I agree with WorldNetDaily Editor Joseph Farah that “Americans must
be crazy.” The Zogby poll is probably on target. A majority answer “Yes”
to the question of whether President Clinton has sufficient “moral
authority” to wage a war.

Although Mr. Farah and I are admittedly not mental health
professionals, we both consider President Clinton a clinical
“sociopath.” My own background has included the representation of
convicted felons at parole hearings — where sociopathology is the major
factor. I have often heard prison psychiatrists say that there are two
types of sociopaths: “The dumb ones end up in jail; the smart ones
don’t.” President Clinton is certainly a smart one.

My reactions to the Zogby poll were mixed. In one way, the results
gave me a cold chill. But they also gave my cynical heart a renewed
warmth — which now requires explanation.

I admit to a personal phobia. I fear that profiles of those of us who
oppose Clintonism are being stored in computerized databases. My concern
is that, with the possible exception of Zogby and a few others,
political pollsters are commercial entrepreneurs who betray the
confidence of those who respond to their questions. I warn my family,
friends, clients, and readers not to answer any questions, political or
otherwise, asked by pollsters.

My experience has always been that polls of political opinion in
particular end up in dangerous databases. Names and profiles are easily
exploited by corrupt politicians or federal investigators — or both.
Significantly, my very first personal familiarity with an electronic
database was during the Watergate era.

In 1974 Ms. Hillary Rodham, played a key role on the House Judiciary
Committee’s temporary “Impeachment Inquiry” staff. The first lady-to-be
was hired and then supervised by our “Special Counsel” John Doar, a
former Justice Department prosecutor.

Until then the committee had never used a computer. Shortly after
their appointment Doar’s staff (with my permission) obtained one —
purportedly for the purpose of storing evidentiary documents. It was not
until after Nixon resigned that I learned that the computer had been
used for a purpose that I still suspect was illegal.

During that period public opinion polls were of special concern to
Doar and his political protege, Hillary Rodham. Of even more vital
concern were the hundreds of thousands of letters from constituents who
wrote to the Judiciary Committee members for and against impeachment.
The Doar staff used the computer not only to respond to the letters, but
also to comprise a database of names, addresses and political profiles.

On learning of the database, I feared that a sociopath could use it
illegally to raise campaign contributions from anti-Nixon citizens.
After Nixon resigned and the Doar staff was being disbanded, to allay my
fears Doar and then-Chairman Rodino assured me that only one tape of the
database had been preserved and locked in a private safe in Rodino’s

In December 1974, I left Washington to become a law professor. A year
later, the Rockefeller Commission on the CIA issued a report that caused
my chills about databases to become chronic. The report revealed that,
as assistant attorney general for civil rights in 1967, Doar had
recommended the establishment of “a single intelligence unit to analyze
the FBI information we receive about persons who make the urban ghetto
their base of operations.” In approving Doar’s recommendations, Attorney
General Ramsey Clark had cautioned Doar and other assistant attorneys
general that “the planning and creation of the unit must be kept in
strictest confidence.”

As the Rockefeller Commission Report of 1975 further noted:

“The FBI was to constitute only one source of information for the
proposed unit. As additional sources Doar suggested federal poverty
programs, Labor Department programs, and neighborhood legal services.
Doar recognized the ‘sensitivity’ of using such additional sources, but
nevertheless thought these sources would have access to relevant facts.
Other sources of dissident information suggested by Doar included the
Intelligence Unit of the Internal Revenue Service and perhaps the Post

In 1999 my chills about the misuse of databases for political
surveillance were reactivated by a conversation with WorldNetDaily
reporter Sarah Foster. She and Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch had been
investigating Terry Lenzner’s employment by Clinton defenders to compile
computerized dirt on the White House’s political enemies. Sarah and
Klayman had learned something that I had not realized before.

The same Lenzner had not only been employed by Sam Dash in 1974 to
investigate Watergate. He had also been Doar’s top assistant in the
nefarious political surveillance of “urban ghetto” opponents of the war
in Vietnam! I was not surprised. By then I was also aware of another
chilling use by the Clinton White House of a database was patently

At a 1994 meeting in the White House “Map Room” President Clinton had
ordered his staff to prepare a computerized database that congressional
investigators were later to learn cost taxpayers $1.7 million.
Ostensibly for the purpose of identifying persons to be invited to
official White House functions, it included names of more than 350,000
persons, most of whom were financial backers of the president.

Congressional investigators later obtained a two-page, handwritten
memorandum quoting Clinton aide Marsha Scott who headed the project as
describing it as a plan to add more than 200,000 “money people” to the
official functions list — to make sure Mr. Clinton’s re-election donors
were “taken care of” by receiving invitations to White House parties.

The investigators also obtained a Jan. 17, 1994, letter from a White
House attorney, Cheryl Mills, warning Ms. Scott that the data base could
not be used for political purposes and could be used only “in carrying
out the statutory, constitutional, ceremonial or other official duties
of the White House.” Other documents show that, despite the attorney’s
warning, the project was deliberately intended to raise campaign
contributions — and that such illegal use also had the personal
endorsement of Hillary Clinton.

The purpose of the project had been clearly stated in a memorandum
from Marsha Scott addressed to “The First Lady.” Making it clear that
the taxpayer funded database was to be illegally used by the Democratic
National Committee to raise campaign contributions, Scott wrote:

“The time to act is now … [L]et my team work with the DNC to help
them design a system that will meet our needs and technical
specifications. We can show them what to do. … Any information …
could then be made available, when deemed necessary, to the DNC or other
entities we choose to work with for political purposes.”

The memorandum obtained by congressional investigators bears a
handwritten response from Hillary Clinton: “This sounds promising.
Please advise.” After its release, White House Counsel Charles Ruff
reluctantly acknowledged that the Democratic National Committee had
indeed received the names of tens of thousands of potential donors from
the taxpayer-funded White House database.

Turning back now to the chilling results of the Zogby poll, despite
my cynicism I have a vision of a bright silver lining. I take comfort
from the fact WorldNetDaily has also published an article by Lew
Rockwell that is followed by a short but rapidly growing: “List of
public figures who have spoken out against Clinton’s latest bombing
campaign, sometimes at risk to their careers and reputations.” He
requested that other names be sent to him by email.

In my view, a president with insufficient “moral authority” is a
uniquely dangerous sociopath. In that context, I thank God that in a
poll of ordinary of citizens (most of whom do not earn their living from
speaking out against immorality), at least 23.9 percent of Americans may
well be “crazy” — but in a courageous and honorable way. Disregarding
the dangers of having their names in a data base that puts them at some
personal risk, they have, in effect, expressed the believe that our
sociopathic president has “ordered the bombing attacks as a distraction
from the growing Chinagate scandal.”

In that cold light of political and psychiatric reality, I, for one,
take some cynical comfort from the Zogby poll. I have a renewed hope
that Lew Rockwell’s list will grow longer and longer.

Jerome Zeifman served as chief counsel
to the House Judiciary Committee during the Nixon impeachment

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.