I was aghast then that politicians would be so aroused by the smell of blood that they would risk an impeachment crisis over such trivial "crimes." I an still see the blood lust in the eyes of the impeachment zealots and it still frightens me. That those same partisans who would go to such lengths over so little can't see the parallel with the current situation, who can't see that this is no less trivial than that, and no less risky... The effect of partisanship is powerful, indeed.
As my buddy SearchRE would say:
"I guess having low standards helps"......
There is NO parallel.
Harken was an incident subjected to an SEC investigation. No evidence of any wrongdoing was uncovered. Substantial exculpatory material, including market data, was found to arrive at just the opposite conclusion. The SEC declined to pursue the matter because, as its own internal memos point out, it could not make a case..... End of story.
Clinton was impeached for lying to the grand jury, misleading a federal court, submitting false affidavits to a federal court and misusing the powers and perquisites of his office to cover up his deceitful conduct. Had he been honest about his misconduct, I agree the "crimes" would have been petty and I would not have supported impeachment. He admitted he lied and there is the little blue dress. However, more importantly, Mr. Clinton is a lawyer, a lawyer who tried to evade a law which he signed into existence and a lawyer who then lied repeatedly to the American people, a grand jury and a federal court, who went so far as to subborn perjury and submitted false affidavits to evade the consequences of his actions. These are not "minor" offenses and could not be rationally considered minor offenses BY ANYONE when committed by the President of the United states who takes a solemn oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and laws of this land. It is disingenuous at best and it is most certainly DANGEROUS to the rule of law to continue to chant such hollow rhetoric.......
JLA |
