Using innuendo, leaked grand jury testimony, "evidence" obtained using illegal tape recordings of private phone conversations, and a 60,000 page report of a 6 year, $52 million investigation, the cultural warriors in the Republican Party, seeking to remove President Clinton from office for his alleged low crimes, rely upon false conclusions unsubstantiated by any facts, as well as the mother of all conspiracy theories, to make their case.

      The recent proceedings in both the House Judiciary Committee and the House of Representatives itself regarding the impeachment of Bill Clinton is a travesty of justice.

      Where was the right of the accused to know in clear and unambiguous terms what the accusations against him are? All I heard was a lot of generalizations and innuendo. Or worse, each committee member picking a phrase out of Starr's 60,000 page report then declaring the phrase to be a lie and an impeachable offense. There seemed to be no consensus on which phrases, exactly, were the offending phrases.

      Where was the right of the accused to face his accuser in a court of law? Prosecutor Starr, whose very title indicates that he is not an unbiased participant in the proceedings, presented an 8-hour verbal summary of his 60,000 page report, a report compiled by his staff about the testimony of witnesses he himself did not talk to and about depositions he himself did not read. Rather than presenting the primary actors in the drama as witnesses so that the defense could cross-examine them, Special Prosecutor Starr repeated third- or fourth-hand summaries of their verbal testimony and their written depositions, pointed at a 60,000 page report, and indicated that the answers, often contradictory, sometimes self-contradictory, to leading, misleading, or ambiguous questions could be relied upon at face value to determine the facts of the case.

      Where was Clinton's right to confront his accusers, to listen to witnesses against them, to cross-examine them, to point out the illogic of and contradictions in his accuser's testimony, to present witnesses in his defense, to have his side of the story told? According to Prosecutor Starr and Chairman Hyde, there was no need to present any "fact witnesses" for we have their depositions. Where was the presumption of innocence instead of guilt, a hallmark of American jurisprudence? Why was the burden thrust upon Clinton to prove his innocence, instead of upon Starr to prove Clinton's guilt? As Republican Rep. Christopher Shays noted, the accusations against Clinton that are provable are not impeachable, the accusations against Clinton that are impeachable are not provable.

      Where was the President's protection from illegally obtained evidence? The most damaging testimony against the President was based on illegal recordings of phone conversations that would have been thrown out of court if the case took place in a courtroom instead of a committee room.

      Where was the protection for the President and his reputation when Starr leaked the grand jury proceedings? Grand juries meet to determine if there is probable cause that a crime has been committed and to decide if a trial should be held. Grand juries listen to only one side of an argument - the prosecutor's side. Because the accused has not had the chance to rebut charges against him, grand jury testimony has always been considered secret. All Americans should be outraged that this traditional legal protection has been so trampled upon by Congress.

      Where were the President's accusers during the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill debate when the issue was sexual extortion, not a consensual sexual affair? Where were the President's accusers during Iran-Contra and the Oliver North fiasco, when North, possibly with the knowledge of President Regean and then Vice-President, later President, Bush decided to run a private war in Nicaragua financed by selling American military equipment to America's enemies? Where were the President's accusers when funding for legal services for the poor was being debated? Where is the Congressional outrage at having been lied to by the executives of the tobacco industry for 40 years?

      Impeachment, they name is HYPOCRISY.

      The President is not above the law, and neither is Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr nor Congress above the law. If Congress, believing that it does not have to abide by the Constitution, is permitted to so publicly deprive an individual as powerful as the President of his due process of law, what will Congress be emboldened to do to average American citizens like you and me?

      In the year 2000, vote to defend the President, the Constitution, and your rights.

      Vote as if your life and your freedoms depend on it, for they just might.

To the Essays Menu

e-mail sunshine@pinn.net