If there were such a thing as a reasonably objective person, he or she would be compelled to accept the obvious. Bill Clinton is a corrupt, disingenuous, duplicitous liar. He has committed perjury, he has suborned perjury, he has obstructed (and is obstructing) justice, and he has abused the power of his office under the color of authority. However, despite all that should be obvious to that fictional "reasonable objective person," Clinton will skate. Six months ago, one year ago, even four years ago, I would have said it would be impossible for this man to escape what seemed to be inevitable. I was wrong.

Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper #65 wrote: "Impeachment is permissible for offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust." Has Bill Clinton violated some public trust? Hell yes, even the most partisan and petty defender of the indefensible, in the quiet of their souls knows the man is reprehensible. Still, Clinton will coast.

In 1974 when Hillary Rodham was an attorney working on the Nixon impeachment she said: "Impeachment is the stop in a remedial process ... (to correct) serious offenses (that) subvert (our government) and undermine the integrity of office."Undermine the integrity of office." The most myopic, stubborn, supercilious congressional hypocrite cannot (or should not) dare to suggest the conduct of Clinton has not undermined the integrity of the office. However, Clinton will conclude his term.

Congressman Bill Clinger (former chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight) observed: "President Clinton has engaged in an unprecedented misuse of the executive power, abuse of the executive privilege and obstruction." Amazingly, Clinton continues to abuse executive privilege and continues to obstruct. Notwithstanding all the preceding, Clinton will escape justice. Hopefully, history will become his curse, and his sentence.

It is both disappointing and annoying to hear the likes of Orrin Hatch suggest that because the Senate seems disinclined to break partisan ranks, the country should be "spared" the turmoil of a full impeachment process. BULLFEATHERS! For the good of the country, regardless of the anticipated outcome, the country deserves (and needs) the catharsis of impeachment.

Conventional wisdom suggests the House will (albeit reluctantly) forward articles of impeachment to the Senate. However, all indications are there are not the necessary 67 votes to remove the president from office in the Senate, and as a result, the diffident and cowardly are suggesting we abandon the process. It is sufficient malfeasance to gag a maggot.

Congressman Bob Barr was right on when he said: "I think there is very clear evidence that crimes have been committed in the executive branch and that the House of Representatives should begin the process of determining whether or not there have been abuses of high office by the president and vice president and begin the process of impeachment." He was right when he said that last year, and he is right now. However, the petty partisans are now co-conspiring with the gutless GOP to facilitate what historians will probably refer to as "The Great Escape."

Twenty years from now, political science students will study how President William Jefferson Clinton successfully corrupted all three branches of government, violated his oath of office, and dodged the bullets of Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, Chinagate, Zippergate and assorted subsequent "gates" which are yet to be revealed.

There are at least six broad-based scandals which could have and should have ended the Clinton presidency. It is fascinating (and absurd) that debate continues over whether or not to impeach this sad excuse for a president. William Jefferson Clinton should be in jail instead of the Oval office. But he WILL finish his second term.

The mainstream media have joined with both parties as co-conspirators in glossing over all the previously listed "gates." Here's another crime which will not enjoy the scrutiny of the mainstream. The Clinton defense fund raised money ... lots of money. The plea communicated intentionally by the president and his S.O.B.'s (supporters of Bill) was that those scurrilous charges by the evil Ken Starr were false. Some of those contributing legal defense money allegedly actually believed what they were told and sent him money by mail or wire. Hell-o?!?!?

18 USC Chapter 63 deals with mail fraud and notes that: 'Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises. ..." Wait a minute! Didn't the president and his S.O.B.'s devise a scheme or artifice to defraud ... for obtaining money by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations? Clinton said he "did not have sexual relations with that woman. ..." Then he said he did (kinda). His original denial was used as a basis to obtain money for his legal defense fund. Am I missing something here?

Paragraph 1343 of the same USC and chapter says: "Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for more than five years or both."

So add "Mail Fraudgate" to the list of Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, Zippergate, Chinagate et al. It doesn't mean Jack-Spit. Bill Clinton will walk. The only punishment appropriate (and legal) for the myriad high crimes and misdemeanors of Bill Clinton is impeachment. However, although the House may forward Articles of impeachment, the Senate (to their eternal shame ... collectively and individually) will not vote to remove the president from office. The only punishment which will be realized (in the passage of time) will be the infamy of the historical record. Creative writing of epic proportions will be necessary to sufficiently revise the facts of history already in evidence.

It is a sad time for the republic that one man could accomplish what this man has done. Edward Albee once wrote a line which seems regrettably appropriate: "...what is gained is loss."