In article KHMwi.10064$Ns6.4212@trnddc01, Jim Chandler wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article 2eLwi.4525$%55.1914@trnddc04, Jim Chandler
wrote:


Actually, it's not. One must have proof before going to the Grand Jury,
or in this case, Congress, to try to get an indictment (Bill of
Impeachment).


Incorrect. Back to remedial high school civics for you!

One needs *evidence* before going to the grand jury. The purpose of the grand
jury is to examine the evidence presented to it, and determine whether that
evidence is sufficient cause to issue an indictment.


Without proof FIRST, you will never get an indictment or


That's just silly. It's fairly common for persons to be indicted by a grand
jury because the evidence was strong enough to justify a formal accusation
(the indictment) but then acquitted by the trial jury because the evidence was
not so conclusive as to support a conviction; i.e. there wasn't proof.


impeachment, no matter how loudly the left whines "He lied, people
died", etc. Proof must be concrete, not merely suspicion, or fervent
desire.


That's just silly, too. "Fervent desire" isn't enough to convene a grand jury.
Suspicion might be, if strong enough. Suspicion supported by evidence is more
than ample reason to convene a grand jury -- whose purpose, I remind you, is
to determine if the evidence is strong enough to bring the case to trial. The
petit jury then determines if that evidence constitutes proof.


The Democrats obviously don't have enough or they would have
been on it sooner. If they had solid proof of the lafts desired result
they could have swayed enough Republicans to convict. They don't, they
didn't they won't.


Again, the Dems in the House don't *need* "solid proof" for an impeachment,
any more than a grand jury needs "solid proof" for an indictment. They need
*evidence*, which is not the same thing as proof.



Sorry, but YOU'RE the one being silly. Do you think that the Dems are
going to try to impeach the President without anything other than a
desire to do so? No, they're not!

Of course they won't. I never said they would.

They have to have something other
than a hatred for the President to begin such a proceeding unless they
really want to look like bigger fools than they already do.

Of course they do. They have to have evidence.

You said they had to have proof, which is patently absurd, and is the reason
I'm arguing with you.

Without a
substantial case they would NEVER convince enough Republicans to vote
for it.

Oh, so now you've decided that they don't need proof after all, just "a
substantial case".

So we agree. Glad you figured it out.

Without substantial numbers of republicans voting to impeach it
isn't going to happen. Back to Common Sense 101 for you, never mind the
Civics.

Back to Reading Comprehension 101 for you -- I never commented one way or the
other about the prospects for impeachment. My *entire* disagreement with your
comments stems from your repeated, erroneous statements that indictments (or
impeachments) require proof first. That's just not so.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.