On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 22:22:27 -0500, Kevin Gowen
<kgowenNOSPAM@myfastmail.com> brought down from the Mount tablets
inscribed:

>Raj Feridun wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 21:12:43 -0500, Kevin Gowen
>> <kgowenNOSPAM@myfastmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>>No, I think one is declared innocent of the crimes once they've been
>>>>acquitted.
>> 
>> 
>>>You think wrong. Nothing of the kind is declared. There is a very good 
>>>reason why the verdict is "not guilty" rather than "innocent".
>> 
>> 
>> It means Clinton is declared not guilty of the specific offenses for
>> which he was charged. He is legally blameless. Spin it all you like.
>
>Of course he is legally blameless.

Then I'll need the latter portion of Article I, Section 3, Clause 7
explained to me.

If those found guilty by the Senate are still liable to criminal
proceedings on the same charges, how about those acquitted by the
Senate? Aren't they still liable to criminal prosecution?

I'd consider it more a case of escaping the immediate danger than
being legally blameless.






--

Michael Cash

"I am sorry, Mr. Cash, but we are unable to accept your rap sheet in lieu of
a high school transcript."

                                Dr. Howard Sprague
                                Dean of Admissions
                                Mount Pilot College