Normally in the law you can't be hauled into court unless everyone is sure that a crime has been committed and the authorities have jurisdiction. In this case the Senate and House have refused to determine what is impeachable until they hold the hearings and see what they have got. The better to lessen the gap between evidence and prospective offense, I suppose. Kinda like the old Russki show trials.
In this case, we are trying to defend the idea that lying about sex on a civil deposition when the guy so clearly had been targeted for years for prosecution by his enemies is an offense on the same order as treason or bribery.
Well, actually, presidents have been caught at bribery and financial corruption, in Teapot Dome, for instance, but not been impeached. Agnew used to keep the cash in his office safe, they say. It took a state prosecutor to indict him, and for the same crime while in the governor's office. One of the Bush boys got caught emptying out a Savings and Loan in the eighties, but his dad got him off the hook, being the prez at the time, and he may end up being the prez himself. Newt is still in there, though he be speaker of the house and had to admit lying to congress during his bribery investigation.
I guess it depends on whose ox is gored.
Or perhaps this is about taking away the voting rights of those who voted for Clinton and those who support his policies, now, which of course, is most of us. Not really about who did what to who.
Could that be it?
Cheers,
Chaz |
