it's intentions. They dump secret grand jury testimony and evidence on the Internet, for the world to see. Was this a non-partisan activity? No, of course not. Now they are obviously in search of a reason to impeach Clinton. In the good old days of fair play and equal treatment under the law, a person would know the legal attributes of the crime for which he is charged. But...... not in this case. The Republican House decided that they weren't interested in defining what constitutes impeachment. They figure that they will know it when they see it. The Constitution provided for impeachment for High Crimes and misdemeanours. The intentions were certainly not for a witch hunt and an all out attempt to embarrass the office of the Presidency via Partisan politics. The Republican Congress is on a mission to remove Clinton from office regardless of the intent of the constitution, IMHO. They are in search of a High Crime. That is why they want the impeachment inquiry open ended. But all this bullshit of mine pales next to my biggest concern, which is the dangers of a disruptive impeachment on the people of this country and of the world. Impeachment is not worth price that WE are going to pay. And, what do we get if Clinton is impeached, and then the Republicans go after Gore for mistakes in fund raising. The disruption won't stop if Clinton gets impeached. But, if we stop it now, it's basically over. Sorry for the length of my reply. I realize that I get a little too wordy sometimes. I guess it's a byproduct of typing countless thousands of lines of computer code over 37 years. Regards, Bob