• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

“House Speaker-to-be Bob Livingston, R-La, is talking tough about President Clinton’s behavior, but privately he has suggested he has little interest in pursuing an impeachment inquiry during his speakership.”

That’s what the Washington Post reported yesterday. For the record, Livingston’s staff has been telling angry WorldNetDaily callers that the story is not true. It’s a trick of the liberal media. But, of course they say, “don’t quote me on that”.

Well, I’ll tell you what. This guy isn’t even speaker yet and I’m already sick of him. Clearly he’s talking out of both sides of his mouth — telling the Washington Post readers what they want to hear, and WorldNetDaily readers what they want to hear.

Livingston says he hasn’t even discussed the issue of impeachment with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde. Apparently Livingston was too busy politicking for the job to get involved in the matter of high crimes and misdemeanors committed by the chief executive.

His aides say he’ll leave the issue to Hyde.

But is that an improvement? Judicial Watch Chairman Larry Klayman got impatient this week with Hyde, who has never responded to the organization’s independent report on four scandals that make Monica Lewinsky look like a temptress in a teapot. Finally, yesterday, Hyde wrote back to Klayman that his staff has reviewed the Judicial Watch report.

“Judicial Watch’s Interim Report, and Evidence and Documentation Contained Therein, has been received by the Committee and forwarded to our chief investigator, David Schippers,” Hyde’s letter said. “I am advised by Mr. Schippers that every page of your submission has been reviewed by him and his staff. At this time, no decision has been made as to whether to call Judicial Watch as a witness before the Committee. If the Committee should so decide, you will be notified immediately.”

Pretty bizarre. Klayman’s report offers substantial evidence of Clinton administration corruption at the highest levels, abuse of power, and illegal activity that should cross even John Conyers’ threshold of impeachable offenses. So why is Hyde entertaining the idea of limiting the inquiry to Monica Lewinsky?

Why do the Republicans avoid Filegate, Chinagate, Commercegate, Travelgate, Trustgate, IRSgate, Campaigngate, Fostergate, Browngate, Renogate, and on and on? What do they fear? Are they afraid they will be implicated? Are they afraid they will become victims off the Clinton Secret Police? Do they fear IRS audits — or worse?

Larry Klayman has laid out four juicy scandals full of violations of the law. He’s done the committee’s work for it — better than Kenneth Starr has in the Monica Lewinsky affair.

So why are the Republicans pretending — making believe that the most egregious Clinton scandal involves his inability to keep his zipper up? What are they waiting for? The election’s over. They can’t be accused of going after Clinton in a political season. Why are they so self-conscious, so timid? Don’t they realize what is at stake — the very future of America and the rule of law?

Some suggest Hyde’s approach is merely a strategic ploy — that he knows Clinton will never agree to answer his 81 questions and, therefore, all bets are off on the limitation of the scope of the hearings. I don’t think so. This is a very tough White House to outmaneuver politically. Should Hyde decide to broaden the hearings at this point, the White House spinmeisters would have a field day picking that development apart.

How many Americans realize that Hyde’s offer to limit the scope and witnesses in the hearings was conditional upon Clinton answering the questions truthfully and completely? Very few, thanks to the pathetic job of reporting by the establishment press.

So what goes on? Will the American people ever learn the truth? Is the whitewash complete? Is the fix in? Has Clinton performed yet another Houdini act? Or is it more like the Republicans have played Keystone Kops once again?

It’s beginning to look pretty grim. Does anyone believe Livingston offers the leadership necessary to see this nation through one of its gravest political crises? Does anyone think the Republican leadership in the Senate has the chutzpah to see this thing through?

Clinton has the whole game rigged. Is he that good? Is he that powerful? Is he that scary?

Rise up angry, America. There’s no leadership in Washington. But there are plenty of followers. Maybe it’s time to tell them where to go.

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