Scenes From an Impeachment

Impeachment with partisan sauce: okay, who is really being partisan and who is casting the votes based on personal beliefs? It used to be that "partisan" was a good word, referring to those in WW II who fought in the underground against the Nazis. Now it means those lacking the nobility to compromise their beliefs in favor of institutional comity. Let's face it, everyone is partisan here…the GOP merely wishes to get rid of someone they despise, punish him for being a draft-dodging, pot-smoking, womanizing, Chinese bribe-taking, anti-smoking, anti-gun owner, SOB. The Democrats also dislike him, but are not so rabid about it, and hate the Republicans far more than they hate Clinton. There is no real room for compromise here. Republicans started this mess, they have to finish it, and the Democrats aren't going to help them. Which, frankly, is as it should be.

We're not sure exactly what he did, but we're sure he did it: The Republicans refuse to come up with the specific lies he told the Grand Jury, and exactly which conversation is obstruction of justice, but they know he must have done it. So the impeachment counts are rather vague. I guess this is okay because we're not having a real trial and we've known the result of the ritual drama being played out on the floor of the Senate since the GOP rounded up the majority necessary for them to posture as defenders of all that is moral and decent in the political and legal system for another few months. Imagine though if it was a real trial. The Republicans have access to documents the White House doesn't, they have the power of the courts (read: Ken Starr) on their side, and they didn't tell the accused exactly what he has to disprove. Yeah, that's preserving justice and the rights of the accused.

She met Charlton Heston and got a nose job, sounds fair to me: I love how Rogan, Hyde, and friends kept referring to Paula Jones case as "civil rights" and how Clinton's alleged lies in the deposition deprived her of "her day in court." Talk about inflating something beyond all limits. Her day in court, if it was truly about her "civil rights", belonged in Arkansas well before Bill Clinton's Presidential campaign, let alone his inauguration. It was about destroying his Presidency, as the right-wing financiers of her effort have desired since the votes were counted. In fact, the original suit came about because of the biography of Clinton which referred to him having some state employee named Paula brought up to his hotel room. This infuriated her, she allegedly assumed everyone would know it was her and decided to sue Bill Clinton for defaming her character. That Bill Clinton never spoke of this publicly didn't matter. I'm pretty sure if someone wrote a book containing nasty things about my past, I would sue the person who wrote it, or the person who published it - Paula chose the subject of the book. The sexual harassment part of this case should have been filed when it happened, was thrown out by the judge (far too late for it to matter), and was an after-the-fact invention to escalate the importance of her suit. And this is what the House Managers have cloaked in the rightly hallowed mantle of civil rights. This is an insult to both our intelligence and good taste.

He may be a pig, but he's our pig: Was the White House party really necessary after the impeachment vote? Shouldn't Democrats have been holding their noses in the Rose Garden? Sure they should have, but at the same moment, Henry Hyde and his co-conspirators were handing a leather-bound copy of the bill of impeachment to the Clerk of the Senate, smiling and laughing like something wonderful had happened. The House Democrats needed their own photo op, and Clinton and Gore were glad to oblige, even Hillary showed up, smiling and proud of Bill. It was one of the more nauseating days in U.S. history.

He's a pig and he's their pig: The House Managers look dazed half the time, confused that what they see as obvious is being ignored by so many. They are on the side of truth, justice, and the American way, why are so many people against them? Moreover, why do they have to defend Ken Starr, Linda Tripp, et al…the President did the deed, didn't he? No one is saying he didn't lie, so why aren't you carrying us around the chamber on your shoulders, instead of busting our collective chops?

We know he's a pig, we've always known it, we don't care: The American people don't care about the Republicans' evidence. They know he lied, they know he has the sexual morality of a nineteen year-old rock star turned loose in a girls' reformatory. They elected him twice because they like the way he does his job. Unless he kills someone, they want him in charge. This is incredible to the Republicans, but it's a fact. The public is almost as uncomfortable as Clinton about the kind of questions he has been asked. They are just glad they aren't being asked questions like that.

Twelve Angry Men: To be accurate, twelve angry white Christian men, a.k.a. the House Managers. While they perfectly represent the party base, they probably would've liked a little diversity. Unfortunately, the only woman on the committee on their side was Mary Bono, whose contribution to the debate was asking what she should tell her children about oral sex. Personally, I don't care, that's less my problem than who Clinton was dipping his wick with. Still, she's a credit to her constituency, having this job because she was married to Sonny Bono, who had his career because he was married to Cher. As soon as she won her seat, she found a new boyfriend, told the world Sonny was on drugs, and said she was truly in love for the first time, completely trashing his memory. Maybe she should try explaining all that to her kids, instead of sex practices.

Witnesses for the Prosecution: So they didn't need witnesses in the House because the record was self-evident, but they desperately need them in the Senate because there is conflicting testimony. Yeah, right. They didn't need them in the House because they had the votes, they do need them in the Senate because they don't. That's it. When you're losing, you try anything you can, you call witnesses you don't need, you send letters to the White House, you whine pitifully in the well of the Senate, pleading for the "pathetic few witnesses" you want to call.

The question remains, why these three? Betty Currie is such an obvious choice, but they passed on her. Here's my theory, this is designed not to illuminate, or to come up with new evidence, but to repulse the Senate. They want poor little Monica, looking small, young, and vulnerable sitting in the well of the Senate. They want the Senators to imagine Bill Clinton having sex with her. Not sex with a name, Monica Lewinsky, but with this girl. Then they want to bring Vernon Jordan out there, the man whose job it was to get that girl a good job, far away from Washington. It looks a little sleazy, this incredibly important man hunting down a job for this girl, whose primary asset was oral, not verbal, skill. Then trot out a man they love to hate, Sid Blumenthal, a corrupt reporter turned professional apologist, an intellectual Jew who was duped into lying by the President. After Clinton defiled her body, he sent this sleaze to defile her reputation. Look at him, hate him, and by extension, hate Clinton as the Managers do.

It doesn't look like they'll get their chance, as there seems to be a lack of Republican votes to carry the day on the motion for live witnesses. This gives them a good excuse for their defeat, which is more than they deserve.