Ann Coulter
Among the people in cheery anticipation of independent counsel Robert Ray's pending indictment of William Jefferson Clinton are those who: demonstrated for George Bush in Florida; chanted "Get out of Dick Cheney's house!" outside the vice presidential residence in Washington; made possible George Bush's historic victory against an incumbent in peacetime and a booming economy -- and whom Bush is going to need when the left tries to "bork" his various nominees.

They would be awfully disappointed with a pardon.

Among the people who are not eagerly awaiting Clinton's indictment are the work-with-the Democrats Republicans on a break from drafting big-government program bills with their pal Teddy Kennedy. Without provocation, Sen. Orrin Hatch recently announced, "I would pardon him."

Maybe a hegemonic liberal media that blocks Republicans from getting out their message isn't such a bad thing. Before the country had even forgotten about Al Gore the moment he conceded, Republicans on the Hill were dashing to the media with press releases announcing their opposition to Bush's tax-cut proposal. In lieu of courage, it would be good if these guys could just learn to keep their mouths shut.

Leaping to surrender is not unusual for Sen. Hatch, which is why there's an expression in Washington, "Don't count your Hatches before they've chickened." Poor good-hearted Orrin Hatch still thinks he can work with Democrats. That's why he lasted in the Republican primary for about six minutes before being forced to drop out through lack of interest.

Remember that? Orrin Hatch ran for president last year. The Republican Party is well-familiar with the Hatches and the Fords and the Doles ("tax collector for the welfare state"). They're known as Republicans who lose.

It's not their fault, really. They're doing the best they can within their genetic limitations blocking them from discerning the perfidious qualities of Democrats.

Pardoning Clinton is appeasement, and the left can never be appeased. While in the U.S. Senate, John Ashcroft co-sponsored that unconstitutional feminist lunacy, the "Violence Against Women Act." That really helped calm down the harridans now that he's Bush's nominee for attorney general. Try to play nice, and liberals will bite your hand off.

We thought W already knew this. As a hopeful college freshman, W introduced himself to William Sloane Coffin Jr., the Vietnam War-protesting chaplain at Yale, and Coffin informed the young man, "Yeah, I know your father, and your father lost to a better man," after George Bush Sr. lost a Senate race in Texas.

Then W's father was double-crossed in his deal with the Democrats to raise taxes if they cut spending. Because he broke his Read-My-Lips pledge to people who knew better than to try to work with Democrats, Bush's father promptly lost the next presidential election to a flim-flam artist from Arkansas.

You can't negotiate with these terrorists.

Hatch's rationale for recommending a pardon was: 1) "I just don't see keeping it alive any longer," and 2) "I don't think there's a jury in America that is going to convict President Clinton."

On point 1, if a pardon would mean that we would never, ever, ever have to hear Bill Clinton's name again, I'd be all for it. But it's rather rash to assume a pardon will just brush Clinton under the rug.

When Ford pardoned Nixon, there was no established indictable offense. Perhaps there would have been after a lengthy and meticulous investigation, and perhaps not. The criminal investigation of Clinton is over. They could even charge Evita Clinton as an unindicted co-conspirator at the same time: ("Indict one, get one free!") A full-blown trial will take about two weeks.

Despite the pre-election booming economy, there is a new regime in Washington -- precisely because Bush had nothing to do with Clinton, James Riady, the travel office, the 900 FBI files, Evita or, thankfully, Monica Lewinsky. Bush should maintain the Chinese wall and just stay out of it.

The media insist "the country" wants to move on. No argument there -- that's why Bush won -- but no one is forcing the press to cover a Clinton trial. There are thousands of criminal trials taking place every day in this country. No need for the media to keep obsessing with this particular criminal.

On point 2: Then why did we try O.J.? From day one of the O.J. trial, every jury consultant in the country said that jury wouldn't convict that man. What kind of standard is that? Clinton ought to be made to sit at the defense table and face the evidence against him. If the jury acquits, so be it.

With or without a conviction, a criminal prosecution of William Jefferson Clinton is the only fitting conclusion for the "most ethical" government in history.