| Paul Rubin 2005-07-15, 12:31 am |
| "Kiddon" <tampachessdon@aol.com> writes:
quote:
> Let's get the facts straight here. I am a conservative Republicican,
> and therefore generally not a Clinton supporter. Nonetheless, we
> cannot rewrite history. Clinton was not convicted by the U.S. Senate.
> 10 Republicans, and all Democrats voted "Not Guilty" on Article I
> (Perjury Before Grand Jury). 5 Republicans, ald all Democrats voted
> "Not Guilty" on Article II (Obstruction of Justice), resulting in a
> 50-50 vote. Conviction would have required a 2/3 majority, or 67
> votes.
Also, as I understand it, "felony" is from criminal law and only a
jury can convict someone of a felony. Even if the Senate voted
against Clinton by 100-0 and removed him from office, that is not a
felony conviction. Subsequent to removal he would have to be indicted
by a prosecutor and tried and convicted by a jury, to be declared
guilty of a felony. If found guilty of a felony by a jury, he could
be thrown in the slammer, but not until then. And that criminal trial
would be on a different and harder to prove set of elements than the
impeachment trial. I don't believe there was any chance of those
elements being shown, but we'll never know.
Nixon skipped the impeachment step by resigning before Congress caught
up with him. Nonetheless, he still faced likely indictment and jury
trial and imprisonment, which is why Ford pardoned him. Unlike
Clinton, whose trial was about covering up some embarassing aspects of
his sex life, Nixon really did abuse his office and orchestrate a
criminal conspiracy to corrupt the workings of the government.
|