the eyes of the world are turned on the U.S. Senate trail of William Jefferson
Clinton, the questions unasked remain the most significant, monumental,
and potentially terminal.
have often noted the difference between form and substance/perception and
reality. The mere fact that the current dog and pony show is allowed to
overshadow the more salient, and noxious, facts surrounding the unfitness
of the president to remain in office, is a finesse of epic proportions.
Sherlock Holmes once observed that it isn't important what a man does,
but rather what people think he has done.
House managers are doing a workmanlike, albeit ponderous, job of delineating
the details of the president's demonstrated perjury and obstruction of
justice. However, no one is (or arguably will) ever get to address what
many consider to be the president's treason and national security threat.
or when any one of the three aforementioned items were to be introduced
into an impeachment trial, the result should be (ipso facto) GUILTY. Frankly,
any senator failing to convict on these high crimes, would themselves,
be guilty of massive and monumental malfeasance. But there is more. ...
Security: Last week Jim Hoagland of the Washington Post urged the timid,
diffident congressional prosecutors to examine "one corner" of the Monica
Mess. He observed "Clinton recognized in a telephone conversation with
his young paramour that foreign intelligence organizations could, without
much trouble, be listening in on their phone sex and other musings, according
to Lewinsky's detailed unchallenged testimony." He went on to note "What
did the president do to protect himself, and national security, from blackmail
and damage other than propose an absurd cover story to Monica?" Was the
Clinton conspiracy to conceal the Monica factor because of embarrassment
over a sexual indiscretion, or an effort to thwart Congress and the American
people from learning how a foreign intelligence service may have pierced
the curtain of White House security? Hoagland wasn't the Lone Ranger. John
Fund of the Wall Street Journal, Reed Irvine of Accuracy in Media and others
mentioned this Starr report revelation. However, despite the obvious significance
of the national security angle the major media routinely ignored it ...
and they continue to ignore it. Hoagland writes for the Washington Post,
and yet the big boys haven't reported Jack-spit ... Meanwhile, Monica Lewinsky
was given above a top-secret security clearance. How?
Cox report: It has been reported in Insight Magazine that the fallout from
the classified China report published by Representative Chris Cox has sparked
whispers of treason in halls of power. The unasked question of whether
there was a quid pro quo arrangement between the Communist Red Chinese
and the White House which resulted in exchanges of money for favors remains
unasked. Was the money which the Communist Red Chinese paid Clinton and
the DNC a bribe (for intelligence, technology, or contracts), or was it
a gratuity paid for favors received? Regardless of which, it would clearly
fall under even the broadest definition of "impeachable offenses".
Korea: A significant historic note is that the United States is STILL at
war with North Korea. North Korea is, by definition, an enemy. For the
Clinton administration to provide them "aid and comfort" in any form constitutes
of the above is known to the House and the Senate. All of the above could,
should, and would lead to an obvious guilty verdict in the Senate. However,
we haven't (and probably won't) get to hear any testimony or see any evidence
examination of presidential orders regarding access to classified information
reveals that the president is guilty of numerous violations.
Kincaid of the Free Congress Foundation reported last week that Clinton
signed Presidential Decision Directive 29 establishing a body known as
the Security Policy Board. That entity developed guidelines for determining
eligibility for access to classified information which state that "Sexual
behavior is a security concern if it involves a criminal offense, indicates
a personality or emotional disorder, may subject the individual to undue
influence or coercion, exploitation, or duress, or reflects lack of judgment
signed Executive Order 12958 regulating access to classified information.
It declared that individuals eligible for access to such information must
have a record of "strength of character, trustworthiness, honesty, reliability,
discretion, and sound judgment, as well a freedom from conflicting allegiances
and potential coercion. ..." The blatant hypocrisy is axiomatic. Compare
Clinton's performance compared to his own written standard for eligibility
to classified information. "Strength of character": No; "Trustworthiness":
No; "Honesty": No; "Reliability": Depends what you mean by "reliability"
-- he can be relied on to lie, obfuscate, delay, and deny; "Discretion":
Hell No; "Sound Judgement": Duh?; Finally, "freedom from conflicting allegiances
and potential coercion": Uh ... NO.
attorney Jack Thompson recently sent the following letter to House manager
Rep. Asa Hutchinson:
Obstruction of Justice by Bruce Lindsey and Other Clinton Attorneys
seen your presentation yesterday, which liberal commentator Morton Kondracke
correctly called 'dazzling' and 'devastating,' I should like to alert you
to a piece of evidence of which you may not be aware:
Schippers sent his two top investigators to Miami to interview me because
of my affidavit filed in Jones v. Clinton which states that my best friend
at Vanderbilt Law School, Sam Jones, who is senior partner to Bruce Lindsey,
told me, in front of witnesses, that it was his job to track down women
with whom Clinton had sex in order to silence them and to pay them hush
money if necessary. These were witnesses in another lawsuit.
did not tell Mr. Schippers' people at the time something that I have just
learned in the past week: Gennifer Flowers mentioned in a WABC-AM radio
interview in July, 1997, the very same 'Sam Jones' as part of what you
would call the 'seven pillars of obstruction.' My affidavit had not been
reported yet in national media at that time, so she did not get the name
'Sam Jones' from me.
believe when you have a huge number of people working on a matter as large
as the impeachment of a president, relevant evidence such as this can fall
between the cracks. Surely Clinton's own attorney admitting obstruction
is useful to your prosecution.
the president above the law?