Posted on 11/01/2005 8:26:59 PM PST by The Spirit Of Allegiance
I think the evidence was sealed. Not sure for how long.
Is it not true that Democrats had to vote in reasonably large numbers to impeach Clinton in the first place?
His impeachment (now called an abuse of power by Clinton Hisself) is portrayed as a vendetta by conservative Republicans alone, but that cannot be true. I would love to know what those Democrats thought.
The Senate's behavior was disgraceful. Kenneth Star was a joke, but the Senate truly disturbed me for its willingness to abrogate its constitutional responsibility.
The problem was Newt Gingrich was screwing his secretary on government time and money and Bill clinton had the proof. On top of that Hillary stood behind bill, Newts wife wanted him hung from the highest tree.
The options were pretty simple. The media was going to go full bore on Newt and his girl friend and his betrayed wife. The media would take Bill and Monica off the news and replace it with Newt and Republican hyprocracy.
So the deal was cut. Clinton would be impeached but not convicted. Newt would resign but not have any charges places against him. The number two Republican in the house who was also banking out of wedlock, would accept the speakers job after Newt resigned and then he would resign. That is hwat livingston did.
The end result is the Senate voted 100 to zero to NOT look at the evidence against clinton. Had they done so, they would have had to convict him. And of course Newt would have to be convicted as well.
If you want to know why Clinton walked, thank Newt Gingrich.. He was as guilty as Clinton and both of them walked.
I agree with the deal being made (not with the deal). There is a difference in that Newt did not sell intell to the Chicoms or leave a few dead associates lying around.
It was a bad mistake to pursue Clinton solely for dating an intern. His other crimes were far worse. But like you say, it was a deal. The GOP did not want Gore stepping up to be president. I wonder now if anyone did.
Considering how close the 2000 election was, had Gore had the power of the presidency there is little doubt that he would have won in 2000. It is also likley that George W. Bush would not have run in 2000. He would have waited and run in 2004.
The question is how much trouble would we be in with Terrorists if Gore had been president when 911 occured. I really don't think many members of the Senate wanted to see Gore be president. I doubt that much of anyone who knew Gore well, wanted him to be president. He is not very bright.
The media tried to portray Gore as brilliant, but I understand he flunked out of divinity school, something almost impossible to do. Addled by years of pot addiction, he got very weird.
The media always portrays Democrats as brilliant and Republicans as dumb.
President Ford for example was portrayed as physically awkward and dumb. Ford played on the University Of Michigan's national championship football teams in 1932 and 1933. He was voted the Wolverine's most valuable player in 1934 and on January 1, 1935, played in the annual East-West College All-Star game in San Francisco. Ford went to the Yale Law School where he earned a phi beta kappa key.
They said Reagan was dumb and lazy. Reagan too was an honor student and good athlete.
They said Bush 41 was a wimp, although he flew 37 missions as a torpedo bomber pilot in World War II. The torpedo Bomber Pilot was the most dangerous flying job in WWII. One had to fly level about 50 feet above the sea and straight at the ship you were trying to torpedo... while the ships guns shot everything they could shoot at you. Once they plane was close enough tot he ship they dropped the torpedo and then tried to escape. Bush got shot down and survived. It took fantastic guts to be a Torpedo bomber.
The media portrays Bush 43 as dumb. He is very bright.
The media is very leftist.. They believe that politicians that agree with them are smart and those that disagree are dumb.
For about 1972 until 1995 I interviewed several journalism graduates each year. Some from top schools. As a group they are not very knowledgeable. One could ask very simple questions about local state and national government and they almost never knew the answers.
I came to the conclusion that one would have to take lessons to learn how to flunk out of journalism school. It may not be possible.
Journalists are the priesthood. They have the loosing and the binding keys. They have bound the GOP for being bigoted, out of date, etc. They have pronounced absolution on the worst criminals, such as the Clintons, SCUBA Ted, and John the Gigolo Kerry. Therefore, they do not need to know anything. They have the power.
Their stupidity is on display every night, but I generally ignore them. Why wouldn't the ignorant hire the ignorant? I appreciate whatever you have done.
Thank you for your comments.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.