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.
Advertisement - story continues below
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
- National Security: Last week Jim Hoagland of the Washington Post
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
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
- 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
If, 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. ...
- An examination of presidential orders regarding access to
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
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
manager Rep. Asa Hutchinson:
"Re: Obstruction of Justice by Bruce Lindsey and Other Clinton
"Dear Representative Hutchinson:
"Having seen your presentation yesterday, which liberal commentator
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.
Advertisement - story continues below
All 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 introduced. Why?
Is the president above the law?