No log in the eye for you, eh JLA? Legal expert that you are, you aren't the least bothered by those petty technicalities like innocent until proven guilty, right? And on "rule of law" issues, it's conveniently different in the Senate trial, because it's a political as well as a legal matter, right?
Yes, you're only interested in "truth and justice" and "the rule of law", just like Smith and Porter when they planted the (false, if you believe Paula Jones) Arkansas trooper story with Brock. They were just pursuing the larger truth that Clinton is the antichrist, right?
I know, "defending the indefensible". Personally, I think your pompous sanctimony on the matter is pretty indefensible, but that's just my opinion. Legally, my opinion is that Democrats in the Senate are within reasonable limits arguing against conviction strictly on the grounds that the alleged offenses don't rise to the necessary level of high crimes, as former favor Democrat of the Clinton haters Moynihan decided. The legal arguments which you so "objectively" present on the allegations are moot, from that point of view. |
