Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joe Wagner who wrote (23425)	12/21/1998 9:52:00 AM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

...funny if the Impeachment court ruled that Clinton's defense lawyers had the right to ask any of the Senators under oath ... It would be hilarious. Mostly because the Impeachment court is in fact the Senate. It's not well known, but true, that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court only has a ceremonial role in the proceedings. His job is to look impressive in his robes and bang the gavel when it gets too loud. His only effective role is that of the person who casts a tie-breaking vote. All other rules, prodedures, and objections are settled by a majority vote of the Senate witht he exception of the vote to remove the President with must be 2/3. TP

To: Joe Wagner who wrote (23425)	12/23/1998 4:02:00 PM
From: Les H	Respond to of 67261

Normally, they have to interview the potential jurors in the jury selection process. It would cut both ways. Both the prosecution and the defense would have the opportunity to query the potential jurors, both Republican and Democrat. Potentially, they could ask about related topics, such as campaign irregularities as well. That would rule Al Gore and a number of others out. In this case, you don't have potential jurors since the Senate is by already pre-selected as jury.