GUEST THOUGHTS: A PLAN OF ATTACK

(My friend George, despite being a lawyer, is the most decent and honorable person I know. He sent me this today, and I think it demonstrates the kind of incisive thought I hope shows up on this site from time to time.)

9-14-98
So far I've only read about the first 60 pages, plus the entire Clinton rebuttal. (I read the rebuttal first so I could focus on what they thought were the deficiencies.)

If I sat on a jury, I vote to convict on everything. The question of whether to impeach, however, is political. As a democrat, I'd advise him to resign to avoid damage to the party which cannot be estimated at this time.

What is the most sickening is the Clinton defense. While he apologizes and asks forgiveness, they're on the attack, not only against Starr, but against everyone else. They're even debating attacking Monica, after Clinton apologized to her. This is just more poking their finger into people's eyes and then expressing shock that they have offended anyone.

Why can't the White House statement simply be "The President has admitted an inappropriate relationship with Miss Lewinsky, for which he has apologized and asked forgiveness from his wife, family, staff, and the country. He has instructed his attorneys to take no further action defending him. He intends to run the country, as the voters twice requested. If Congress wants to spend its time dealing with impeachment over a private and personal matter, for which the President has already apologized, it means they have already spent as much time as they want on saving social security, reducing taxes, eliminating bias and prejudice, stopping terrorism, etc. The President hope that when Senators and Representatives are back in their districts, the people will tell them to concentrate on keeping America working, keeping interest rates low, and protecting America. We don't need a 1998 version of the Salem witch trials."

On the other hand, I'm confident Kendall will continue to explain how the definition was ambiguous and how the President had no duty to tell Judge Johnson that the Lewinsky affidavit was perjured. That tactic will draw more editorials demanding resignation or impeachment.

Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Got something to say about this?
Send me a letter,
please include the title of the article in the subject.