Don't ever let it be said that I dislike all lawyers. There is apparently a strain of idealism still alive among the plethora of ambulance chasers, personal injury attorneys, money machines, and (the newest job possibility for a lawyer) talking heads who stand before the bar. Some few, honorable men still carry the torch that the majority of their colleagues dare not touch. They carry it in a line reaching back to John Adams, John Jay, Abraham Lincoln, and Daniel Webster. Some men still revere truth, the law, and justice, and are willing to do whatever it takes to ensure that those concepts survive with real meaning, regardless of the odds stacked against them, at whatever personal cost.

Every one of the thirteen House managers can count himself among the ranks of that pitifully small fraternity. When their country needed them, they more than stepped up. They presented their case in as clear and effective a way as they possibly could have. Today, they tied up all the loose ends and misleading arguments of the White House counsel, but they went far beyond just that.

The House managers personalized the issues involved in this case. They brought the Senator/jurors' focus to bear on just how much is riding on the conviction/acquittal vote. Not only did they present in its final form a clear and persuasive argument for conviction, they defeated the White House counsels' arguments, including rebutting the 'high crimes and misdemeanors' defense and the distinction between private and public acts. They provided both the future effects of voting for acquittal and of voting for conviction. They gave a rational and focused discussion of the law. They personalized it; Manager Rogan recounted kindnesses that Bill Clinton had paid him 20 years ago, when Rogan was a pre-law student and Clinton was the ex-Attorney General and Governor-elect of his state. And then he went on to delineate the clear reasoning for why Clinton should be removed. Each one of the thirteen Managers spoke his piece, and they helped to present a very wide range of issues and opinions of the impeachment.

And Henry Hyde, as usual, brought everything forcefully into focus, in the final speech for the Managers in this proceeding. Aside from giving the rationale for why Clinton must be removed, and what costs our country will pay if he's allowed to remain in office, he quoted from a censure resolution which had apparently been passed around the Democratic side of the Senate previously, and was later published in the New York Times (Post? Sorry, my recollection is poor on that one), in language harsher than any House manager has used in this entire presentation. He delineated the problems with censure, starting with the resolution's preamble, which brands Clinton for the private act of having the relationship in the first place. Here it was Hyde that pointed out that the Senate has no business condemning a government officer for private acts. He then moved on to further language, still in this same resolution, that accused Clinton of exactly the crimes which Democrats have been forecasting that they will vote for acquittal on! And he finally brought each and every one of those Democrats who have been deadset on defending their imperious leader regardless of his lack of rectitude to the crux of this matter: that, regardless of political pressures of the present, it will, in the end, be history which judges them. There will be no excuse for Senators to shirk their duty, and they'll have to worry about their own places in history.

The Managers' case was everything a prudent prosecutor could ask for and more. As Manager Sensenbrenner said in the media gallery after closing arguments had ended, 84% of the people polled in the most recent CBS/Gallup poll indicated that they felt Clinton is guilty. They were divided between those who think he should be removed from office and those who don't, but the numbers are correct. He drew the conclusion (I think the correct one) that the House managers have proven their case, beyond reasonable doubt.

And now, for a slight gearshift. How much can the truth really be twisted by the Democrats? Are we supposed to believe that the crimes Clinton committed were so egregious that they demand such strong language in their censure resolution, yet don't demand that he be removed from office? Come on, folks, surely you can come up with something better than that. A censure resolution is a drive that has been frequently attributed by the media to Dianne Feinstein, who was apparently the first one to begin to shop around the Senate the idea of a censure. She (along with other Democrats) is simply trying to provide political cover for the Democrats for the acquittal that has been in the cards since day one. This is not a new tactic, nor is it unique to Feinstein; but Feinstein has been shown again and again to be a canny political player, using questionable tactics to gain support in a future election, for instance. Which inclines me to think that she is most certainly not above this type of action; in fact, I'd say she has a predilection for it. Her idea of censure is apparently like a band-aid for a slashed jugular: it just won't work. Not to mention that it won't pass the Senate. The House Managers are right; it's all or nothing, conviction or acquittal. The Constitution provides for no punishment for conviction other than removal; censure is a patch for those consciences that are beginning to spring leaks left and right.

Sorry, Senators, that thing that you've dreaded since the impeachment articles were passed is about to occur: you're going to have to vote up or down on the removal of Clinton from office, and then you are going to have to justify yourselves to the American public. And Judgment Day is the first Tuesday in November of 2000.

I differ from the viewpoint of (apparently) many people in America. I *don't* think reasonable people can disagree on this subject; I think unreasonable people are trying to use whatever tactics and people they can to put one over on those who are reasonable. As one of the House Managers said, which side would the Founding Fathers choose in this debacle? If you think it'd be any other one than that of the House managers, you're either misinformed or deluded.

-The Watcher (The time of reckoning has arrived...a few days of debate, then the final vote.)