Throughout the impeachment proceedings, we have witnessed Democrats and White House lawyers lying and denying to their last breath; the only real difference between the House impeachment proceedings and the Senate trial has been that the Democrats haven't been able to grandstand on the floor of the Senate. They have to wait for the talk shows or media gallery after hours to continue peddling their sometimes innovative but almost universally off-kilter arguments.

Congressional Democrats (as well as those in the White House) have continually tried to short-circuit the impeachment process. This is a blatant attack on the Constitution itself. Instead of showing at least the appearance of concern over the issues involved, or for the fact that *no* impeachment trial, whether of a judge or of a sitting President of the United States, has ever been dismissed once he was impeached, they continue the White House's pattern of lying, denying, and defying the Constitution.

It seems to me that an impartial juror should view all the evidence in its entirety before even considering dismissal, let alone a verdict, absent a clear procedural misstep by the House managers, which there quite simply has not been. Every single Constitutional (procedural) argument the defense has made has been soundly and sometimes resoundingly defeated by the House managers. And, for all that most Senators can agree that they've seen most of the evidence, they haven't seen all of it. They should, at an absolute minimum, depose those witnesses that are 'major players' in the allegations as presented, whether they actually interview the witnesses or not, to resolve specific factual conflicts between the House managers' case and the defense's case. And, finally, any claim to a fair trial will be lost without a vote to acquit or convict.

The simple fact here is that there *had* to be an impeachment trial for the government to maintain any credibility whatsoever. For the rest of American history, people would claim the same right that Clinton apparently does: to say whatever he feels like saying under oath, regardless of the literal truth of his statements. Eventually, this would completely undermine the rule of law. Humans, especially Americans, have often shown great adaptivity and the predilection for taking whatever advantage they can get and running with it, many times in contravention of their moral codes. Once the President gets away with doing this, what will prevent other citizens from utilizing exactly the same type of defense? How many people will get away with committing that form of perjury, simply because no one catches them in their untruths? What damage will be done to sexual harassment cases in the future without clear and severe penalties for Clinton? I would argue that a clear resolution to the trial is required; otherwise the same claims could still be made. Trust me, folks, institutionalized lying in a court of law *severely* undermines the rule of law, maybe not in the immediate future, but in one that could be a lot nearer than you might think.

As to the 'you don't have 67 votes' defense, otherwise known as the Democrats' latest rationalization for short-circuiting the process, I'd say that you never really know what the result will be; perhaps, when it comes down to 'crunch time' some Democrats (or Republicans, or both) will rethink their positions in light of the pressure of history. Not one of the Senators knows what the result of that final vote will be. As Tom Daschle, Senate Minority Whip, and many others, are so fond of saying, no one has even taken a vote count yet; how can the Democrats possibly be so positive that there *aren't* 67 votes to convict? Unless they're contributing to the spin, which is, of course, what they're doing. Isn't it more like, we know who's most likely to defect from our position on our side of the aisle, and the same for those on the other side?

Democrats and White House mouthpieces (synonymous terms, aren't they?) have started at one point in one defense, then done a belly flop into the next, and followed no clear and convincing line of argument. Their rationale seems to be, well, here's one defense; if you don't buy that, well, we'll offer you up another one; and if you don't buy that, we've got something else up our sleeves. And even if you don't buy any of that, we'll offer yet another defense. The point here is that Democrats have attacked this impeachment and those who brought it from every conceivable angle, never once settling on a consistent, convincing story. As a matter of fact, it looks to me like their strategy all along has been to give out as little of their story as possible, until it's absolutely necessary. Talk about your moving targets!

On the other hand, we have seen Republicans steer one steady course through the waters of impeachment. Their story has *never* changed since day one of the House Judiciary proceedings. It has been refined, as any story will be over time as more evidence comes forth, but in no major issue is there a difference between what Republicans said at the beginning of the impeachment proceedings and what they are saying now. Republicans, and especially those 13 House Judiciary Committee members who make up the House managers' team, have continually fought the weight of public opinion, not out of partisanship but out of a reverence for the Constitution and the law, and a desire to fulfill their oaths to the best of their abilities. They're not stupid; I'm sure it has been impressed on each and every Republican that not only would they stand to gain from Clinton's removal (as is obvious to just about every American who has any knowledge of these proceedings), but that, since everyone knows this, they are liable to exactly the kind of backlash they're getting now simply *because* they stand to gain advantage, and will almost automatically be imbued by the public with the impression that they have an axe to grind. It also helps that Democrats try to beat Republicans over the head with this every chance they get, but that's about as surprising as the sun rising in the morning.

And of all men who have been involved in this crisis, there is one who stands head and shoulders above all the rest when it comes to leadership and purpose (well, aside from Bob Livingston, but he's no longer in the picture): you guessed it, Henry Hyde. He tried to rule fairly in the House Judiciary Committee hearings in the face of the most obscene political circus I have ever seen the Democrats, or any other political interest group, perpetrate. He was attacked, viciously and momentarily, by the Democrats for an affair he engaged in thirty years ago, until they realized that they'd have absolutely no claim, however tenuous, to fairness when they argued that Clinton should be exonerated for doing exactly the same thing while a sitting President of the United States. Hyde immediately admitted to that liaison, to the public, not under oath. Granted, given the political climate of the time, it was definitely the smartest thing for him to do; he had a glaring example of what not to do in Clinton. But intelligence is not a disqualifying factor in a Presidential candidate; it's quite the opposite, in fact. So he tightened his belt, stood up, and did *what was required of him*, regardless of the personal cost. He didn't hairsplit, he didn't hide behind attorneys, and he didn't put out his version of 'the spin.'

Hyde then stood up in front of over 400 Representatives and literally millions and millions of the American public and offered the quintessential Republican point of view in this matter: that they were doing this not out of enmity for Clinton, but because they saw a real danger to the binding document of our country and that they felt that their oaths compelled them to act. He quoted the high ideals of the Founding Fathers that guided them in their decisions, and ultimately Republicans will be almost the only ones who will come out of this matter with clear consciences because of it. He continues to guide the managers' case to his own credit and to that of the American people. Regardless of the final outcome, Henry Hyde, the twelve other House managers, and every one of those Representatives that voted for impeachment (including some exceptional Democrats who actually have a conscience) have fought the good fight, done their duty, and done everything they could to turn back the torrent of self-contradictory Presidential, White House, and Democratic denials. No acquittal, conviction, censure or dismissal can change that. These men have secured themselves a place in history, and act as a shining example of the best America has to offer, men who revere truth and the law over political expediency. I never thought I'd say that again about a politician.

I believe that Hyde could successfully run for President. His political baggage is miniscule compared to Clinton's (and to a somewhat lesser degree Gore's); as a matter of fact, that baggage could very well prove to be advantageous to him. It remains to be seen, first, whether he wants to run for President, and second, whether he can put together the broad-based support necessary to win. I'm sure he could out-debate Gore. He's already got moral authority over 'You can call me Al,' and I'm sure he's at least as issue-oriented. Of course, he loses a lot of Clinton's special interest groups, but he was going to lose them anyway.

-The Watcher (Democrats are thinking of damage control, and Republicans are thinking of history and the future. You judge which is the more honorable motive.)