| January 25, 1999 As I write this, the Senate is debating in closed session whether to dismiss the impeachment trial. The trial is generally going as I expected (although the motion by Sen. Robert Byrd to dismiss was unexpected. I still expect him to vote to remove). Interestingly, there are press reports that the Republicans are considering what I believe to be a very good idea (for Republicans): Prior to a vote on conviction or aquittal, the Senate would vote on whether, as a factual matter, the Prez committed perjury and obstruction of justice. They would then vote on conviction or aquittal. This would have the benefit of forcing the Democrats to put their money where the mouth is -- perjury and obstruction of justice by a Democratic President are not impeachable acts. More letters: Dear Mr. Ranter and Raver: I have enjoyed the discourse and I can't think of an instance where I disagree with your analysis and conclusion. However, I have a question. I noticed yesterday that one of the White House lawyers invoked, as somehow relevant to her argument, her race (she being an African-American). It reminded me of certain irrelevant and somewhat hyperbolic comments by Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Los Angeles (wife of former NFL player and car salesman Sidney Williams, who is now (based on his experience in international diplomacy) the United States ambassador to the Bahamas, during the Judiciary Committee debate. Rep. Waters, for example, said she was speaking for her "slave ancestors" ? Anyway, my question is, what is the relevance of these kinds of comments on the actual merits of the case against the President? Thank you and, keep those rants and raves coming. Dear Reader: Thank you for your comments. You raise a very perceptive question. The answer to your question is that the William Jefferson Clinton appears to be doing everything possible to associate himself with O.J. Simpson, who played "the race card." Think of the parallels: 1. Overwhelming DNA evidence against O.J., but he was acquitted. Overwhelming DNA evidence against the Prez, and he will be acquitted. 2. O.J., the whitest black guy imaginable, played to black stereotypes in order to convince a black jury that he was innocent (hey, don't all black guys beat their wives?). President Clinton actually is a living embodiment of every black stereotype, which endears him to African-Americans. (According to African-American author and Clinton defender Toni Morrison, "Years ago, in the middle of the Whitewater investigation, one heard the first murmurs: white skin notwithstanding, this is our first black President. Blacker than any actual black person who could ever be elected in our children's lifetime. After all, Mr Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working class, saxophone-playing, McDonald's and junk food-loving boy from Arkansas.") 3. Theme of O.J.'s defense: "Rush to judgment." Theme of the President's defense: "I suggest that what you have before you is not the product of the Judiciary Committee's well-considered, judicious assessment of their constitutional role. No, what you have before you is the product of nothing more than a rush to judgment." (Charles Ruff, counsel to the President, on January 19, 1999.) 4. O.J.'s jury: Twelve "peers" who never seriously considered convicting him, because of his popularity and their hatred of a white, law enforcement system. The President's jury: 45 Democratic Senators who have never seriously considered convicting him, because of his popularity and their hatred of Ken Starr, Newt Gingrich and the Christian Coalition, all of whom are white. 5. O.J.'s most prolific TV hack: Alan Dershowitz. The President's most prolific TV hack: Alan Dershowitz. Please send any other O.J./Clinton comparisons. There have to be more. Thank you for listening. DS |