Replies

That's an odd twisting of Lott's words. He was obviously talking about the Democrats declaring that no matter what evidence was presented or what witnesses testified to, NONE OF THEM WOULD VOTE TO CONVICT!

Resigned to that reality Lott did what he thought would limit the damage to the amazingly brave people who voted to convict.

Your mistating of the truth shows you're willing to lie and mangle events in order to trash Bush.

You obviously don't understand the decades of tradition that prevent one president from criticizing another. Bush 41 wouldn't do it and Bush 43 won't do it, which shows how extraordinarily smart he is because the Democrats in the press are just waiting for it.

Your warped view has toxified your brain and exposed your agenda. But I love it when people like you pretend they're "conservstives". Must be one of them "principled" conservatives.

"...Your warped view has toxified your brain and exposed your agenda. But I love it when people like you pretend they're "conservstives". Must be one of them "principled" conservatives..."
# 1125 by Deb

*************************

Are you having a little trouble staying away from personal attacks, Deb?

There is no way that Democrats would have been able to justify a vote of "not guilty" if the evidence had been presented. The political repercussions would have been too severe. In other words, the Democrats would have lost seats in Congress if they had voted to excuse Clinton's behavior, if the evidence had been presented.

Here's what you're forgetting, Deb. The Democrats didn't withhold the evidence. The Republicans did that. Republicans had a majority in the Senate; they voted to limit the evidence presented, they voted to limit the time to conduct the trial, and they voted to allow no witness testimony.

Republicans, Deb.

Republicans allowed Clinton to escape removal from office.

Republican Senators dropped the ball.
Now it's Republican President Bush's turn.

It's President Bush's duty to enforce the laws of our nation. Clinton broke the law. He broke several laws, the most severe of which were abuse of office, murder, and treason. Unlike you, I don't consider it a mark of good character on President Bush's part to let Clinton get away with it.

Just to set the record straight: I have no idea why, but Lott refused to let the House Managers present the evidence to the Senate. Since the proceedings in the Senate were televised around the world, all Americans would have had a chance to review the evidence against Clinton for themselves. My guess is that in spite of the rhetoric from the Democrats, if the evidence had been presented it would have been so damning that the Democrats in the Senate would have been forced to vote or remove Clinton from office because of the public sentiment that would have been aroused. Even long-term Senate Democrats fear the wrath of an aroused electorate.

Lott and the Republicans could have forced the presentation of the evidence. Who knows what Clinton and crew had on whichever Republicans (rememer those illegally obtained FBI files) but this was one of worst caves in the history of the Republican Party. This alone is a compelling argument for TERM LIMITS.