Replies

There has to be SOME reason why Lott was so eager to dispose of the impeachment "garbage". I'd like to know what is is, wouldn't you?

No, I don't think that so much as that going after "Monicagate" obviously backfired because American culture now tolerates that behavior. We're not required to like it, we're only required to accept reality.

I can't believe I have to say this on FR - it wasn't about sex!!!! The evidence in the Ford building changed the minds of 40 or so Republicans in the House that were iffy about impeachment. Schippers has stated they had all kinds of stuff they weren't allowed to present - things that would have swayed the public the way they did the people in congress who bothered to look.

I don't know of any other plausible reasons not to release that evidence other than the GOP will have some serious dirt released on its key members as well. Mutual Assured Destruction works so very well.

American culture now tolerates that behavior. We're not required to like it, we're only required to accept reality.

The evidence in the Ford building changed the minds of 40 or so Republicans in the House that were iffy about impeachment . . . [but] it wasn't about sex!!!!

Which is it? In fact, American culture tolerated despicable behavior by an American president, in court. x42 ought to have refused to enter that courtroom, or else he should have settled out of court. He did neither, but went into court and pettifogged. His behavior was unworthy of an American president and, in times past, deserving of impeachment and conviction. In times past--but evidently not today.
'course that is true only of a Democratic president; make no mistake, the old rules still apply to any Republican.

Schippers has stated they had all kinds of stuff they weren't allowed to present - things that would have swayed the public the way they did the people in congress who bothered to look.

The Senate Republicans made the calculation that their votes would not convict--true--and that the Democrats were unwilling to convict--also true. Their conclusion was that trial was not worth their effort, and they didn't seriously attempt it. I wish that they had not been correct in their judgement that Democrats would pay no price for that, but obviously they were correct.
As I say, I hold journalism--a branch of the Democratic party--responsible. Print journalism is almost absolutely immune, as part of the Press under the First Amendment.
But broadcast journalism has no First Amendment protection; the FCC could just take away the licenses of anyone it wanted to. The licensees do not have First Amendment protection, because you and I don't have First Amendment protection. If you think you do have First Amendment protection, why don't you broadcast? Why do you need a license to do something that the First Amendment gives you a right to do?