As 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.

I 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.

The 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.

• National 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?
• The 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".
• North 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 treason.

• An examination of presidential orders regarding access to classified information reveals that the president is guilty of numerous violations.
• Cliff 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 or discretion."
• Clinton 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.
• Florida attorney Jack Thompson recently sent the following letter to House manager Rep. Asa Hutchinson:


"Re: Obstruction of Justice by Bruce Lindsey and Other Clinton Attorneys

"Dear Representative Hutchinson:

"Having 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:

"David 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.

"I 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.

"I 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.

Jack Thompson"

Is the president above the law?