Bloodbath in the District of Columbia

Looking presidential. Consider Friend Bill, the preeminent hair-ball barfed up from the stomach of the overfed, self-satisfied cat that is our current political system. He has not so much broken the law as shattered it with his earnest face by perjuring himself over and over to try to save his ass. Each time he was asked, he lied to the American public, including his memorable "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" finger-shaker on 26Jan98. Little did he realize that clips of that remark will be in electronic encyclopedias and histories to the end of time. Until the evidence that built up -- including DNA testing of the spinach dip stained dress -- made further denials absurd, he continued to prevaricate. Even when forced into telling some of the truth, he would not apologize like a grown-up. Instead he whined out an attempted justification of his deceit; the lawsuit was "politically inspired" and the investigation was of his "private life". We're really sorry, Little Billy, but you sacrificed your private life to become the top public figure of the land. Regardless, when the court finds it necessary to ask questions, you have the same two options I would have: tell the truth or remain silent. When the Chief of State of the most powerful nation of the world is proven to be not quite as trustworthy as John Gotti, something is incredibly wrong. When Jefferson, Adams and Franklin helped establish America, they pledged their sacred honor and were prepared to sacrifice their lives for it. Patriot Bill has sacrificed US national credibility -- not to the needs of his pecker exactly -- but to the 'need' of keeping its precise whereabouts from being established in court. Defendant Bill perjured himself, in spite of that "legally correct" bolshevik he and his attorneys continue to spread. "But wouldn't most men lie about adultery?" the apologists ask on his behalf. No doubt, but lying to the merely inquisitive is not the same thing as perjury. Even from the Judeo-Christian point of view, lying may not be a great idea, but it's not specifically forbidden in either Moses' Law or the teachings of the carpenter's son. The eighth commandment is on the order of "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." -- language that refers to behavior before a judge. But that's OK, isn't it Brother Bill? After all, you as much as told us that the matter is between you and God now, so we should all just stay out of it. The House of Reprehensibles permitted the release of Mr. Starr's report to the Internet. It immediately became the most widely-read government-funded pornography ever. I am happy that it's available, and not merely because I was curious. I'm one of those freaks who believe that the governed are at risk when those in government are allowed to do anything in secret -- therefore all documentation on political figures should be available to the public. Nevertheless, I don't doubt the White House's assertion that it was part of a smear campaign by Republican members of Congress -- even though it is Victim Bill's own 'spinach dip' with which he is being smeared. If Clinton's grand jury testimony on video tape is also released to the public, you can be sure that the smear campaign is real -- not because nobody else was taped, but because grand jury testimony is solicited under an assumption of secrecy. Nobody is at their best when shucking and jiving in a courtroom. The public knows "(or at least, [have] reason to know)" from Starr's report that this is what Defendant Bill did in both Jones v. Clinton and before the grand jury. It is just one more unprecedented (none of this has much precedent) move to make Not-slick-enough Willie look bad. Saint Veronica and the Martyr Bill It's all being done (say the Republicans) so we can all decide for ourselves whether the President was telling the truth but it's not up to the public to decide what to do about WJC. This isn't a popularity contest. Candidate Bill won two of those when he won his elections. All these ubiquitous polls about whether he's guilty or not -- should he be impeached or not -- are bullshit! It's up to the House of Representatives to decide to approve articles of impeachment. If they do, it's the Senate's responsibility to conduct the trial, with the chief justice presiding. All this talk about censure and "censure plus" is crap too. Lawmakers have become so divorced from the US Constitution that they are obviously unfamiliar with it. Congress only has the authority to censure its own members -- not members of the executive branch. They can move to impeach or do nothing. There are no other legal options. If the White House believes that the president is actively and unnecessarily being made to look bad in the eyes of voters, they may initiate -- perhaps already have initiated -- a gang war. It's the old "let him who is without sin ... throw a stone" ploy a.k.a. the "but-so-did-you" defense. Even if the slime-masters in the White House don't start it, the situation is ripe for -- and has begun to bear fruit of -- revelations of indiscretions by those who are in positions of power. Do not forget that a lot of the public is tired of hearing about this whole mess, and would like to get it over with -- one way or another. Part of this waning patience comes from the assumption that the self-righteous accusers are guilty of behavior similar to the accused. Here's what happens: Republican hard-liner, Rep. Dan Burton of Indiana, acknowledged fathering a child during an extramarital affair in the early 1980s. Burton, highly critical of Clinton's policies, said he was pre-empting a "scandal story" from Vanity Fair magazine. "Family-values" Republican Rep. Helen Chenoweth of Idaho declared in a campaign commercial that "personal conduct and integrity" matters. Having raised those particular issues, The Idaho Statesman newspaper decided that it could justify publishing an article about an affair she had with her married business partner fourteen years previously. Rep. Henry Hyde, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee pissed off the daughter of an old girlfriend with his hypocrisy. She sold Salon Magazine a photograph of the former Cherie Snodgrass sitting on the lap of Hyde in the late 1960s for $1500. Cherie's ex-husband -- still upset about the matter -- provided much of the material for the story. Republicans are accusing the Democrats and the White House of initiating these stories and threatening to counterattack. In fact, they are panicking so much that "obvious attempt to intimidate me" Hyde has called out the FBI and threatened to prosecute those in the media who are spreading embarrassing information about people in Congress. Prosecute for what? There is a technical term for a lawmaker who ignores the United States Bill of Rights when threatened: Fascist Coward. The big pot-stirrer that has made Zippergate different from previous scandals is the ubiquity of the Internet. The sordid tale of Do-me-at-least-once Monica and The Creep was first revealed by the Drudge Report. Without the Internet, Starr's report and Clinton's Rebuttals wouldn't be nearly as well read. Without the Internet, how many would have the chance to find out that the Speaker of the House -- The Newt himself -- prefers oral sex with the unpaid help because "then he can say, 'I never slept with her.'" (Does any of that seem familiar?) [Having pointed that out, perhaps the Republicans will now accuse me of pitching shit for the Democrats. The day I stool for any political party will be the day I set up an altar and pay obeisance to the twin Josephs of Despotism -- Stalin and McCarthy.] Anybody with information and a modem can now email it to Matt Drudge, post it to a newsgroup, or publish it to their own web site. If it's valuable and verifiable, the newspapers and televisions will pick up on it eventually. The flow of information is no longer controlled solely by the Major News Corporations -- with their friends in high places to protect. If you are reading this, you can be a participant. It's too early to predict what is going to happen, but there are not that many options: Congress makes a lot of noise, but essentially does nothing until Bill leaves office in the normal fashion. After all the trouble caused by Billy's pee-pee, the Republicans will have an advantage in the next election. Bill and the Lawmakers (Wasn't that an R&B band in the 50s?) come to some kind of agreement that keeps Bill out of the Big House in exchange for his resignation. This leaves Albert Gore, Jr. (I'm pretty sure he was in "Night of the Living Dead".) to assume a personality and maybe the role of national healer. This would give him a head start for the next election and is to the Democrats' advantage. Everybody will expose everybody else's soiled skivvies to the point that the sixty-one citizens that aren't too disgusted to do their supposed duty (i.e., vote) will elect a complete unknown. This may be to the Bull Moose Party's advantage. As this bloodbath continues, the wet and noisy fun will continue to be a source of amusement to me personally. The bigger the shake-up, the less sure those still in office with tenure will be of their power. Our freedom as citizens may be a bit more secure for the next few years.