Should government officials be held to the same letter of the law that you are? If they run a red light should they be given a ticket, or should the kind police officer let them go? If you said the latter, then please be kind enough to tell us where the officer should draw the line.

For example, if a government official steals a $100 pen and pencil set from a stationary store, should he/she be arrested like any common shoplifter? Or, should they be allowed to settle the incident quietly without public involvement? What about bribes and similar corruption? Where do we draw the line?

This author's opinion is that the official should be given the same consideration that would be given any other ordinary citizen. If the official has no prior record of red light running, and if the officer in general would allow other citizens off with only a verbal or written warning, then the same courtesy should be given the government official. If the store in question would normally allow a shoplifter to settle such a matter quietly without police involvement, then this government official should be given the same consideration.

In April 12th's commentary (The Pending Criminal Investigation Against President Clinton), this author said, "We should be happy and glad that in this country our President is held to the same rules and regulations that everyone else is. We have Generals and other military brass who's careers have been ended because of similiar acts with their subordinates. Not only that, consider the lies he told not only the Grand Jury, under oath, but the lies he told the American people. His actions, considered an obstruction to justice, must also be considered."

In reference to the pending investigation against President Clinton, this author would like to submit an interesting statement made in 1992 by Bill Clinton, himself when he was president-elect. It pertains to President George Bush's pardon of five individuals connected with an investigation of illegal activities committed by members of the Reagon administration during the Iran-Contra scandal. (Editor's Note: I have to agree, Bush's pardon was a most questionable act that points to obstruction of justice by way of the final cover up. --Al Colombo)

President-Elect Bill Clinton said, I am concerned by any action that sends a signal that if you work for the government, you're beyond the law, or that not telling the truth to Congress under oath is somehow less serious than not telling the truth to some other body under oath.

Unlike their counterparts of today, many Democrat congressmen were not in favor of a dual standard where it pertains to alleged criminal wrong doings by government officials.

Leading Democrats contended that the pardon would erode public respect for the law. "It leads people to believe that if you're high enough up and you commit a crime, you can get off," said Senator Dale Bumpers (D-Ark.). (Pardoned, Chicago Sun-Times, December 25, 1992, front page)

The author can think of only one word that will adequately descsribe the difference between Democrats in 1992, where it involved Bush, and the leading Democrats of today, where it involves Clinton: HYPOCRICY. But the bigger question is whether it qualifies as a Cover-Up?

What do you think? (E-mail me, okay?)

Regards,
Al Colombo