 |
 |
 |
TREASON, BRIBERY,
HIGH CRIMES AND *T.I.S.*
"A paradox, a paradox, a most amusing paradox" (Gilbert & Sullivan). If it wasn't so serious, this paradox would be amusing. The Repugnants now tell us that if President Clinton would say he committed perjury they would not impeach him.
Yet they demand he be impeached if he doesn't. Go figure since they claim they are upholding the law.
The arguments presented against sending Articles of Impeachment to the House by our Women Representatives were inspiring. We delighted in the passion and brass ovaries of Maxine Waters (CA); the thoughtful, learned remarks of Sheila Jackson Lee (TX) and the downright common sense of Zoe Lofgren (CA).
Despite the Repugnant's protestations that it was not about sex -- it was. The Impeachment Hearings were made more interesting and sometimes downright funny because of the red, blue and white herrings that the Repugnants kept dragging in to disguise this fact.
One
of their arguments involved the use of the word, PERJURY. This, they
claimed, had to be used in the Articles since perjury was a high crime.
We MUST preserve the RULE OF LAW.
The President, they insisted, was not above the law -- indeed, he was the highest government official charged with the duties of seeing that laws were obeyed. So if he committed a crime he should be punished by impeachment.
They were then asked why the exact perjurious remarks were not included in the Articles of Impeachment they drafted. The Demogrogs read from various law texts which defined the crime called "perjury."
They explained that legal terms, such as perjury, have requirements that go along with it. One must tell the accused exactly what the false statements are he is alleged to have made and those statements must be material.
Rep. Barney Frank, seeking to clarify and at the same time to demonstrate the falseness of the majority position proposed that they had reason not to do this.
Citing one of the passages where Clinton was accused of perjury, he noted that Clinton had answered the question but had given NO salacious details. He only admitted that he had improper sexual relations.
So Barney pointed out that what the Repugnants were really charging the President with was, "being insufficiently graphic." He challenged them to include the specific statements alleged to be perjurious.
"It appears", he concluded, "that you want the President to tell what body parts he touched and when he touched them."
Angered, the Repugnants shot back that this was NOT about sex. The Committee was not engaged in a legal action but an impeachment hearing. It was political, not legal.
[Was that a Freudian slip?]
Well then, they were told, use the proper terms then. Use lie, untruth, lied under oath, because perjury is a legal term.
So round and round they went but it became very clear as one followed the debate that our Representatives in the Majority Party, at least, considered themselves above the law. Scary, isn't it. These are the people that make the laws we live under.
Another tack they took is especially important to women and it was obviously taken to impress upon women that Clinton had abridged their civil rights -- forever and ever.
Almost weeping in their concern for us, some of the white, male Repugnats claimed that Paula Corbin Jones was prevented from "getting her day in court" because of Clinton's perjurious answers in his affidavit.
They kept insisting this, even though the Demogrogs explained over and over that her case had to do with sexual harassment and Clinton was covering up a consensual relationship, and that a judge had ruled the Monica stuff out, and that it was not material.
Material. Doesn't that have something to do with Madonna? Not in this case. It's important because if it ain't material, it ain't perjury.
Our heroes! After all these years, THEY STILL DON'T GET IT! Thanks, subscriber Nancy, for sending us the *T.I.S.* joke --"Testosterone Induced Stupidity."
And, of course, God was brought into the debate frequently as was the military service records of the speakers of the majority. We got the strong odor of the Jihad, the holy war, even through the testosterone charged atmosphere.
The grit of politics, instead of gunpowder; the red of the flag draped around them, by God, rather than the flowing river of blood. We were sooo impressed.
Lots more arguments to come tomorrow, Thursday, where the full House debates the issue -- to send these Articles of Impeachment to the Senate for trial.
Usually a big shot anchor does not go outside of the media spin, but we were encouraged to hear something approaching the truth by Dan Rather (C.B.S. News) on the Imus Show.
He said that a lot of the drive to impeach Clinton was fueled by the GOPper's burning and continuing resentment because of the Nixon impeachment; the Bork turndown for the Supremes and the Clarence Thomas Hearings. It's pay back time!
Shucks. We thought the Committee Members said they were voting their conscious. Can you spell GRUDGE?
D.C. is getting tons of phone calls, faxes and emails but the Repugnants tell us that they don't care what the electorate wants.
More and more House Repugnants are leaving the undecided column to vote with their Party for impeachment despite the wishes of more than 2/3 of the American people. The GOPpers leadership had decided that since it would be two years before the next election, we, the electorate would have forgotten all about what they did. We just wouldn't care.
Don't count on it. When it comes to memory, a woman scorned has it all over an elephant.
1998-053
Copyright 1998 Renee T. Louise and Ruth M. Sprague, Ph.D. These articles may be republished for noncommercial use only, provided that they are copied intact, and that this copyright notice is attached. Address all queries to: twanda@ConnRiver.net.
G e n d e r G a p p e r s T M
|
|
|