• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

I was one of the first to write about the Lewinsky matter days before
the national media joined the feeding frenzy. I did so here in
WorldNetDaily (Jan. 19, 1998) before the stuff hit the fan two days
later. As this contemporary Shakespearean tragedy moves into Act Five, I
was, as first, reluctant to join the growing throng of writers, but felt
compelled to clarify a few elements which are significant.

This is not the end, but the beginning: The 445-page Starr report
which is now on the Internet is NOT (I say again … NOT) the end of
Judge Starr’s report(s) to Congress. There is much more to follow. No
later than Sept. 28, an additional 2,600 pages of material relating to
perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of power in just the Lewinsky
imbroglio will be forthcoming. Additionally, there will be subsequent
releases of material related to criminal allegations concerning
Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, and (believe it or not) the Foster
investigation. According to one report, Starr has already submitted at
least one of those documents to the three-judge panel.

Despairingly seeking plausible deniability: Democrats who have not
already come out and criticized the bizarre litany of bad judgment and
misogynist bad taste, are hiding. Clinton supporters are reported to be
angry, distressed, annoyed, scared, or not available. Health and Human
Services Secretary Donna Shalala was eviscerated by her boss for her
reluctance to accept his hypocritical “apology” to his Cabinet. Boston
ultra-liberal, Doris Kerns Goodwin, wife of President Kennedy staffer
Richard Goodwin, has called on members of the Clinton Cabinet to resign
in protest. I spoke with an old colleague who had reported on Ted
Kennedy’s Chappaquidick disaster and still hangs around Harvard. He
said, “Geoff, no one else will remember, but you have been a prophet
… stick a fork in Clinton … he’s done!”

In 1974 as Hillary Clinton was working as an attorney on the
Richard Nixon impeachment she noted, “Impeachment is the step in a
remedial process … [to correct] serious offenses [that] subvert [our
government] and undermine the integrity of office.” Please note her
last phrase “and undermine the integrity of office.” I had a
very insightful caller to my radio program Friday who noted that the
posting of the Starr report (even this abridged portion of things to
follow) is real significant. Not only will it be seen by the president’s
American constituency … it will also be read globally. Hey, it’s the
WORLD WIDE WEB campers. Distribution is not limited to charter members
of the vast right wing conspiracy. The lurid, salacious, embarrassing
details are being read in London, Paris, Zurich, Jerusalem, Moscow,
Seoul, Jakarta, Bejing, Tripoli, Hong Kong, Kyoto and Hope. Twenty four
years ago Hillary was so concerned about “the integrity of
office.”

The president’s lawyers have a tough row to hoe. First it can be
argued that the excruciating detail of Phase One of the Starr report
were made possible largely by the nitpicking legalized bovine excrement
of David Kendall et al. The reason the President clings to his thinly
veiled fiction of “no sexual relations” is a legal one. If he (as any
reasonable person reading or hearing of his actions will know) concedes
he did have sex with Monica Lewinsky … he IS guilty of perjury.
PERIOD. Close the door, and turn out the lights. If (a big, and terminal
“if”) he and his billable hour buds can maintain the fiction of “legally
correct” but factual b.s. … he can continue to work the clock. Time is
(and always has been) his ally. However, his opponents are now fact,
reason, common sense, and the founding documents to which he swore an
oath.

April 25, 1997, Congressman Bob Barr had published an open letter to
the first lady in the Wall Street Journal. It was a brilliant letter,
commending Mrs. Clinton for her scholarly work and analysis of the
history of impeachment during her work on the Nixon impeachment. It is a
must read. It was Hillary Clinton who, from that Barr letter, “noted
then — clearly in response to those who mistakenly claimed impeachment
presupposes or requires a violation of criminal law — that British
history, to which our Founding Fathers turned for guidance, clearly
envisaged impeachment as a tool to correct ‘corruption in office’ that
‘alleged damage to the state,’ and was ‘not necessarily limited to
common law or statutory crimes.’”

Santayana ignored. The Wall Street Journal has noted that Clinton
“… is guilty of essentially the same thing over which Mr. Nixon was
hounded from office — abusing his office to cover up criminal activity
by himself and his accomplices, and misleading the public with a
campaign of lies about it.” That’s it in a nutshell. Nixon was
driven into infamy not by a botched burglary, but by his participation
in the cover-up. Nixon’s obstruction of justice, and abuse of power
under the color of authority were his politically fatal, self-inflicted
wounds. Clinton’s lewd and salacious proclivities may be a tragic
character flaw, but his participation in the cover-up, his lies,
obstruction of justice and abuse of power under the color of authority
are his politically fatal, self-inflicted wounds.

related items –>

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.