On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:06:57 -0800 (PST), James Arthur
>
>
>
>
>
> wrote:
> >>
> [snip]
>
> >> > It--showing a pattern of Mr. Clinton foisting himself on and/or
> >> > expecting favors from subordinates--was central to the plaintiff's
> >> > case.
>
> >> Not in the judges opinion it didn't. Anybody reading the facts would
> >> see a huge difference between someone having an affair with a willing
> >> adult and someone who "expected favors" etc. The judge, like all
> >> reasonable people, can see the huge difference.
>
> > You misspeak; the trial re: perjury & obstruction was heard by the
> >Senate, not a judge.
>
> Not precisely...
>
> The House of Representatives brings Articles of Impeachment
> ("indicts") and acts as PROSECUTOR.
>
> The Senate acts as JURY.
Right, the case is heard by the "jury", in this case the U.S. Senate, as I said.
In the case of a Presidential impeachment, the Chief Justice of the
> Supreme Court acts as JUDGE.
Right, since both judges and juries are sometimes described as "hearing" a case, that's a useful clarification of my point: the judge does not (and did not) decide what is and isn't perjury.
In impeachment, if allegations are brought (as they were) and a grand jury (the full House) indicts, as they did, then the case is tried by the prosecutor (certain House members), refereed by the judge (Chief Justice), and decided by the _jury_ (the Senate).
The jury decides.
[snip]
>
> ...Jim Thompson
Cheers, James Arthur