Am I partisan? I'll try to answer that question. I have all along grasped that the Paula Jones suit was pure partisan political warfare. Just look at all the facts with that case. If this was brougt against any standard corporation, it would be tossed out of court as frivolous immediately. Why? Look at the time that went by before she filled. Did she make a police report? Did she talk to a boss or human relations? This was clearly a trumped up political lawsuit. Look at the backers of that suit.
If Clinton had done something, had a car accident and injured someone, so legal peril that just came out of reasonable circumstances not political smear efforts, and he lied to get out of the suit, then I would say impeach him. When it is clear as day it is all pure politics and he is just playing the same game the other side is playing which is using any mechanism, and system or institution to fight a political war, then I say, it isn't really about what it seems to be about. That is how I feel about this. This wasn't just some ordinary lawsuit that are laws are for and for which those laws are to make sure people get treated fair and there is justice. This wasn't about any of that. It was dirty and vicious for one side to file the lawsuit and it has been dirty fighting it. Politics is a nasty business and has been now for a long while. Both sides have done it. That said; this is not Watergate and it is not Iran/Contra which I am both well versed in. This isn't about the law and the legal system and a legal case; it is a political case. There was no sexual harassment in that Paula Jones case. No evidence of retaliation of any kind; no flowers on secretaries day; give me a break. Clinton did what he should have; fought a dirty political abusive and bogus lawsuit with every weapon available. He was advised by his lawyers about what was perjury and what wasn't; it had to be material to the Jones case and concentual sex no matter what the difference in power is not sexual harrassment and so why is it in the Jones case at all? A pattern; that doesn't establish anything from a legal standpoint. It was just mudslinging.
Now you have the American people telling Congress at 70% they don't think this is worthy of the extraordinary and extreme circumstance of impeachment of the President and more than all the facts are out on this and the Republican's think this needs to be dragged out further. I would respect the Republican's if they got a panel of unbiased Constitutional scholars to look all of this over and say if it is at the level of impeachment and if they say it is; then start the House proceedings. Otherwise, it should be reduced to something lessor. That isn't in the Constitution, but it might be able to be worked out. They haven't done that. They want to score points so they can use this to pick up seats and that is unethical to me. They are abusing this process so they can gain, but then, that proves that they see this as a political thing, not what they claim it to be, law and leadership, etc. You saw what the world leaders think of Clinton; how much success in leadership evidence does one need? I think the Republican's have handled this very poorly. The Dem's didn't treat Nixon with this kind of bias; I remember that. It was a stern and severe process the hearings. No jokes about it at all. Nobody should be joking about it now. They are talking about invoking something that should only be done in cases of treason and using the government to illegal hurt innocent people. Impeachment isn't about lying or else Bush should have been impeached over the read my lips lie. Is that partisan, my assessment, I don't think so. I'll have to say that Hyde is at least somewhat level headed about it in his demeanor; I don't see that in Newt who is snickering about this and loves what is happening. |
