> Behalf Of John D. Giorgis
>
> Bzzt. In classic Democratic spin, you have made impeachment about
> "lying". Unfortunately, impeachment was not about lying, it was
> about the
> "Rule of Law." In particular, we had a President who publicly crowed
> about signing the "Violence Against Women Act" - an Act which was so
> abusive, that it gave any woman who simply *accused* a man of a sexual
> offence near-plenary powers to pursue that man's entire sexual history.
> This President then asserted that this Law should not apply to him, for
> various and sundry reasons. After the Courts asserted that, in fact, the
> President is not above the Law (most especially Laws he very publicly
> supported and signed) - this President again asserted immunity by
> flagarantly refusing to comply with the Courts and then
> committing a second
> offense of perjury.
Er, John. I cannot seem to recall you using this above argument about the
rule of law re the Violence against women act one single time in the months
of correspondence on this list about Clinton's impeachment.
I don't recall ever hearing about a "Violence Against Women Act" let alone
in reference to impeachment. Where in hell did this come from?
And did the courts REALLY say that the President is particularly not "above
the Law (most especially Laws he very publicly supported and signed)" ??? Or
is this a wee bit of editorialising in the midst of your argument?
Life is not a debating society.
brett
