On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 22:36:46 +0000, Jim Chandler wrote:
whit3rd wrote:
On Aug 13, 8:14 am, Jim Chandler wrote:

... I don't go about screaming for
the presidents impeachment without concrete proof that a crime has been
committed.

That's odd. The usual sequence is: suspicion, indictment, proof,
conviction.
So, you need to have suspicion first (yep, we got that) then you
indict
(i.e. accuse, ask for impeachment...). It's very much out-of-sequence
to ask for proof BEFORE indictment.

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). Without proof FIRST, you will never get an indictment or
impeachment, no matter how loudly the left whines "He lied, people
died", etc. Proof must be concrete, not merely suspicion, or fervent
desire. 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.

Everybody's afraid to impeach Dubya, because that would put Cheney in
charge.

Better the devil we know than the devil we don't.

Thanks,
Rich