To: Jim S who wrote (17452 ) 12/16/1998 8:24:00 PM From: Zeev Hed Read Replies (2) | Respond to
Jim, here we might end up in a "Talmudic" deliberation of what the "Founding Fathers" intentions were. A document that was signed by some 400 (if memory serves) historians and constitutional experts claimed that "other" indeed means of the caliber or importance as the high crimes actually outlined. But because they left that question open (and not being familiar with all the "federalist" papers on this subject, I do not know why they left this definition so vague), it is up to the house. My problem is that the house once before decided that a crime involving (possibly) lying relative to income tax statements (your signature on the 1040 is an oath) did not rise to an impeachable offense, even if it was proven to have been the case, I would have come to the conclusion that (if indeed BC perjured himself, which I still maintain the known facts to me leave room to say he did not) a perjury in a private civil lawsuit, while definitely indictable and prosecutable in a normal court of law (after the close of his term) does not rise to the level of an "impeachable offense".
