When is a trial not a trial?
(For future generations, this rant was prepared on January 7, 1999)
Bill Clinton, love him or hate him, is entering a trial which will decide whether he should be removed from office or not. Let me restate this: IT IS A TRIAL.
The reason I feel the need to restate is because of the foregone conclusions being drawn by our legislature. These conclusions are based on party lines, Republican and Democrat, and completely ignore the fact that there is a trial going on here. Today I read that the Democrats are trying to push for a quick "preliminary" vote, to show that the Republicans don't have enough votes to oust President Clinton, and that the trial is really just designed to embarass the President.
HELLO? AM I THE ONLY ONE NOT GETTING THIS? What is the point of a trial if everybody has already made up their minds, and VOTES ON IT? Isn't Justice blind? Aren't we supposed to be assured an impartial jury? I have often thought that Bill Clinton created this fiasco, and he should be held accountable. But am I the only one who feels that his demise, and the decision whether to kick him out of office or not, depends on whether we, the American people, voted Democrat or Republican in past elections, regardless of what Clinton did or didn't do?
Gangs are terrorizing our streets. Even in the smallest of communities, rival gangs are responsible for bloodshed without regards to anything but their "gangness". Has anyone ever wondered why we, the American people, are paying taxes to support what must be the most expensive turf war in history?
