Final votes are for Show to the folks back home. Clinton was a sure winnner when the senate voted 100 to zip not to hear any evidence against him in his trial.
When the jury refuses to hear any evidence against the defendent... you can kind of figure the FIX is in.
Everyone knew that if the the amercian people heard the evidence against Clinton, he was toast! But they voted 100 to zip NOT to allow the presentation of any evidence against Bill. Then a marjority voted not quilty.
If they could not get a single Senator to vote to hear the evidince against Clinton, how many do you thing they could get to vote against him for the Supreme Court. You would need 40 votes and the last time they could not get even one.
Did Bill and Hill destory all those FBI files? I don't think so.
I think it would be difficult, considering -
January 19, 2001 - CLINTON ACCEPTS RAY DEAL OVER PAULA JONES STATEMENT-ALSO ARKANSAS BAR LICENSE SUSPENDED 5YRS, FINEand
November 9, 2001 - Ex-President Clinton resigns from Supreme Court bar rather than fight suspension
He can't even represent a case in Arkansas, much less before SCOTUS, for nearly two more years.
Everyone seems to have forgotten about his suspension, which suits Clinton fine. The Democrats aren't going to damage his legacy and "rehabilitation" by resurrecting the issue of his suspension again.
I'm more worried about Chief Justice Hillary Rodham-Clinton - which could happen if George Bush loses the election.