"The entire
case is built upon innuendo and the distorted logic "
That's just silly. The case for perjury and obstruction couldn't be more clear. Facts, only the facts. Sen. Byrd, Democrat, a man who led the charge to avoid a vote, said on Television Sunday "in all fairness it is going to be hard not to vote
for a conviction. The evidence is there, and who is kidding who to say it isn't?"
"He lied to the American People. That isn't a crime nor is it an impeachable offense."
Yes he did. No less than Bill Clinton himself has stated in his past quite flatly that it is impeachable. He didn't mean lying over national security issues, I'm sure...he has more sense than that. But to lie where an american citizen is needlessly harmed for the presidents own self-preservation over a tawdry thing like this, I do believe would have fallen within his thoughts on the matter when he made that statement long ago.
To deny the truth of meeting Paula Jones, which amounted to admitting he had officers bringing him women, he denied Paula Jones her due. The DRESS destroys his credibility. Without it, Lewinskys story would be, to quote Clinton, "certainly not the truth." She would be labeled a lying stalker nothing more- by all the presidents men.
There is no question but that these lies directly affected the Jones civil suit- which fact was ruled upon in the affirmative last fall by a Federal appeals court. Without the Lewinsky testimony, the dress, et al, Jones would be out 850,000 grand and tremendously improved personal believability. Polls show most Americans believe her now. Which was consistently what she wanted most. You may be biased against anyone who harms Clinton with their "stories", but this woman Jones almost certainly told the truth, so close is the Lewinsky testimony of his behavior to the Jones charges. She deserved this outcome.
Mr. Byrd is correct. The facts are bold and clear. Incontrovertible. Reputation and money at stake, he allowed another to be harmed over the course of years(Paula Jones). To finish the job, He clearly failed to allow the very relevant truth to come out in court thus violating his oath to tell the "whole truth". That's perjury. Plain and simple. He did NOT refuse to answer on the grounds of self incrimination- he answered so as to indicate to the court that something revelent was false when in fact he knew it to be true. Then while on the Job speaking to the American people, he clearly and strongly did the same with a finger wag. His self-serving lies geared to insure he retained his position and power, his willingness to say citizen Lewinskys story was "certainly not the truth", to call the Flowers story false 'til the tapes were played, and what of Jones?--reveals a gutless man unable to take responsiblilty for his own true behavior- and he is thus not Presidential material.
He was elected in spite of Flowers because he essentially admitted he lied about her prior to the election. When asked, he promised on 60 minuites that he was through bringing pain to his family- and such indescretions certainly would not become an issue during his Presidency. Would that he felt he could afford to be so honest again- we wouldn't be going through this now. Some 80% of Americans recognize he did these things. Lots of them don't care to see him removed, but if you think anyone but hard-core supporters(if them) would care a wit if he WERE removed- let alone two years from now- I suspect you are sadly mistaken.
When the people realize that his misdeeds are going to continue to haunt the news for the rest of his Presidency, they'll realize they should have answered those polls differently.
|
