After listening to some of the House Manager's case against the president, I am struck by the competence of many of our representatives. If they can so clearly understand the law of perjury and obstruction of justice, in the totality, why can't they see the fraud and overall criminal scheme of the Internal Revenue Service in its enforcement of the Federal Income Tax Laws?

The question is rhetorical. The House of Representatives are not out for truth in all cases, only in this one case. Be that as it may, the House Managers have laid out a case that will give any honest defenders fits. I know. I am a criminal defense lawyer, and, I would dread defending against the case they have built thus far. The defense will of necessity need to point to minutia, to obfuscate, to confuse, and to corrupt the truth of the charges and need to twist the facts into pretzels. Not a pleasant job for any attorney with a conscience. However, the president would not hire a lawyer with a conscience. So, the defense will twist and distort with alacrity.

But, no matter how much they twist, the facts of lies under oath and tampering or bribing of witnesses will continue to stare the defense right square in the kisser. What is to be done, given that the facts are devastating?

We have been given the key by the defenders of the president. The defense is--SO WHAT!!! Yeah, he's a liar, a perjurer, and he obstructed justice. SO WHAT??? You can't impeach and remove a president for that. They even shout that it's hitting below the belt, despite the danger of using such terminology with a defendant like Clinton.

Do you hear the laughter from the Divine? What exactly does the SO WHAT defense amount to? I'll give you a hint. It has to do with jury nullification. The defense is telling the jury, in this case the Senate of the United States, that there really aren't any crimes committed by the president, but, even if there are crimes committed, SO WHAT.

The Senate members, as jurors of the trial, are being told to follow the discussion of both the majority and the dissent of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals case, U.S. v. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113 (1972). The president's defense is that the law as applied to the facts in this case, should not warrant removal from office.

It is a tremendous irony that one of this country's greatest destroyers of "civil" rights, William Jefferson Clinton, the ruler in charge when Waco killings were ordered, is now advocating for jury nullification. Far be it from me to aver that Clinton can't argue for jury nullification; it is his constitutional right to so argue. But, will he be honest enough to say that is what he is arguing for? Will he make a legal argument for it? Will he actually tell the American people that judges routinely lie to jurors when they instruct jurors as to what the law is and how it shall be applied? Will Clinton do something for the people? Don't count on it. Just understand what his defense is all about. But, Bill Clinton has been backed into a corner. He might just take on the entire judiciary while attempting to hold onto his office. I'm certainly rooting for Clinton to expose court fraud
regarding jury nullification in his defense.