“And no matter what Lott or anyone else did, they were never going to get 2/3 in the Senate to convict him. Not one Democrat.”
Irrelevant and a rhetorical dodge. My post was in response to your mention of Clinton getting away with rape. The House managers planned to introduce Ms. Brodrick’s testimony but Lott & Stevens refused. Moral of the story - if you’re willing to vote for any cretin that has an “R” next to their name, don’t complain when said cretin throws justice under the bus for expediency’s sake.
Good job of picking out a small portion of my response. I was all over Lott at the time including calling his office, sending email, and sending faxes. I sent him information about Juanita. She would have been there. I was all over D’Amato’s office to them to call the troopers to contradict nanny Helen Dickey’s Vince Foster death perjury before their committee.
In addition to criticizing Lott, I mentioned that the game was rigged and the RATS would never throw out Clinton. I had Dave Schippers on my show two or three times and had several conversations with him. That is how he saw it — it was rigged. Never will I defend Lott. I wanted him out of there and railed against him on talk radio.
So I see your response as a mischaracterization of my position and the actions I have taken. Your moral of the story was irrelevant to my post.