Re: Impeachment

On Fri, 21 Jun 1996 11:44:10 +0900, chris@trn.or.jp (Chris Hinkle)
wrote:

>At  9:43 AM 96.6.20 -0400, Mark Leaman wrote:
>>If Perot was elected (and he's not very stable, but that's another debate)
>>the other parties would turn their backs on him and absolutely nothing would
>>get done. He'd be impeached within two years.
>
>
>He'd have to be convicted of a crime before impeachment would even be
>remotely possible.  Remember, not even Nixon was impeached.

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe he was impeached, but not convicted.
The word "impeach" means essentially the same thing as "indict",
except that there is not a criminal proceeding and no jail time is
involved. Had he not resigned when he did, he would certainly have
been convicted by the Senate and removed from office. That much is
admitted by both Republican and Democratic members of the Senate of
that time.

And for fans of impeachment<g>, Kennedy's book Profiles of Courage has
a chapter on the Andrew Johnson impeachment.


Kevin B. O'Brien
kob1@ix.netcom.com
"I feel a very unusual sensation--if it's not indigestion,
I think it must be gratitude." Benjamin Disraeli