-Caveat Lector-
In a message dated 1/10/99 9:12:17 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> This is my feeling, also...and may be why certain parties are so against
> calling witnesses, I suspect...there's a fear that much more damning
> evidence may slip out if witnesses are allowed, evidence which will
> possibly lead to the impeachment and/or prosecution of some highly placed
> people -- perhaps Gore (explains the bleatings about the Repubs
> 'overthrowing' the election, which doesn't make sense on the surface,
> since Gore would end up in "the catbird's seat"...BUT if evidence comes
> out in the trial that he ALSO committed treason, well...) -- perhaps a
> few Administration officials -- perhaps some important Congresscritters
> from BOTH sides of the aisle...
>
There are several things that I am now confused on. Yes, circumstantial
evidence seems to indicate that Clinton should be investigated for treason.
However, the "trial" that is now taking place in the Senate does not include
that charge. I don't understand how evidence of a crime not a part of the
original indictment could be brought, unless that evidence was in support also
of the crimes being charged, ie perjury and obstruction. Should such evidence
be admitted, I would think that it would lead to a separate indictment, either
other articles of impeachment or indictment in criminal court. By the way,
does anyone know if the concept of double jeopardy applies to impeachment?
Could the President be impeached twice?
> >He should be impeached and [possibly hanged along
> >with numerous others on both sides of the party aisle for his treason, and
> >that should be the issue before the Senate.
>
> But it isn't. The issue is perjury and obstruction of justice.
>
> Even if it WAS treason, the Senate trial, not being a criminal trial,
> doesn't have any power except to remove him from office...
The Constitution says something like, ...not to exceed removal from office.
This would indicate that the Senate could do any number of things as
punishment but leave him in office.
>
> My guess? A good possibility that 'something' comes out in the Senate
> trial which suddenly broadens it's scope beyond the perjury and
> obstruction of justice charges...something which perhaps DOES show
> possibly treasonous actions, not only on the part of Clinton, but
> possibly Gore too...
>
> The Dems complain loud and long about the Repubs conducting a 'witch
> hunt', and demand that the Senate trial just stick to the original
> charges...
>
> But the new stuff is so 'hot', it can't be completely ignored...the
> Senate, knowing that the only thing it can do is remove Clinton from
> office .......
See above. However, when the Articles arrived at the Senate they contained the
wording, "and removal from office." Are you saying that since the Articles
contain this wording this precludes any other action by the Senate? I might
not be up to date on this little wrinkle.
>no matter WHAT the charges are, votes to remove him from office
> based solely on the perjury and obstruction of justice charges -- because
> of the 'hotness' of the other stuff uncovered, the Senate Dems no longer
> feel they can back the president and so vote to remove based on the
> 'lesser' charges...
>
> The Senate then turns the 'hot' stuff it uncovered over to an independent
> prosecutor to pursue possible criminal charges against Clinton...even if
> it ostensibly isn't after anything on Gore, I predict there will be
> enough fallout so that it will be hard to deny his involvement...as the
> criminal proceedings against Clinton proceed, the House Judiciary
> Committee commences an investigation into Gore...with a lot of 'what did
> he know, and when did he know it' stuff...
Starr has supposedly agreed not to pursue a criminal trial if there is a
censure agreement. Do you think that they could effectively appoint another
special prosecuter against Clinton? Gore, of course, is a separate issue. But
before going in that direction, I would suggest impeaching and removing Janet
Reno.
>
> With the end result that by the time the year 2000 comes around, Gore
> will effectively be unelectable...
Hell, I thought that Bill Clinton was unelectable in 1991.
(snip)
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
