Right. Mr. Clinton-is-the-antichrist is just the guy to give me a lecture about putting politics above the law. Want to tell me more about Henry Hyde's professional, non-partisan handling of this? On a par with his predecessor Newt? The case was dismissed, then settled out of court. This has nothing to do with the Supreme Court ruling on hearing the case in the first place.
Remember, the case is settled now. And before it was settled, it was dismissed, though the dismissal was under appeal. And, of course, the House voted down the Paula Jones perjury article anyway. 3 levels of mootness there. How many do you need?
How many do YOU need, Bill? Of course, when you're trying to remove the antichrist from office, "substantive debate" or "rational debate" doesn't have much to do with it, does it? I'm sure your legal scholarship is on a par with, oh, nevermind. |
