Regarding the impeachment hearings which have been approved by the House of Representatives, Democrats argued that the hearings should be limited to a certain time period (their resolution suggested that the hearings end by Jan.1, 1999). This was an obvious tactic; it would set up a situation in which Democratic Representatives would be able to filibuster until the end of the hearings and prevent the truth about the Slime-in-Chief from getting out, or at least waste enough time that the whole truth wouldn't be discovered. Republican House members saw it for what it was and instead voted for open-ended hearings; there was even a small percentage of House Democrats (about 15%, those who understand their duty to uphold the Constitution and repudiate the lack of ethics and morals of this Administration) who voted for the Republican resolution.

And then comes the 'high crimes and misdemeanors' argument. Paraphrased, here's the main point of this debate: "Sure, Clinton's a slime, but what he did isn't serious enough to warrant impeachment." Hmmm...and hmmm again. Now, for those who haven't read my previous comments regarding this issue, let's go back over it: if you were to go to a grand jury proceeding or to court and lied under oath, about anything, you would be clapped in prison for perjury (that's spelled F-E-L-O-N-Y, folks). But the Democrats contend that because Clinton is the President, he shouldn't be subject to the same rule of law that the rest of Americans are, and that because he lied about sex under oath, and not something based on national interests, he shouldn't be impeached. Just try to take that argument to a judge as a private citizen and see what kind of reaction you get. You would soon find yourself in a 5 x 7 cubicle for a year or so.

Just so that everyone understands, according to the Constitution and the obvious intent of its framers, THE PRESIDENT IS NOT ABOVE THE LAW! That is why the system of checks and balances was created in the first place; each branch of government must limit the power of the other two. It is now the House's DUTY to investigate the actions of the President and determine whether he should be brought up before the Senate for an impeachment trial. What's really funny is that the Democrats don't challenge the veracity of the charges; they don't say that the President of the United States didn't lie under oath (which he all but admitted in his testimony to the grand jury), they say that the topic that he was lying about (under oath) wasn't serious enough to have him removed from office. Even Democrats recognize that he's an admitted criminal, yet they continue to defend a man who, were he holding any other office, whether it were in the military or in business, he would have been summarily ejected from.

Here's yet another line of Washington hot air meant to draw attention away from Clinton's admitted crime, and the others that he may be found guilty of: it's all Ken Starr's fault, because he kept on pushing and investigating poor Mr. President until Clinton had an affair to relieve all that pressure that had been building up. They take issue with the fact that Starr followed his mandate aggressively, and that the lawyers on his staff did the same. So Starr is at fault because he did his job to the best of his ability. For all their noise about supposed improprieties in Starr's investigation of the President, Democrats have not publicized a single violation of any legal rules regarding the Independent Counsel (and, believe me, if they could, they would, to gain advantage in the upcoming impeachment battle). Just another example of their own words coming back to haunt them: Democrats and other Clinton apologists asserted that since Starr hadn't publicized anything about Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, etc., he must not have anything on the President other than the Lewinsky allegations.

It is now up to the American public to apply the same standards that Democrats observe in their assertions regarding the President as the Democrats do to their accusations against Starr (and Henry Hyde, for that matter). Talk about the ultimate hypocrisy: it's OK for Slick Willie to have an affair now, and lie about it under oath, but just watch nine kinds of hell erupt when Democrats discover that a Representative had an affair 30 years ago. I've got a newsflash for them: it was a far different time in 1968. And Hyde owned up to it immediately. Now, I ask you, who is the better man, Slick Willie or Henry Hyde? You figure it out from there.

You can't have it both ways. I just hope that enough of the American people have enough common sense to see through the tangled web of misdirection, shading the truth, and sheer, bald-faced lying of Clinton and his band of cronies.

- The Watcher (If you lie enough, eventually you forget what you lied about, and get caught in the lie.)