To: PiMac who wrote (12385 ) 5/13/1999 8:16:00 AM From: jlallen Read Replies (2) | Respond to
Did you read the Starr referral to Congress? The President has yet to be indicted. As you may know, there is disagreement as to whether a sitting President may be indicted. The IC statute requires Starr to refer evidence of impeachable crimes to Congress. He complied and I thought the charges were quite clearly laid out. Perjury, obstruction, abuse of office, etc. The President was impeached and tried in the Senate as required by the Constitution where he offered his defense. The House made its case based upon the referral and the President's men defended. Political considerations seem to control the outcome, much to our future chargrin I think it will prove. Respectfully, I think that to say the charges were not made and the defense was not made departs from reality. The evidence seems quite clear to me. He lied. He lied affirmatively to the American people, to the Arkansas Court and to the Grand Jury. He conspired to cover up his lies, coached witnesses and orchestrated the hiding of relevant evidence. Most importantly, he abused the awesome powers of his office to stonewall, delay and hinder justice. He has greatly damaged the office he holds and violated his oath to faithfully uphold the laws of our nation. I fail to see how logic could dictate that this behavior is not criminal. In fact, IMO logic dictates the opposite result. History will judge the impeachment proceedings and the actions of those responsible for giving this little man a pass. I have already made my judgment about this President and I am fully comfortable with it. I must therefore respectfully disagree with your analysis. JLA
