Say Clinton had, in direct disobedience of federal law, sold arms to Iran to fund an illegal and covert war in Central America.
In that case, I too would be calling for Clinton's impeachment/trial, but as far as I know, he hasn't done this. Reagan or persons in his administration did, but the Democratically-controlled Congress didn't impeach him. That suggests that the then Democratically-controlled House had a great deal more respect for the Constitution than the 1998 Republican House members.
While it might suggest that, this is clearly not the case, and I suspect you know that. The fact is that the only reason that the Democratically-controlled Congress didn't attempt to impeach Reagan is that they couldn't get the goods on him. You acknowledge this when you say "Reagan or persons in his administration... It had nothing to do with "respect for the Constitution," and everything to do with the impossibility of impeaching him for something that they couldn't even prove he knew about, much less did.
However, the current situation is about something that Clinton did. He and he alone swore an oath to tell "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth," and he and he alone then violated that oath. The fact that his perjury was about sex is irrelevant. When he made the decision to perjure himself in the Jones deposition, he set this entire thing in motion. He is the only person who is responsible for the resultant mess.
We are certainly in the midst of a particularly ugly period in American history, but the entire situation is the result of a crime, and the blame for it must fall on the criminal, not on those who would hold the criminal responsible for his crime. Perjury is a felony, and as such it precludes the perjurer from the privilege of holding elected office. It's really as simple as that.
-BLT |
