What "precedents" were set in any of the historical dodges you keep bringing up that have any legal bearing on the Clinton matter?
Why is it a "historical dodge" to compare the current proceedings with what has gone before? They were all legal proceedings, of a sort. What else might we measure the current action against? The alleged Clinton misconduct presented so far seems pretty minor compared to both Watergate and Iran / Contra, both in original misdeeds and in subsequent coverup / obstruction of justice /conspiracy / whatever other kitchen sink du jour is being thrown in now.
Impeachment proceedings, Special Prosecutors, coverups, obstruction of justice, all that jazz. There's no formal legal precedent, of course. But, whatever coverup there was on bimbogate, it seems pretty inconsequential compared to Watergate and Iran/Contra. What more is there to know about Bimbogate? How long did the coverup last? Nixon, Reagan, Bush, the most they could ever bring themselves to say was "mistakes were made", or some such.
Or are you going to join the chorus in lecturing on Clinton's uniquely reprehensible and corrupt conduct? Is the House investigation going to dig up new dirt that Starr couldn't get to in 4+ years? |
