From NewsPage ( http://companies. newspage.com/item.cfm/c0207165.500?heads=yes ): "I have no doubt that he'd given false testimony under oath and that he has misled the American people," [D-West Virginia, Senator Robert] Byrd said on ABC's "This Week." "There are indications that he did indeed obstruct justice."

But "I can turn my back on this" and let Clinton finish the final two years of his second four-year term, he said. "I think we all ought [to] do that and think of the healing of the country."

Byrd, 81, a 40-year Senate veteran, said: "The question is does this rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. I say yes. No doubt about it in my mind. But the issue is should the president be removed."

This is one of the most respected and senior men in the government, not to mention in the Democratic party. Even *he* admits Clinton broke the law, whether White House counsel want to admit it or not. And, to hammer a couple more nails into the coffin, this from the New York Daily News ( http://www.nydailynews.com/1999-02-07/News_and_Views/Scandal_Sheet/a-18928.asp ):

"On the eve of his expected acquittal by the Senate, an exuberant Clinton is telling old friends and political allies that except for hurting his family, he continues to believe he has done nothing wrong in the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal. "This was much ado about nothing," Clinton recently assured an old pal, dismissing the impeachment process as a partisan cabal choreographed by his political foes."

The News further goes on to say: "He repeated that defiance in a more recent conversation with another source, when reminded that some Democratic senators were saying the language of a bi-partisan censure might go easier on him if he admits to some culpability. "I won't do that," Clinton replied. "I'll never do that. I didn't lie, and I didn't obstruct justice."

Asked how he reacted to Clinton's remark, the source said, "He's in total denial."

OK, I recognize that Clinton's going to get off. I called the way this entire process would go; that he would be impeached, that there'd be a full trial, and that he wouldn't be removed by the Senate, back when this whole thing started (August 17, 1998, a date that will live in infamy). Does this leave *any* doubt in anyone's mind? The man is guilty as sin; we all know that. On top of that, he doesn't even begin to present the appearance of guilt. How long did Slick Willie have to lie to himself to get himself to the point where he believed he was innocent? Oh man, this guy needs to go!

And Sidney Blumenthal may end up being the fall guy...you should have kept your media conduits better paid, Sidney! Not that Sidney doesn't deserve a little come-uppance himself, especially if Christopher Hitchens' allegations are proven true. (For those who don't watch political news, Blumenthal claimed he never characterized Monica Lewinsky as a stalker to anyone, and never tried to present her in a negative light, in his deposition in the impeachment trial last Wednesday. A couple of days later, Christopher Hitchens, a journalist and sometime friend of Blumenthal, claimed in an affidavit that Blumenthal characterized Monica Lewinsky as a stalker several times to himself and to their lunch companion, Carol Blue in March of 1998. He says Blumenthal claimed that Clinton was the victim of a sexual predator and social climber, with the apparent intent of having Hitchens print that information.)

Yes, Sidney should go down if this is true, but he should also drag his overblown imperious leader with him. Things would go much easier on the government that way. Perhaps a little OIC immunity will do the trick...

-The Watcher (I've stopped asking myself how these idiots can live with themselves, because I know: they're just as good at lying to themselves as they are at lying to everybody else.)