Steven,
** OT **
Steven, the arcane Catch-22 established by the Republicans is indeed fascinating. There is an old saying in the law: if the facts are against you argue the law. If the facts and the law are against you go after the prosecutor.
So when Clinton defends himself on the basis of facts he is accused of obstruction of justice. When he disputes the law by claiming that the charges, even if true, do not rise to the level of an impeachable offense he is accused of mounting a legalistic campaign, and not dealing with the facts. And if he attacks the prosecutor due to his bias, unprofessional behavior and prosecutorial misconduct, he is accused of engaging in personal attacks.
Does this sound like America to you, or the PRC?
It should be clear to even the most ardent Clinton hater that there is something patently unfair when a man, in trying to defend himself, is immediately judged guilty on the nature of the defense, not the substance. In essence, the only way the Republicans could limit their attack is if Clinton agreed with their charges.
Here is an analogy. A man is accused of a crime. If he attempts to defends himself the prosecutor adds a count of perjury, and if the poor schnook hires a lawyer, the prosecutor then adds a count of obstruction of justice.
TTFN,
CTC
PS Save the whales! |
