Humm, did you really mean "voracity", or where you perhaps confusing "veracity" with "voracity"?

>It appears I will be the first here to write it, but here goes: It certainly warrants impeachment proceedings.
>
>I wrote that knowing full well that:
>
>1. It was a minority report - (this is conerning but does diminish the voracity of the report). For example, I am of a firm belief that it does not matter if the author of a research paper is conducting the research entirely for political purposes or even capital gains as long as the research is conducted acording to approved standards and is substantiated. Hence, a similar report on a Democratic cabinet by the GOP party would have as much voracity if substantiated regardless of the hidden agenda (if any). The key is 'substantiated.'
>
>2. No GOP judges have or will likely sign unto the report later.
>
>3. President Clinton deserved to be impeached for lying under oath, and excusing one president does not excuse another. Likewise:
>
>4. Other Presidents in history have created offenses nearly as great and because they were never caught, they got away with it. That does not give Presidents carta blanche to walk all over our laws and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
>
>Surprisingly, impeachment proceedings were not recommended, but then that would be a power belonging to Congress. (However, it can begin in the state legislature).