DOWNSIDE LEGACY AT TWO DEGREES OF PRESIDENT CLINTON
SECTION: RECORD OF LIES AND DECEPTIONS:
SUBSECTION: PART 1
TESTIMONY IN CONTRADICTION TO THE PRESIDENT
PERJURY, LIES AND CONTRADICTIONS
TESTIMONY IN CONTRADICTION TO THE PRESIDENT
Dolly Kyle Browning
Elizabeth Ward Gracen
Danny Ferguson (cuts both ways)
Capitol Hill Blue 7/20/98 Doug Thompson "Secret Service agents confirm key parts of former White House intern Monica Lewinsky's story about being alone with President Clinton on specific dates and phone calls that Clinton made to her, Capitol Hill Blue has learned. "Agents can, and will, confirm to the grand jury that the President was alone with Miss Lewinsky in the Oval Office on more than one occasion" including a key December 28, 1997, meeting after Lewinsky was subpoenaed in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case, a source close to the subpoenaed Secret Service agents confirmed Sunday. At least two agents will testify that Clinton and Lewinsky were observed embracing and one may say the President and young woman were engated in "mutual fondling," although no agent is known to have observed the pair in a sex act. The testimony expected this week will also confirm that the President made phone calls to Lewinsky while he was out of the country on official business. "Basically, the testimony of certain agents will be in direct conflict with previous sworn statements of the President," the source said..
NY Times Don Van Natta Jr and John Broder 7/29/98 ".One of the lawyers said Tuesday that Ms. Lewinsky had indicated to prosecutors that the president discussed with her how to characterize their relationship in December, when they were both under subpoena in the Jones case. The admissions were crucial to reaching the broad immunity deal with Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr announced Tuesday. Ms. Lewinsky pledged her "full and truthful testimony" in exchange for freedom from the threat of prosecution. Ms. Lewinsky's mother, Marcia Lewis, received a similar grant of immunity Tuesday. Under the immunity arrangement, Ms. Lewinsky is prepared to testify that the president told her that he planned to deny a relationship and if they both denied it, no one would know the truth, the lawyers said. Ms. Lewinsky is also prepared to say that the president encouraged her to say that her many visits to the White House after she lost her job there in 1996 were to see Betty Currie, Clinton's private secretary, and not the president himself, the lawyers said. Ms. Lewinsky's proposed testimony contradicts Clinton's assertions in public and under oath about their relationship.."
New York Daily News Online Thomas DeFrank William Goldschlag and Kathy Kiely 8/20/98 "An angry Monica Lewinsky is primed to tell Kenneth Starr's grand jury today that President Clinton was an active sexual partner during their 18-month affair, sources told the Daily News yesterday. "This was a two- way street. This is not a situation of him being solely on the receiving end," one source said. Lewinsky's testimony will make it clear that Clinton was a willing participant, the source said. The 25-year-old ex-White House intern was described by knowledgeable sources as angry, hurt and disillusioned that Clinton - who recently gave prosecutors a DNA sample - has implied he never reciprocated her sexual moves.Another well-placed source said Lewinsky's 37 visits to the White House after being transferred to the Pentagon, and more than 70 phone calls from him, demonstrate that the relationship was far from passive on Clinton's part."If this was all her doing," the source said, "why is he constantly calling and leaving messages on her answering machine?"."
New York Times Web-site 12/8/98 AP Opening a final, impassioned defense against impeachment, President Clinton's legal team told the House Judiciary Committee today that Clinton's conduct was ``misleading, even maddening'' but did not warrant removing him from office..He also questioned the truthfulness of Monica Lewinsky, the former White House intern whose account of an affair and cover-up put the Clinton presidency in jeopardy. ``We think in some areas she provided erroneous testimony that is in disagreement with the president's testimony,'' Craig said under questioning. But Craig said he did not believe Oval Office secretary Betty Currie or presidential friend Vernon Jordan, who also gave testimony that conflicted with Clinton's, lied.."
Richmond Times-Dispatch 2/28/99 Editorial "...- He contrived to get himself alone in a hotel room with Juanita Broaddrick, just as he did with Paula Jones and sought to with Kathleen Willey. He later tried to apologize to Mrs. Broaddrick, as he tried to do with Dolly Browning (at a large gathering) for their years-long affair. He instilled fear in Mrs. Broaddrick, as he did in Mrs. Willey and Paula Jones and Elizabeth Gracen (the former Miss America he apparently jumped in the back seat of a car). As Monica Lewinsky did, Juanita Broaddrick filed a false affidavit in the Paula Jones case, later recanted with Kenneth Starr. And now Clinton terms Mrs. Broaddrick's assault story "absolutely false" - as he denied (or initially did) all the allegations of sex with all the others, including of course Gennifer Flowers.... Why the polls among women heavily in his favor? Why the votes of eight of the Senate's nine women for his acquittal? Why the omerta (the organized code of silence) among the deconstructed feminists regarding Clinton - why their giving to Just Plain Bill every benefit of every doubt while for instance deploring, as Betty Friedan did, Republican Speaker-elect Robert Livingston for being "extremely insulting to the American women's movement"?..."
PERJURY, LIES AND CONTRADICTIONS
The president's videotaped statement to donors that he was raising soft money (illegally) to pay for reelection ads v his previous denials.
Publicly pledging cooperation v strategy of stonewalling Jones and Starr and House/Senate
Fictitious claim by president that he could not comment on the Lewinsky matter because he was legally required to keep silent.
Clinton in January 98: "You and the American people have a right to get answers. I'd like for you to have more rather than less, sooner rather than later. So we'll work through it as quickly as we can and get all those questions out there to you" v February 98, "I've told the American people what is essential for them to know about this."
Clinton's has changed from 'never having met Jones' to admitting that they may have been in the same room alone.
Feb. 22 denial that White House "or any of President Clinton's private attorneys has hired or authorized any private investigator to look into the background of . . . investigators, prosecutors or reporters" v next day Terry Lenzner said that his firm, Investigative Group Inc., had been retained by the law firm representing Mr. Clinton in Mr. Starr's investigation.
Clinton's statement he had "no specific recollection" of his meeting with Ms. Willey, v a later statement that he "has a very clear memory" of the meeting.
Clinton denials in 1992 60 Minutes interview regarding Gennifer Flowers v (6 six years later) answering yes under oath.
Clinton's 1994 statement on executive privilege, "It's hard for me to imagine a circumstance in which that would be an appropriate thing for me to do" and counsel (Cutler's) statement that (1994) it is practice "not to assert executive privilege" in circumstances involving communications relating to investigations of personal wrongdoing by government officials v executive privilege claims.
Clinton's promise of "the most ethical administration in history" v this list.
Clinton statement that "What always happens if you have automatic sanctions legislation is it puts enormous pressure on whoever is in the executive branch to fudge an evaluation of the facts of what is going on."
"..no dictator will pressure . into concessions" v. telecommunications free commerce with Cuba
Haitian actions/Lavallas v President Carter negotiation in process (at his request)
Clinton statement that they want Executive Privilege legal material made public v. Motion for Contempt when a portion becomes public.
Administration figure given for FBI files (approx 39) was much lower than they knew it to be at the time
Democrats outrage over release of legally recorded Hubbell prison tapes v. silence over release of illegally recorded cell-phone conversations of Republicans.
Clinton asserts that he is cooperating with Starr v. Clinton has declined request to waive Secret Service privilege, to urge Susan McDougal to testify, to provide his own testimony to the Grand Jury
Clinton "I do not believe we should extend most-favored-nation status to China unless they make significant progress in human rights, arms proliferation and fair trade." in 3/92 vs. current position.
In 1997 , Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said , " If these allegations are true , they would be very serious . " They (Chinese illegal contributions to DNC & Clinton/Gore) are true , but are not taken seriously, e.g. China trip still "on."
Clinton 1992 campaign, "The Bush administration continues to coddle China, despite its continuing crackdown on democratic reform, its brutal subjugation of Tibet, its irresponsible export of nuclear and missile technology" vs current policy to China.
January 12, 1998 letter by President Clinton to Congress: " I am writing to you with respect to sections (b)(1) and (b)(2) of Public Law 99-183, relating to the approval and implementation of the Agreement for Nuclear Cooperation Between the United States and the People's Republic of China, and with respect to section 902(a)(6)(B) of Public Law 101-246. . In accordance with Public Law 101-246, I have certified that China has provided clear and unequivocal assurances to the United States that it is not assisting and will not assist any nonnuclear-weapon state, either directly or indirectly, in acquiring nuclear explosive devices or the material and components for such devices . I believe the Agreement will have a significant, positive impact in promoting U.S. nonproliferation and national security interests with China...I am pleased that the process is underway to begin nuclear cooperation with China .." - vs the Timeline.
Attorney-client privilege claim Lindsey-Clinton (use of government resources) vs. William Sessions, Billy Dale, etc.
Treatment of China - which murdered hundreds of pro-democracy students in 1989 v. treatment of India
On the very day the Supreme Court denied an expedited hearing as the White House requested, McCurry said "Today is day 1,400 of Ken Starr's tenure as independent counsel, at $35,000 a day of taxpayers' money ... if there's any delay, that's the delay right there."
Clinton "This is an important example of how our engagement with China serves America's interests: stability in Asia, preventing the spread of weapons..." v this list.
Decisions by Atty General Janet Reno ".calls into question the administration's previous opposition to assisted suicide. President Clinton raised no objections to opposing assisted suicide in April 1997 when he signed the Ashcroft-Dorgan legislation to bar the use of federal funds for services rendered by the likes of Dr. Jack Kevorkian."
Although the Clintons claimed to have lost money in their commodity trading in 1980, on April 11, 1994, they revealed they failed to report $6,498 in income from the trading and paid $14,615 in back taxes and interest.
In 1993, its "first major Supreme Court case, the Clinton administration is preparing to defend a Haitian refugee policy [of returning the refugees to Haiti] that the president had called illegal during the campaign." (USA Today)
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Jimmy Carter v. Clinton claim that he is "the only president who knew something about agriculture when [he] got there."
Clinton refused to sign legislation to pay the legal fees accrued by Billy Dale and the other fired Travel Office employees. The next day, the White House asked Congress to pay the legal fees of Clinton aides in return for Clinton's signature.
Clinton's claims about China's progress in human rights vs. Gao's testimony which ``included depravity of the People's Republic of China program that not even the harshest critics of the program ever suspected. Women are rounded up, held in `population jail cells' and forced and coerced to submit to the killing of their children.''
About the Chinese reception in Tiananmen Square, Clinton said the Chinese "should be designing the terms of the arrival ceremony, not me" but in October 1997 the Chinese government didn't let the US design the terms of Jiang's state dinner, rejecting a relatively informal dinner on South Lawn and insisting on a formal state dinner in the East Room.
Steven Brill's article accusing Starr of talking to the press v. comments by Lawrence Walsh in February of 1998: "To me the press was very important.What they did was supply to the press whatever we could give them that was on the record and public to save the press from going back to try to figure it all out -- find it all out for themselves. As our investigation stretched out, it became important to do that because the reporters would go off on to other assignments and come back so we tried to facilitate their work that way the best we could. I also talked to them. 20 odd or so met two or three times a year with them in rotation so they could ask about the general background. "
In September of 1996, Clinton promised to help the Secret Service uniformed division win collective bargaining rights v. June of 1998 when he announced that he has decided not to support efforts by the Secret Service's uniformed division to unionize.
In 1992, when candidate Clinton found out that his passport files had been rooted through by Bush appointees in the State Department - "If I catch anybody doing it," he said, "I will fire them the next day. You won't have to have an inquiry or rigmarole or anything else" v not firing Bacon or Bernath over the release of Linda Tripp information.
State Department spokesman James Rubin insisted that "no controlled information" regarding missile technology "has been authorized to be made available to Chinese authorities" v the February 1998 waiver which was issued despite the State Department warnings to the National Security Council that Loral's actions were "criminal, likely to be indicted, knowing and unlawful."
State Department spokesman James Rubin said that "the whole underlying suggestion that somehow we want to transfer technology to the Chinese . is simply fatuous." V the late 1994 agreement between the Clinton Adminstration and Red China's Commission on Science Technology and Industry for National Defense (COSTIND) for the specific purpose of facilitating technology transfers to Red China.
Clinton's remark to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council in 1992: "We will link China's trading privileges to its human rights record and its conduct of trade of weapons sales" v this List.
Clinton and Gore in 1992 book Putting People First: "We should not reward China with improved trade status when it has continued to trade goods made by prison labor and has failed to make significant progress on human rights since the Tiananmen massacre" v Administration's position on MFN for China
Nausbaum and Altman denied exchanging Whitwater information v. fax documents.
Clinton is "encouraged" by Iraq's cooperation with UN inspectors but Richard Butler says there has been "virtually no progress" in six months and Bill Richardson, says "there's been zero progress."
Regarding Satellite Exports, Clinton claims to be continuing the China policy of Bush v 4/30/91 statement from Fitzwater for Bush, citing nuclear proliferation concerns: "The President has decided not to approve a request to license the export of U.S. satellite components to China for a Chinese domestic communications satellite, the Dong Fang Hong 3 (DFH-3). "
Clinton overrides of State Department vs. Warren Christopher in confirmation hearing: "we cannot ignore continuing reports of Chinese exports of sensitive military technology to troubled areas...." and " . I have long thought the State Department needs an `America Desk.' This Administration will have one--- and I'll be sitting behind it. v Christopher's resignation which occurred after Hot Section Technology was moved from State to Commerce
The President has said the Chinese should determine the details of his trip there in June of 1998 v in Chile, where the President insisted on a motorcade over a helicopter thereby creating additional problems for his hosts (closing shops and schools, etc.)
Attorney General Janet Reno is considering investigating Judge Starr within days of the Brill article v John Huang has evidently not even been interviewed on the campaign finance investigation - though his involvement was known since late 1996 and Judicial Watch has made progress.
Regarding Algeria, May 2 1998 - State Department warned against travel and warned those who would travel to "take the same precautions that U.S. Embassy personnel and U.S. oil companies...take, including...using armed guards at the airports and carrying weapons for protection" v administration policies towards carrying weapons for protection in the U.S.
In 1980, before Ronald Reagan was elected, 60.3% of graduating seniors had used marijuana. In twelve years of the Reagan-Bush administration in January 1993 only 32.6% of the graduating seniors had used marijuana - a decrease of 27.7 percentage points. In 1996, at the end of Clinton's first term in office, the percentage jumped from 32.6% to 44.9%. If a similar penalty were applied to this as was proposed with tobacco, the estimated penalty would be $250.6 million against the DEA for 96/97.
Clinton said "We did pass the Brady Bill and 100,000 felons, fugitives and stalkers lost their handguns" v a 1996 Justice Department report asserts the Brady act barred 60,000 from buying guns. And Clinton later changes the statement to "hundreds of thousands of."
Clinton said "We did pass the Brady Bill and 100,000 felons, fugitives and stalkers lost their handguns" v GAO finding that almost half of all the rejections were due to paperwork or traffic violations, not criminal records
Testimony to the National Security and International Relations committee: "If the encryption board was reversed-engineered, the knowledge gained could be used to strengthen adversaries' knowledge" of the devices the United States uses to safeguard its communications systems v after the New York Times article on the missing device : "If the encryption board was reverse-engineered at the chip level (a difficult process), one could determine the state of our research and development sophistication 20 years ago, and the knowledge gained could be used to strengthen one's knowledge of communications security principles."
Testimony of Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. to House Committee on International Relations 6/24/98: "Mr. Clinton credits his policy of engaging China with ending Beijing's aggressive proliferation practices. Spherically, he declared recently that: "In the last decade (the PR.C) has joined the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Biological Weapons Convention, and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, each with clear rules, reporting requirements and inspection systems." The trouble is that, despite these obligations and a new, much ballyhooed domestic export control regime, China remains, according to the CIA and the Senate Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation and Federal Services, "the principal supplier of weapons of mass destruction and missile technology to the world." "
In October of 92, Clinton said "But there is no more striking example of President Bush's indifference towards democracy than his policy toward China.Instead of allying himself with the democratic movement in China, George Bush sent secret emissaries to raise a toast with those who crushed it." and Gore said: Bush "has permitted five additional American built satellites to be launched by the Chinese.Bush is an incurable patsy for those dictators." v this list.
White House Press Office, 202-456-2100 6/24/98 Statement by the President Veto of HR 2709 the "Iran Missile Proliferation Act of 1998": "I have committed my Administration to an unceasing effort to halt the transfer of missile technology to nations that conduct or condone terrorism and otherwise violate international norms" v this list.
Lucianne Goldberg said Mr. Behre was fired after he sought to give the tapes to Mr. Clinton's personal attorney, Robert S. Bennett and that Mr. Behre returned the tapes but only after his office had transcribed them. Mr. Behre said last year that Mrs. Tripp was "outraged" when former White House volunteer Kathleen E. Willey first came forward to accuse Mr. Clinton of a sexual advance in the Oval Office and that Mrs. Willey had wrongly "injected" his client's name into stories concerning the Jones suit by saying Mrs. Tripp could corroborate the encounter and that Mrs. Tripp "never witnessed any inappropriate behavior by the president" and said his client had "no information even remotely relating to Paula Jones or her allegations."
6/27/98 Michael Kelly National Journal concerning the missing supersecret board ".In a remarkable response, the White House issued a statement ''clarifying'' the National Security Agency's assessment, essentially changing it from a warning that national security may have been harmed to an assurance that it had not been harmed. ."
Washington Times, 7/1/98 Warrent Strobel ".Officials of the Taipei government had expressed satisfaction earlier this year with U.S. assurances that Mr. Clinton would not harm their national interests in conversations in mainland China, but were concerned that the assurances had not been made in public. Mr. Hu (Jason Hu, the foreign minister of the Republic of China in Taiwan) recalled that the United States, in its 1994 Taiwan policy review, pledged that it would work to "make Taiwan's voice be heard" in all international organizations to which it is not a member. "How does that square with shutting the door on membership?" he asked rhetorically.."
In 1996, labor spent some $35 million on advertising that targeted House Republicans in an effort to help Democrats regain control of the U.S. House. But now The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids has asked the Federal Election Commission to stop the tobacco industry from running issue ads.
White House Counsel Charles F. C. Ruff said: "There is not in my office, there never has been and there never will be, any defiance, stonewalling, obstruction or any other inappropriate conduct" v this list.
The administration spokesmen complain that the Starr investigation has cost $40 million over 4 years with little result v. the Clinton Trip to China cost $45 million over a few weeks with little result.
On March 13, 1998 - within a few hours - the Pentagon released information on Linda Tripp in violation of the federal Privacy Act, days later the department announced an internal investigation v. July 9, 1998 - 4 months later - no accountability yet.
7/10/98 Washington Peter Baker "If the world does not move to curb greenhouse gases, the United States will have to deal with more natural disasters like the raging wildfires that consumed so much of Florida in recent weeks, President Clinton said today..While acknowledging that "no one entirely understands what is bringing about this extreme weather," he suggested again that he believes changes in the global climate are partly responsible ."
7/13/98 Silicon Valley Logic ".A November 1996 report by the Department of Justice calls for a "need for stronger sanctions" to curb what it considers an epidemic of perjury and obstruction of justice in the nation's courts of law: "In a number of jurisdictions, statutes against witness tampering, suborning perjury (encouraging perjury by threats or inducements), or obstruction of justice do not carry high enough penalties to either deter or substantially punish witness intimidation... defendants are reported to feel they have little to lose -- and a great deal to gain (from perjury and obstruction)."."
Clinton's claims about his fighting for civil rights v. Arkansas Democrat Gazette 10/8/97 Paul Greenberg ".The driving passion of his life? The closest Bill Clinton came to pushing for a civil rights law was to appoint a study commission, which was his way of avoiding almost any tough issue. What he did for civil rights was to substitute patronage for a policy, appointing black folks to office rather than protecting the rights of all by the kind of legislation that would have offended powerful interests.."
In 1996 campaign, Republican rival Robert Dole has said the files episode smacks of a Nixonian "enemies list," but Clinton said he "would never condone or tolerate any kind of enemies list or anything of that kind" v database, filegate and Carville project
The New York Times 7/16/98 "Louis Freeh is a lawyer and former Federal judge who has spent his life interpreting and enforcing the law. As Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, he leads the agents investigating White House fund-raising during 1996 and the possibility that the Chinese Government funneled money to the Democrats in an effort to influence the election and American policy. Now we have learned in an important public forum, the Senate Judiciary Committee, that Mr. Freeh told Ms. Reno last December that she was flatly misreading the Independent Counsel Act when she refused to acknowledge her conflict of interest and appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the fund-raising of her boss, President Clinton.."
Four days before details emerge on Al Gore's participation in the illegal fund-raiser at the Hsi Lai Buddhist monastery, Gore claims, "Number one, we have strictly abided by all of the campaign finance laws, strictly. There've been no violations."
Federalist Digest 7/17/98 ".CLINTON ''I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' --Presidential oath of office.In May of 1998, Mr. Clinton issued Executive Order 13083, ''Federalism,''."
World Net Daily 7/21/98 Charles Smith "The Clinton administration claims they have nothing to hide. Yet, the White House is resisting the release of documents hidden inside the files of the late Ron Brown. The documents are being sought by the House National Security Committee. The documents involve a 1996 presidential waiver written by Clinton for the troubled Loral Aerospace Corporation. Congressional officials are concerned because the 1996 Clinton waiver for Loral included the transfer of an advanced satellite encryption telemetry ground station to China. "Dozens of documents the House National Security Committee was promised have not been delivered," said Congressman Gibbons of Nevada in a recent interview for Congressional Daily. "That is typical of someone who has something to hide."
World Net Daily 7/21/98 Charles Smith ".President Clinton and Mr. Reinsch both claim executive orders transferring oversight for space exports from State to Commerce were not issued until 1996. Yet, Reinsch's 1995 waiver memos clearly shows that the Brown's Commerce Department had a much larger role than previously admitted."
New York Times 7/23/98 Bill Safire "Remember "Filegate"? Three years ago we learned that the White House had been regularly pulling the files from the F.B.I. on hundreds of Republicans -- ostensibly for security clearance, but including hundreds of former Reagan and Bush appointees never being considered for jobs. Even Clinton partisans shuddered at shades of an "enemies list." White House spokesmen dismissed it as a "bureaucratic snafu," caused by a Secret Service that couldn't keep its lists straight. ..Starr has never come to closure. Years passed; Livingstone, seeking no immunity, testified to Congress that everybody and therefore nobody was to blame. Starr's investigation languished. ..Fortunately for the public interest in privacy, an organization called Judicial Watch launched a class-action suit in behalf of people whose files had been unlawfully examined. This week it provided The Washington Times with an expanded list of names of those whose most intimate affairs were examined by this political operative and his bosses. The list, still growing, is up to 900 names; some, like Linda Tripp, were holdovers, but at least 400 were not -- from James Brady to James Baker, John Whitehead to James Carville.Here is this series invader of privacy blithely envisioning the transmission of F.B.I. files loaded with hearsay smears being fed to the President himself, for reading amusement on his computer screen. We know that Whodb, pronounced "who-to-be," the White House Office Data Base, has on it tens of thousands of potential contributors and people who owe the Clintons favors, accessible by name, affiliation, race and religion. We do not yet know what else is in these unprecedented political dossiers. ..The Senate counter-investigated that harassment; the agents were exonerated and their legal bills paid. Now, ironically, the White House is posing as the big friend of a Secret Service reluctant to testify -- while clinging to the canard that an inefficient Secret Service was the cause of hundreds of invasions of privacy. .."
USA Journal Online 7/24/98 ".Specter said Thursday that the attorney general has ignored her own pledge to rely on the opinions of outside professionals to make her decision whether or not to launch this probe. "Now we have both Louis Freeh and Charles LaBella coming down on the side of appointing an independent counsel," Mr. Specter said, adding that Miss Reno "has a mandatory duty on covered persons and she has abused her discretion on conflict to others."."
Washington Post Susan Schmidt and Peter Baker ".If Clinton were to provide testimony, it would represent another turnabout on the issue by the president. Early in the Lewinsky probe, Clinton said he believed people may have legitimate questions about his relationship with Lewinsky, and that he was anxious to provide answers, ``more rather than less, sooner rather than later.'' But over the past few months Clinton has resisted testifying, and advisers have privately said they see no reason for him to answer Starr's questions. ."
7/25/98 Brian McGrory Boston Globe ".White House officials increasingly regard a subpoena from Starr as an inevitability, and launched this latest round of discussions in an attempt to cut the best deal they could, according to aides and analysts. ''It's an effort to look purer than the other guy, Starr,'' said Paul Rothstein, a professor at Georgetown Law Center. ''They are trying to look like they are being open and making offers.'' ."
Clinton - memories of church burnings from childhood
8/2/98 Electronic Telegraph James Langton "PRESIDENT Clinton is considering an emotional television apology to the American people - possibly within days - which would include confessing to a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. A number of senior aides are understood to be urging a presidential admission of infidelity. While the tactic is high risk, they believe that it would bring to an end the scandal that has plagued the White House for most of this year. More importantly, the White House would hope to kill Kenneth Starr's investigation into more serious and possibly criminal aspects of the affair by making it politically almost impossible for him to continue. ."
8/2/98 The New York Times AP " A majority of Americans apparently have no appetite for impeachment, even if President Clinton committed perjury. The latest Newsweek poll shows only 39 percent think impeachment would be appropriate if the president lied under oath about a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Another 35 percent say it would be enough if Clinton apologized and 19 percent say no action should be taken.59 percent say they do not believe the president's denials.."
8/4/98 James Bennet and Don Van Natta Jr. "Taking a defiant stance toward prosecutors and political critics, White House officials said today that President Clinton would continue to maintain that he had had no sexual relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky and would appeal a court decision ordering a top aide to testify in the case."
8/7/98 Washington Post Op-Ed Senator Fred Thompson ".Most recently, the White House tried to lay the groundwork for another wide-ranging federal power grab. The president has said the era of big government is over, but White House actions tell a different story. .On May 1 President Clinton quietly signed Executive Order 13803 with the stated purpose of promoting federalism. Ironically, while this order directs federal agencies to consult more with state and local officials, it was written in secret -- without any consultation at all. State and local officials, upset with the order and the White House snub in drafting it, want it revoked.The new Clinton order also revokes his own 1993 order that directed federal agencies not to impose unfunded mandates on the states. The White House claimed the new order did not signal a policy change. But those most affected could not disagree more.."
8/10/98 AP Ron Fournier "A week before Bill Clinton's risky date to answer questions from prosecutor Kenneth Starr, some of the president's closest advisers are convinced he should try to avoid telling all. The president last month agreed to testify ``completely and truthfully'' on Aug. 17 to a grand jury investigating whether he had sex with Monica Lewinsky and tried to cover it up ..
Washington Times 8/11/98 Tod Lindberg "Probably there was a time in American politics when the question of whether or not the president should tell the truth to a grand jury was unthinkable: Of course he should. That was then. In Bill Clinton's America, truth-telling has become a question of tactics.."
8/12/98 Fox News Jonah Goldberg - Freeper report "During some give and take between Jonah, Ann Coulter, an unknown Democratic spinmeister, and the hosts (Hannity & Colmes), Jonah made a very significant point about a "training video" used in the Government that addresses the impropriety of sex in the Government work place. The significance was that (per Jonah) the President did the 'lead in' on the tape and had some words to the effect; "no one in the Federal Government should be excused from an abuse of power even in 'consensual sex'"
NY Times 8/16/98 Editorial "Unlike any of his modern predecessors, Bill Clinton seems to believe that he lives beyond the reach of public disappointment. Otherwise, how could he talk about picking an architect and having Hollywood raise $100 million for his Presidential library while at the same time allowing his aides to release the oddest trial balloon ever to float from the West Wing? We are now advised that the President of the United States may argue for continuance in office by telling a grand jury that he received oral sex, but that, in his view, the act did not constituent sexual relations since he did not touch any of the female body parts specified by a Federal judge."
Reuters 8/18/98 Kieran Murray "Attorneys for Paula Jones said President Bill Clinton's confession on Monday that he had a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky proved he lied under oath in the sexual harassment lawsuit their client brought against him.. ``While my answers were legally accurate, I did not volunteer information,'' Clinton said, just hours after he testified to a grand jury on the matter. Pyke disputed Clinton's claim. ``He told us (in January) that he did not have a sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky, that they did not have a sexual relationship. He said he had no sort of relationship with her, that he hardly knew her,'' Pyke said. ``The claim that he gave legally accurate testimony is not truthful.'' ."
Drudge 8/19/98 ".During his grand jury testimony on Monday, President Clinton may have slipped further into perjury. The DRUDGE REPORT has learned that the president responded repeatedly with "weak and confusing" answers during his historic testimony -- answers that are bound to haunt him in future months! "His story was all over the place," one well-placed source disclosed late Monday night. "He had major trouble with the time line [of his contacts with Monica Lewinsky]... he stumbled all over the Vernon Jordan questions. And his Betty Currie story was full of inconsistencies." Clinton contradicted documents and tapes, according to the well-placed source, and appeared "lost" during one heated exchange..FOX NEWS CHANNEL ace reporter David Shuster was reporting late Monday night that Clinton was hit with an unexpected line of questioning during his grand jury testimony. It is not known the nature of those questions. Susan Schmidt and Ruth Marcus on 15th Street reported that Clinton's "defiant stance appeared to be a gamble that Starr will be left without enough evidence to bring a criminal case against him or be able to convince Congress to launch impeachment proceedings." ."
Sacramento Bee George Will 8/18/98 "Eaten to a honeycomb by corruption, Bill Clinton's presidency effectively ended with his defiantly eccentric claim that his lying in the judicial process about sex in the White House was all a matter of his private life. And there he goes again, lying about prior lies: "My answers were legally accurate" in the Jones deposition, in which he said he had no memory of being alone with the intern with whom he has a precise memory of doing something "not appropriate." (Perhaps using the salad fork on the entree?)."
Washington Post 8/24/98 Ruth Marcus Susan Schmidt "In January, he said he did not remember being alone with her and never had an affair with her. Last week, he said they had a half-dozen sexual encounters. In January, he did not recall any specific gifts he gave her. Last week, he named three he presented just after Christmas. In January, he was not sure he talked with her about testifying other than making a joke about it. Last week, he said they discussed how to respond to a subpoena."
FoxNews 822/98 Steve Helber AP ".Other details of Clinton's grand jury testimony leaked out Friday, including the disclosure that last Dec. 28, a mere 3 1/2 weeks before the uproar over the relationship began, the president gave the former White House intern up to a half-dozen small gifts. They included an Alaskan stone carving of a bear, a throw rug or blanket, a decorative pin, a box of chocolates, joke sunglasses and a bag from the Black Dog store at Martha's Vineyard, Mass., where the Clintons have vacationed for three years..But only a few weeks later, on Jan. 17, Clinton said during the Jones deposition only that he "could have given her a gift, but I don't remember a specific gift." He also answered, "I don't recall," when asked whether he ever had been alone in the Oval Office with Lewinsky. He made no reference to their Dec. 28 meeting and said that Lewinsky stopped by the White House before Christmas to see the president's personal secretary, Betty Currie.."
Patrick Buchanan 8/23/98 ".The night before Clinton testified, I wondered aloud on CNN why he was doing it. If, as appeared certain, Clinton had lied in his sworn deposition in the Paula Jones suit, he would be going into the grand jury -- either to admit perjury or to commit perjury. It appears he may have done both.."
Star Net (Arizona Daily Star) 8/23/98 Donald Kaul ".I've been arguing that the president's perjury is of no great moment because the issues involved are so trivial. I've been wrong. It is precisely because the matter is small that the lie is so unsettling. If he, as president of the United States, is willing to lie under oath over so trivial a matter in a worthless lawsuit, how can we ever trust him to tell us the truth any time, about anything? ."
London Times Andrew Sullivan 8/23/98 "When a country strikes against terrorists, there should be no doubt as to the motives for its actions. When the president of the United States addresses the nation to explain a military campaign in retaliation for the murder of American civilians, there should be no smidgen of a doubt as to the integrity of his words or the authenticity of his actions. Commentators last week spoke about America's actions in Sudan and Afghanistan with a wry smile on their faces.. Doesn't every politician lie? To an extent, of course. But this man has taken the principle of cynical duplicity to a new and chilling level. I saw it upfront when I heard him describe the events in Bosnia as another Holocaust and then take a poll to decide whether to stop it. I saw it when he said he would do anything to end the scourge of Aids and then signed a bill that would have thrown every HIV-positive soldier out of the military. Then there were the meta-scams: the welfare reformer who was eventually forced into it by a Republican Congress and then claimed credit himself (of course); the budget-balancer who was forced into fiscal neutrality by the polls and then claimed it was his proudest legacy; the feminist who routinely treats women as if they are fools, tokens or sexual objects. Is it any excuse to say that the final lie that undid him was about something as trivial as consensual extramarital sex? Surely not... My own bet is that we still don't know the half of it. If Clinton's past is any guide, what the Starr report contains about intimidation of witnesses and encouragement of deceit might make our hair stand on end. Yes, it's petty business. Sex is often a petty business. But honesty in a president is not a petty principle. Without it no system of democratic government can withstand the cynicism and disengagement that will overwhelm it. Clinton has already done a fathomless amount to define down America's collective notions of candour, decency and accountability. If he is shown beyond a doubt to have lied and then is allowed to get away with it, Americans will have gained two years of phoney stability but have lost their constitutional and cultural soul. They will have allowed the chief enforcer of the laws to treat those laws with contempt. They will have tolerated a role model for their children whose definition of morality is whatever he can get away with.."
From Freeper debo21 (Jerusalem Post 8/21/98) "In '92, when a campaigning Bill Clinton still served as governor of Arkansas, he was asked to commute the death sentence of a brain damaged man back home in Arkansas. He refused. While there were strong arguments to be made for carrying out the full penalty of the law in that case (some strong arguments against, too), everyone knew full well that the ONLY reason Clinton allowed the execution to go forward was to protect himself in the polls, so that no-one could charge him with being "soft" on capital punishment. During the same campaign, he attacked George Bush for his refusal to take in Haitian boat people. When Clinton was elected, hundreds of Haitians, believing he had given them a warm go-ahead, took to the dangerous seas in overloaded boats which were soon swamped: the trusting Haitians were drowned or torn apart by sharks, and Clinton later made it clear that in fact he would continue a policy strikingly like Bush's. This is the long way around of saying that whatever the policy realities may be, positive or negative, Clinton does things for one reason only: to help Clinton in the polls. If coincidentally he does the right thing, it's still just a coincidence. And in any case, as the crazy lefties outside the WH were chanting yesterday, "When Clinton lies, People die!" . . "
American Spectator 9/2/98 "Our Prince Bill has ripped out a page from Machiavelli and thrown away the rest of the treatise, saving his biggest lie for his biggest day. Going into speech night he knew, unlike 99.999 percent of his viewers and listeners, that a few days later he'd be launching slick willies at cruising speed against terrorist targets he'd only just discovered. His staged departure with enabling Chelsea and humiliated (and don't forget "shocked") Hillary for a Canosa vacation was another lie--a lie on top of the underlying lie--as he knew he'd be coming right back. It was a brilliant piece of subterfuge, intended alas not for all enemies foreign but for all enemies domestic--in particular Kenneth Starr, who in one brief afternoon saw Clinton spend more on 75 cruise missiles than he has in four fabled years investigating Clinton himself. Bill bought himself some time, and overnight the press started parroting the line that we were now faced with an open-ended war against terrorism that'll cross not only the bridge to the twenty-first century but likely the one to the twenty-second century as well.."
New York Post 9/1/98 Dick Morris ".The president we saw in his televised speech was not attractive, not a statesman and not sorry. The churlish, short-tempered, uptight and angry face; the tight shoulders; the cold, dry stare: It was an unpleasant sight usually reserved for Clinton's intimates, behind closed doors. Now, as Peggy Noonan pointed out, Americans have met the real Clinton. The affable, avuncular, cheerful, emotive man we usually see was not to be found. Clinton was flat, empty and raw.. Clinton blew a second opportunity to apologize with real humanity and contrition at the Martha's Vineyard ceremony. Instead, he mocked the severity of his intentional deception by joking about how experienced he had become at asking for forgiveness. Apparently, the more you create situations that require forgiveness, the more you deserve it. The president arrogantly mused about offering his forgiveness to all who have wronged him as he led the country on a wild goose chase through his deliberate perfidy. Once more, he avoided any words of contrition or even understanding of what he has done to so many people. Bill Clinton still doesn't get it. If he did, he could not have even considered any comparison - however oblique - between himself and his plight and that of Nelson Mandela, as he did in the Martha's Vineyard speech. Could even Bill Clinton seriously believe that there is any similarity between a man who was tortured and imprisoned for decades because he sought racial equality for himself and his fellow men and a man who was caught in a sexual liaison with an intern slightly older than his daughter and who boldly lied about it to the American public until he was cornered by physical evidence and a grand jury? ."
Wall Street Journal 9/2/98 Clifford Alexander "When he's in trouble, and even when he's not, Bill Clinton is known to play fast and furious with issues of race. He did it again last Friday in Martha's Vineyard, Mass., in a speech commemorating the 35th anniversary of the civil rights March on Washington. Mr. Clinton said the following: "Most of us who are old enough remember exactly where we were on Aug. 28, 1963. I was in my living room in Hot Springs, Ark. I remember the chair I was sitting in; I remember exactly where it was in the room; I remember exactly the position of the chair when I sat and watched on national television the great March on Washington unfold. I remember weeping uncontrollably during Martin Luther King's speech, and I remember thinking when it was over, my country would never be the same and neither would I." So spoke the man who in January could not remember whether he had been alone with Monica Lewinsky a few weeks earlier. And it wasn't the first time Mr. Clinton had suspiciously vivid memories on matters concerning race in America. On an earlier occasion he gravely told the nation of his vivid memory of church burnings in Arkansas when he was growing up. Journalists' inquiries revealed that there were no church burnings in Arkansas during Mr. Clinton's early years.. In his Martha's Vineyard speech he even compared himself to Nelson Mandela and Dr. King.."
AP Ron Fournier 9/2/98 "Throughout his quarter century in politics, Bill Clinton has always talked himself out of trouble. Now his skill with words may be his curse. Put on the defensive at a news conference in Russia, Clinton reverted to his habit of mining verbal loopholes and changing his version of events in the ever-evolving Monica Lewinsky matter.."
The Landmark Legal Foundation 9/2/98 Mark Levin Case No. LR-C-94-290 ". Landmark Legal Foundation respectfully requests that the Court invoke its inherent supervisory powers and its supervisory powers provided by Rule 26(b)(2)(D) and Rule 37, Fed.R.Civ.P., to sua sponte hold a hearing to determine whether the President should be held in contempt of court pursuant to 18 U . S . C . Section 401..The President further appears to have misled the court by allowing his counsel to rely on the Lewinsky affidavit, which the President knew to be false. Despite ample opportunity to do so, the President apparently did not draw the Lewinsky affidavit's untruthfulness to the Court, or apparently to his counsel. The record reflects that the President's attorney represented that Mr. Clinton was "fully aware of [the content of] Ms. Jane Doe 6's affidavit" and that the President was questioned extensively about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky by Plaintiff's counsel. Moreover, during Plaintiff's inquiry regarding the President's relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, the parties paused for a lunch break (see Document 1, pp. 51- 53) giving the President additional opportunity to alert his attorney to the affidavit's untruthfulness. Still the President did not alert the Court to the falsity of the affidavit. Moreover, immediately following the lunch break, in the Court's and the President's presence, the President's attorney cited the Lewinsky affidavit's declaration that "there is absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form, with President Clinton. . .." (Document 1, p. 54.) The record reflects the President's silence. Finally, in response to his own attorney's inquiry during cross-examination, the President directly asserted the Lewinsky affidavit was truthful. (Document 1, p. 204.)."
Weekly Standard William Kristol 8/31/98 "."AT NO TIME DID I ASK ANYONE TO LIE," said Bill Clinton, lying, in his August 17 address to the nation. For seven months, the president asked his staffers and supporters to lie. He assured them -- some of them personally -- that he had told the truth when he denied a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Ann Lewis and Paul Begala; Madeleine Albright and Donna Shalala; Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt: All of them were lied to by the president. And all of them, in turn, were sent out to lie to the rest of us on his behalf. .The president engages in sordid activity in the White House -- in the Oval Office -- with a 21-year-old intern. He lies about it. He attempts to cover it up. Now he admits (albeit grudgingly and partially) to the truth. Yet none of his staff, no member of his administration, and almost no Democratic official seems to want to hold the president truly accountable for his actions -- by demanding that he resign. And, in the absence of Clinton's willingness to go, not a single person who works for him seems to have the honor to leave himself."
Augusta Chronicle 9/3/98 "Recall how U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich's legions of foes -- in Congress and the Big Media -- demanded that the Georgia Republican pay out of pocket the months-long $300,000 costs of the ethics investigation that found him guilty of a few technical violations of House rules. The hyenas that howled for Gingrich to pay the fine out of his personal finances are also, for the most part, the same pro-Clinton crowd who endlessly complain about the multi-million dollar cost of Special Counsel Kenneth Starr's probe into White House scandals..Clinton should not only pay for the last seven months of the Starr probe, but also refund to taxpayers the additional millions his White House lackeys spent lying on his behalf. Americans shouldn't have to pay government hirelings to lie to them."
Michael Kelly 9/2/98 ". Confronted with the reality of North Korea's nuclear program, the Clinton administration delivers the appearance of peace in our time. In exchange for our generous financial assistance, North Korea, it is declared, has agreed to abandon its naughty nuclear dreams. Four years later, the news is that North Korea seems to be building a massive underground nuclear weapons production plant. Confronted with the reality of Iraq's refusal to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, the administration declares its support for the U.N. Special Commission inspectors in Iraq. Then, on Aug. 26, comes the resignation of William S. Ritter, the longest-serving American weapons inspector in Iraq. The highly respected Ritter says that the administration has supported a secret Security Council decision to abandon serious inspections in "a surrender to Iraqi leadership." On ABC-TV's "This Week," Ritter asserts that the administration has placed "considerable pressure" on inspectors to avoid any inspections that might provoke confrontation, and that administration officials forced the cancellation of two recent inspections. Confronted with the reality of a Russia that is a kleptocracy and that for years has been running increasingly out of the control of a president who is only technically not dead, the administration has chosen to see progress in what is something closer to a free fall toward anarchy.."
Washington Times 9/4/98 Sean Scully "A longtime Democratic ally of President Clinton's said Thursday the president has "undercut the efforts of millions of American parents, who are naturally trying to instill in our children the value of honesty." "It is hard to ignore the impact of the misconduct the president has admitted to on our culture, on our character, and on our children," Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, Connecticut Democrat, said in a dramatic 20-minute speech on the Senate floor. Mr. Lieberman's speech was the most direct condemnation yet of the president by a senior Democrat since Aug. 17, when Mr. Clinton admitted misleading the nation about his relationship with a White House intern. "We can safely assume that it will be that much more difficult to convince our sons and daughters of the importance of telling the truth when the most powerful man in the nation evades it," said Mr. Lieberman, who has made a career of speaking out on issues of morality.."
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Frank Aukofer 9/4/98 "Censure is not enough; President Clinton must resign or be impeached, former Education Secretary William Bennett said Thursday.. He said that under the Constitution, the president is the only person who swears that he will take care that the laws not only are obeyed, but also are faithfully executed. "This man had a squalid affair over a long period of time," Bennett said. "He lied about it, he lied to his colleagues, he lied to his aides, he lied to his cabinet, maybe he lied to his wife, maybe he lied to his lawyer. "He then let people go out in his defense and lie on his behalf. He then let other people go out and attack the people who were telling the truth, and call them liars. "He then lies under oath, perjures himself -- we don't know what he did at the grand jury. Then in the middle of this he stands up and says to the American people, 'Now listen to me, I'm going to say it again.' And he lies again. "Then on the 17th of August, he stands up and says what he said was legally accurate." ."
New York 9/5/98 Marilyn Rauber Brian Blomquist "President Clinton, reeling from a public slap from three top Democrats, yesterday finally uttered the words I'm sorry for his fling with Monica Lewinsky. I've already said that I made a bad mistake, it was indefensible, and I'm sorry about it, Clinton said in Dublin, keeping a fixed grin on his face and trying to keep his cool the day after the devastating Senate floor rebukes. He delivered the brief, matter-of-fact apology more than three weeks after he admitted lying to the country about the affair but didn't say sorry - and only after he was quizzed by reporters during a photo op with Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern. But even as Clinton turned publicly contrite, the White House is planning to play hardball when Sexgate prober Kenneth Starr submits his sex-and-lies report to Congress. They'll concede no wrongdoing and attack Starr's credibility, the Washington Post reported yesterday. The White House might even hire a top gun to lead the charge. Former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell is one name being touted, the paper said..Congressional leaders believe Starr's report will include a summary of 200 to 300 pages, a comprehensive report of about 1,000 pages, and an enormous appendix containing transcripts of testimony, letters and tapes.."
Universal Press Syndicate 8/25/98 Joseph Sobran "Consider: Bill Clinton played kinky games with a girl in a room next to the Oval Office where dignitaries were waiting for him; independent counsel Kenneth Starr is trying to find out whether Clinton took criminal measures to conceal this weird behavior. So which of these two gents is "sex-obsessed"? Why, Starr, of course! Clinton is merely trying to shield his "family life.".When the Lewinsky scandal broke, Mrs. Albright led the Cabinet in declaring their belief in Clinton's denials. Now we're supposed to trust their judgment and honesty when they tell us that the retaliatory air strikes were based on solid intelligence that a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory was producing a component of nerve gas. This isn't just a chain of command; it's a chain of faith. We are expected to put our faith in people who put their faith in Clinton. None of them are resigning in protest against his deceits."
In the Prayer breakfast before the White House reaction to the Starr Referral, Clinton said that his defense would not include playing with legal terms to cover up what he had done - v the official White House rebuttal and press conference which relies on legal terms.
Fox News Bulletin Board - "."I haven't eaten at McDonalds since I took office." Later a network ran a video of him leaving a McDonalds in jogging attire. His staff quickly "spun" the story as-- well he said "eaten", and he just gets coffee after his jogs. Then a picture surfaced of a Quarter Pounder with Cheese firmly imbedded in the First Face-- and his staff said the whole thing was "beneath the dignity" of the press (a pretty good joke, that).."
Fox News Hannity and Colmes Freeper report 9/16/98 "The other thing we have to do is to take seriously the role in this problem of older men. It's a sad fact that half of all the underage mothers in this country were made pregnant by a man who was in his 20s or even older -- someone who has no business taking advantage of an underage girl. Statutory rape is still a crime in this country. The young women are victims. Yet these laws are almost never enforced, even in the most egregious of circumstances. It is time for them to be enforced so that older men who prey on underage women and bring children into the world they have no intention of taking responsibility for are held accountable." - President Clinton, 6/13/96
Washington Times 9/16/98 Frank Murray "..Were they ever alone? In the Jones Deposition: "I don't recall...It's possible that she, in, while she was working there, brought something to me and that at the time she brought it to me, she was the only person there. That's possible." To the Grand Jury: "When I was alone with Ms. Lewinsky on certain occasions in early 1996 and once in early 1997, I engaged in conduct that was wrong...It depends on how you define alone...there were a lot of times when we were alone, but I never really thought we were.".
Washington Times 9/16/98 Frank Murray ".Did He Know She Was Subpoenaed? In the Jones Deposition: Q. "Did she tell you she had been served with a subpoena in the case?" A. "No. I don't know if she had been." To the Grand Jury: Q. "Do you agree that she was upset about being subpoenaed?" A."Oh, yes sir, she was upset. She --- well, she --- we --- she didn't ---we didn't talk about a subpoena. But she was upset. She said, 'I don't want to testify,'...I did not want her to have to testify and go through that. And, of course, I didn't want her to do that, of course not.".
Washington Times 9/16/98 Frank Murray "Did They Have Sexual Relations? In the Jones Deposition: "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I've never had an affair with her." To the Grand Jury: "I didn't want this to come out, if I could help it. And I was concerned about that. I was embarrassed about it. I knew it was wrong. ...I hoped that this relationship would never become public.".
Washington Times 9/16/98 Frank Murray ".Did They Exchange Gifts? In the Jones Deposition: "I don't recall. Do you know what they were?...I could have given her a gift, but I don't remember a specific gift." To the Grand Jury: "It was a right thing to do to give her gifts," he said, listing items he'd given in response to her gifts, including on Dec. 28, 1997, after Mrs. Jones' lawyers subpoenaed all gifts..
WorldNetDaily Charles Smith 9/29/98 summarized. Accuses Tobacco executives of lying under oath, conspiracy and obstruction v. no accusations on Clinton's conduct. Claim that the Lewinsky-Tripp calls are private v. Clinton's 1996 anti-terrorist legislation to give a third party unlimited access to al phones. Cisneros charged with lying to FBI and forced to resign in disgrace v. attitude that Clinton should only be censured. Stand on anti-porn, family values and decency issues v. stand on Lewinsky scandal.
Manchester Union Leader 10/2/98 Richard Lessner "When Bill Clinton isn't lying to the country, his friends, family and federal judges about sex in the Oval Office, he is telling whoppers about the budget surplus and Republicans. Mr. Clinton says that he and the Democrats want to use the projected budget surplus -- estimated at $70 billion this year and $1.6 trillion over the next decade -- to "save" Social Security. Republicans, the President alleges, want to "spend" the surplus on tax cuts. Both statements are untrue. Mr. Clinton already has requested, and Congress has appropriated, more than $5 billion of the surplus for the peace-keeping mission in Bosnia, and the White House is touting a wish list of another $14 billion in spending schemes. So it simply is untrue that Mr. Clinton wants to "save" the surplus rather than spend it. Neither do the Republicans propose to spend the surplus, the product of the first balanced federal budget in almost three decades. The Congress has proposed a modest $80 billion tax cut over the next five years, a cut that would return to the taxpayers just 10 cents on the dollar of the surplus. Would returning a mere 10 percent of Washington's windfall to the working families of America jeopardize Social Security? Not at all. The proposed GOP tax cut would not touch Social Security money. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the budget surplus comes solely from increases in corporate and individual income tax payments, not from Social Security payroll taxes. Giving the taxpayers a small tax cut would not take one dime from Social Security, as even Bill Clinton's commissioners admitted in congressional testimony."
WorldNetDaily 10/5/98 Geoff Metcalf "I just finished re-reading Kenneth R. Becht's book "Just the Facts." In it he documents over 200 lies, misrepresentations and blatantly contradictory statements made by Bill Clinton. Many of the quotes which follow you can find in his excellent compendium of presidential prevarications.. Becht does a superb job of making a solid case for impeachment. Frankly, Henry Hyde and the Judiciary committee could flush the entire Monica mess, and embrace Larry Klayman's Judicial watch referral to Congress and Becht's book, and slam dunk an impeachment on a litany of clear specific facts..
AP 10/7/98 Anne Gearan ".Mike Espy's complaint that tough government ethics rules were ``a bunch of junk'' was nothing more than a passing comment, a former Cabinet colleague told Espy's corruption trial. Espy, President Clinton's first agriculture secretary, made the remark on a 1993 plane ride with Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, the late Commerce Secretary Ron Brown and Carol Browner, head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Ms. Browner testified Tuesday. The four were chatting over drinks when the subject of the Clinton administration's more rigid ethics guidelines came up, she said. ``I recall him saying something like, in passing, in a very social setting ... `it's a bunch of junk. I'm going to do like I did in Congress,''' Ms. Browner said."
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette 10/13/98 John Starr "On Thursday, shortly after the House voted to authorize its Judiciary Committee to conduct an impeachment investigation, Bill Clinton sat down before television cameras and told the American people another lie. Our sophomoric president put on his baby face and said, "I've surrendered this. This is out of my control.". Less than 24 hours later, the news media were reporting details of how the White House plans to continue the fight to avoid impeachment. What the White House does is what Clinton orders it to do.."
AP 10/15/98 Pete Yost "Presidential friend Vernon Jordan's staunch denials are crucial to President Clinton's defense against allegations that he tried to encourage Monica Lewinsky's silence. But congressional investigators could use her testimony to chip away at Jordan's credibility. Jordan got Ms. Lewinsky a job offer and a lawyer while she was under subpoena to testify about Clinton in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. He has testified he didn't know about the president's sexual relationship with her. Ms. Lewinsky describes a Dec. 22 conversation in which she says she told Jordan about sexy telephone conversations with the president; Jordan doesn't remember anything like that, his lawyer says. Nine days after that conversation, over breakfast at a ritzy hotel, she says Jordan advised her to get rid of drafts of personal notes to Clinton. Jordan says they never ate breakfast together, much less discussed destroying evidence. Jordan ``has never told anyone at any time to destroy any records,'' his lawyer, William Hundley, said Wednesday in an interview. Jordan, an influential Washington attorney and longtime Clinton friend, testified before Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's grand jury on March 5 that he had never had breakfast with Ms. Lewinsky. But the House Judiciary Committee has a receipt dated Dec. 31 from the Park-Hyatt Hotel in Washington. Ms. Lewinsky testified she had an egg white omelet and ``I think he had cereal with yogurt.'' The receipt lists ``1 omelet'' and ``1 hot cereal.'' ."
The Weekly Standard 10/19/98 Scrapbook ".Thanks to recently released grand-jury testimony, we know that shortly before Lyons went on Meet the Press, Clinton himself was laying a similar explanation on Blumenthal "Monica Lewinsky came at me and made a sexual demand on me," Blumenthal says the president told him. Blumenthal warned the president to stay away from Lewinsky, but the big- hearted Clinton protested that the cold shoulder is easier said than given. "It's very difficult for me to do that," Clinton explained. "I want to help people.".Subpoenaed by Kenneth Starr, Blumenthal disingenuously whipped up a frenzy over endangered civil liberties in America- and most of the press uncritically took his word for it. Thanks to Blumenthal's agitprop, the White House had one of its few good PR weeks. The New York Times headlined its story "President's Adviser Ordered to Divulge Contact With Press" and quoted Blumenthal as saying his subpoena represented "an outrageous attempt to silence all reporting that might be skeptical or critical of Ken Starr." Clinton spokesman Mike McCurry weighed in that Starr's questioning of Blumenthal was "potentially dangerous." And Blumenthal poured it on when he emerged from his grand-jury testimony on February 26. "I never imagined," he hyperventilated, "that in America I would be hauled before a federal grand jury to answer questions about my conversations with members of the media. But today, I was forced to answer questions about conversations, as part of my job, with the New York Times, CNN, CBS, Time magazine, U.S. News, the New York Daily News, the Chicago Tribune, the New York Observer, and there may have been a few others." It was a lie..It's easy to sympathize with the anger of grand jurors when they saw Blumenthal's dishonest performance after his February questioning. When he returned on June 25, the foreperson took the unusual step of rebuking him."
Las Vegas Review-Journal 10/14/98 "Let's concede for just a few moments the polemic advanced by Bill Clinton's supporters that "everybody lies about sex" and that Mr. Clinton's obvious, repeated perjury is A-OK. Fine. Let's talk about a president who waffles and plays word games in the arena of foreign policy. Case One: Iraq. Bill Clinton promised to punish Iraq with swift, sure military action unless Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein allowed the United Nations to proceed with inspections of the plants where weapons of mass destruction are produced.. Case Two: Communist North Korea. Kim Il Jong, the tyrant of the red hermit state, promised to scrap his nuclear weapons program under Bill Clinton's threat of tightened sanctions and a guarantee of food and other aid ..Case Three: Kosovo. Bill Clinton promised to strike hard at Yugoslavia if tyrant Slobodan Milosevic laid a hand on ethnic Albanians in the southern Yugoslav province of Kosovo.. Case Four: South Asia. When India and Pakistan this year barged into the nuclear club with five atomic shots apiece, Mr. Clinton rattled on about non-proliferation. He did nothing to help these nations develop early-warning systems or offer them U.S. Cold War expertise to prevent accidental nuclear war..But it's all about sex, right? "
Weekly Standard 10/19/98 Rep. Paul McHale (D-PA) ".In the House of Representatives Thursday morning, October 8, 1998 Mr. Speaker: Franklin Roosevelt once said that the presidency "is preeminently a place of moral leadership." I want my strong criticism of President Clinton to be placed in context. I voted for President Clinton in 1992 and 1996. I believed him to be the "Man from Hope" as he was depicted in his 1992 campaign video. I have voted for more than three-fourths of the president's legislative agenda-and would do so again. My blunt criticism of the president has nothing to do with policy.Contrary to his later public statement, his answers were not "legally accurate"; they were intentionally and blatantly false. He allowed his lawyer to make arguments to the court based on an affidavit that the president knew to be false. The president later deceived the American people-and belatedly admitted the truth only when confronted, some seven months later, by a mountain of irrefutable evidence. I am convinced that the president would otherwise have allowed his false testimony to stand in perpetuity. What is at stake is really the rule of law."
FR, Darrell in Atlanta 5-1-98 Neal Boortz ".I was walking out of the station yesterday afternoon when I heard the voice of Sam Donaldson. He was asking the Liar in Chief a question at yesterday's press conference. The question ---- "As a standard for Presidents, What do you think ... does it matter what you do in private moments, as alleged, and particularly, does it matter if you have committed perjury or in another sense broken the law?.Well ... sit down. Here is Clinton's response to that question: "Well, since I have answered the underlying questions --- I really believe it's important not to say any more about this."."
New York Observer 10/19/98 Philip Weiss ". I told Mr. Blumenthal that something I'd seen with my eyes was more important to me than any report. I was at the Senate Whitewater hearings in summer 1995 when the committee was asking Clinton lawyers about the search of Vincent Foster's office following his death. Justice Department investigators wanted to search the office freely, White House lawyers stopped them. Congress had a bunch of records showing calls between the lawyers and Hillary Clinton, but the lawyers testified Hillary had nothing to do with it. "Sidney," I said. "I don't care about the search of Foster's office. As far as I know, the Administration had a right to rifle his papers before the F.B.I. came. But it was a legitimate question, and I'm telling you, I watched them lie. I sat there for two weeks and I made my own judgment. One after another, they came in and lied, and it shocked me precisely because it was such a trivial matter. I thought, These people will lie about everything." . Buried in the 4,600 pages of supplemental material to the Starr report lately released by the House is an episode involving phone calls and denial that makes my point. A high political official flat-out lied to the grand jury about a small matter touching on the Clintons. No one has picked up on this episode, but Ken Starr knows about it and, I wager, will one day indict the official for perjury..Her chief opponent that day was the studious Starr deputy from Texas, Solomon Wisenberg, who bored in on an obscure matter surrounding Mr. Hubbell. The former associate attorney general had gone to prison for overbilling clients at the Rose Law Firm, and Rose had sued Hubbell for about $450,000. Mr. Hubbell was talking about suing Rose back. And, as Ms. Scott readily conceded, she regularly spoke with the prisoner and his wife by phone. "Did you convey that to Webb Hubbell or his wife, that people in the White House circle were concerned about him countersuing the Rose Law Firm because it might drag in-somehow implicate the First Lady?" Mr. Wisenberg asked. "I don't know what you're talking about," Ms. Scott said. "I have absolutely no memory of anyone in the White House ever mentioning to me anything about this countersuit notion." Mr. Wisenberg came at the matter again and again. His questioning went on for several pages. Ms. Scott virtually mocked him. She called it a "funny" line of questioning. She told a second questioner she never talked about finances with the Hubbells. "I do not see how this mythical thing that I'm supposed to know is anything that I could comment on," she said. "Maybe I'm not coming up with the right words because you and I are talking at each other, not with each other ." Barely a month after Ms. Scott left the grand jury, Representative Dan Burton, Republican of Indiana, publicized something that Ms. Scott was apparently not aware of, that Mr. Hubbell's phone conversations from prison had been recorded.."
Minneapolis/St. Paul Star Tribune 10/18/98 Ross Perot ".History teaches us that for any free society to survive and thrive it must rest on a strong moral and ethical base. The issue is not, "Did he lie under oath?" The issue is, "Did he lie?" And the answer is yes. Clinton has taught our children to lie. Clinton has taught our nation that a man does not have to be faithful to his wife and family and can repeatedly devastate them by his irresponsible actions. Clinton has taught our students in high school and college that anything goes in their sexual behavior. No wonder at least seven Boy Scouts in Utah who won Eagle awards for observing the oath of honor and duty to God, country and self -- the highest commendation boys age 11 to 17 can earn -- refused their certificates with Clinton's signature as honorary president of the Boy Scouts of America."
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette 10/18/98 Meredith Oakley ".Kenneth Starr's activities and associations as an independent counsel have come under congressional scrutiny and Justice Department review, and Democrats could hardly be happier..Leave it to the Clintonites to attack a perceived enemy for something that might have happened in the past while defending their glorious leader on the ground that his past shouldn't be held against him. I'll be just as interested as the next guy in the outcome of these inquiries, the Clinton administration's own version of Starr Wars, but it would be kind of amusing if Starr were to use Bill Clinton's own approach in responding to critics, something along the lines of "I spoke the truth but did not volunteer information." Come to think of it, maybe he has. "This office," Starr said in a statement issued last week, "did not mislead the Department of Justice regarding relevant facts relating to its jurisdiction, or any expansion" of the Whitewater investigation.."
SF Chronicle Debra Saunders 10/6/98 ".``THIS IS not Watergate, it is an extramarital affair,'' said Representative John Conyers, ranking Democrat of the House Judiciary Committee. No, sir, this is about perjury. It also is about obstruction of justice. More than anything though, it is about arrogance. Weeks before his deposition, President Clinton knew that Paula Jones' attorneys were aware of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. He even knew they knew about a hat pin he had given her. He had time to consider refusing to answer questions about Lewinsky. Instead, he chose to lie. And encourage Lewinsky to submit a false affidavit.."
Jewish World Review 10/20/98 Thomas Sowell ".People who glibly talk about "hate crimes" ignore both the past and the implications for the future in what they are advocating. It took centuries of struggle and people putting their lives on the line to get rid of the idea that a crime against "A" should be treated differently than the same crime committed against "B." After much sacrifice and bloodshed, the principle finally prevailed that killing a peasant deserved the same punishment as killing a baron. Now the "hate crime" advocates want to undo all that and take us back to the days when punishment did not fit the crime, but varied with who the crime was committed against.."
Washington Times 10/19/98 Greg Pierce ".First lady Hillary Rodham Clinton lashed out at Republicans in general and Sen. Alfonse M. D'Amato of New York in particular yesterday, accusing them of negative campaigning and relying on opinion polls rather than principle. Stumping for Democratic Senate hopeful Charles E. Schumer --whose campaign slogan is "D'Amato: Too many lies for too long"."
Washington Weekly 10/26/98 J Peter Mulhern ". The FOB's think they can score points in the great game by blaming Ken Starr and Newt Gingrich for that spectacle, so the airwaves crackle with phrases like "sexual McCarthyism." Like most effective lies, these charges of sexual McCarthyism rely on an element of truth. The public is right to feel squeamish about Clinton's humiliation. The investigation of Clinton's perjury shows how much of the private realm the government now occupies.. The FOB's part company with reality when they blame Ken Starr and those nasty Republicans in Congress for the sexual inquisition that snared Bill Clinton. Democrats in general, and Bill Clinton in particular, set that inquisition in motion. They stoked its fires. Until recently they claimed it as one of their proudest accomplishments... Democrats forced sexual harassment to the forefront of national political debate for the partisan purpose of torpedoing a Supreme Court nominee, and seized on Senator Packwood's embarrassment to keep it there.Underlying all the recent whining about sexual McCarthyism is a frivolous attitude about the law. Democrats serviced a loyal constituency by stamping their sensitivity to sexual harassment into our law. Now they attack their opponents for taking their legal innovations seriously. Apparently we were supposed to understand that all the noise about sexual harassment was mere spin. Just because we enacted some laws to make us look good, the FOB's tell us, is no reason to go around enforcing them when doing so makes us look bad.."
The Weekly Standard Current Issue Scrapbook ".As Andrew Marshall reported in the Independent, a London daily: "According to Mr. Blumenthal's testimony to the grand jury in the investigation by the special prosecutor, Kenneth Starr, he is in charge of the 'special relationship' and looks after relations between Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. 'He's (Blair) an old friend of mine, I introduced him to the President and the First Lady, and I act as a personal liaison between the President and the Office of the Prime Minister,' Mr. Blumenthal told the investigators." As if the President of the United States and the prime minister of Great Britain needed Sid's intervention to meet."
Detroit News 10/27/98 Freeper Dana Swift ".Neither does (Senator) Levin tell us how Americans would know the truth without Starr's efforts. But I expect the core of his complaint is that Judge Starr DID find the truth. This call to "reform" laws seems to occur only when Democrats are caught by the independent counsel law.."
The Washington Times 10/28/98 Kenneth R. Timmerman ".The White House and State Department spin machines were working overtime on Friday to make sure the mainstream media reported the Clinton administration version of the last minute break-down in the Wye Plantation negotiations. The "official" version, as reported by both The Washington Post and The Washington Times in Saturday editions, was that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a "last-minute demand" that President Clinton agree to release convicted spy Jonathan Jay Pollard -- so Mr. Netanyahu could "return home as a hero" with Pollard in his airplane.. Simply put, the issue is the truth. Israeli government sources party to what happened at the Wye Plantation are telling a very different story from the one put out by State Department spokesman James Rubin or by the "anonymous White House sources" quoted in the press. The Israeli sources claim that President Clinton made a solemn promise to Mr. Netanyahu at 4 a.m. on Friday morning at Wye River, only to break it several hours later after a CIA delegation rushed to the scene to urge the president not to release Pollard under any condition.."
National Review On-line 10/26/98 Jonah Goldberg ".In today's New York Times, Bill Safire rightly scolds President Clinton for telling a group of black ministers that reaching peace in the Middle East was part of his "personal journey of atonement." Safire calls Clinton "smarmy and solipsistic" for making the peace agreement a self-centered achievement. But this is Bill Clinton's way. There's a larger point to be made here, too. Clinton's spinners consistently and constantly say that the President has not been distracted by the scandal. But now the President says he's going for peace in the Middle East to make amends for Monica. You can't have it both ways.."
Insight Magazine 10/29/98 Jerry Zeifman "The moral authority of the presidency is now lower than at the time of Watergate. Many Democrats now have a double standard -- refusing to apply the same constitutional principles to Clinton that we applied to Nixon in 1974. At the same time Clinton's defenders are charging the Republicans with unfairness and prejudgment. Yet the truth is that even before we began any impeachment inquiry in 1973, 84 Democrats introduced actual impeachment resolutions on the House floor. In contrast, to date no Republican has introduced such a resolution. Instead the Republicans simply have called for an inquiry. None of us can be certain how history will regard the present crisis. Yet, it seems likely to me that our descenda nts will regard President Clinton as the most morally flawed president in our history -- and our Democratic Party of 1998 as afflicted by the deadly sin of hypocrisy."
Washinton Times 10/30/98 Jerry Seper ".President Clinton fired the ambassador to Eritrea last year for sexual misconduct with two U.S. Embassy employees, according to a confidential report obtained by The Washington Times. At a time when Mr. Clinton was involved in an "inappropriate" sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky and had been accused by two other women of making crude sexual advances, he recalled Ambassador John F. Hicks. The reasons for Mr. Hicks' recall from his post in Asmara, Eritrea --located on the Red Sea between Sudan and Ethiopia -- have not previously been made public. The firing followed complaints to the State Department from two embassy secretaries that he repeatedly groped, kissed, fondled, touched and called them at their homes despite numerous requests that he leave them alone. Mr. Hicks, a Clinton appointee, reportedly told one of his accusers, who is white, that she rejected him because he was black.."
Florida Times-Union 10/30/98 Editorial "Supporters of President Clinton who take refuge in the presidential rating polls must also acknowledge polls that show the public wants him punished, by about 2-to-1. Supporters also must acknowledge that they are proposing a two-tier justice system, with one standard for a liberal Democratic president and another for all other Americans. If the president is allowed to commit perjury because the underlying offense he lied about was merely sex, then all other Americans must be allowed to perjure themselves for the same reason as well. According to The Los Angeles Times, there are 115 people now serving time for committing perjury in federal court proceedings -- the same offense that has led to talk of impeaching Clinton. Furthermore, at least two of them lied about sex..At least three people lied under oath about consensual sex. Two are in detention. One is in the Oval Office."
"For the children" rhetoric v. Freeper notes on article NewsMax.com 11/2/98 Carl Limbacher [ARTICLE EXCERPTS FOLLOW] ".Here is the reason for the Thomas Jefferson/Sally Hemings DNA revelation now surfacing in liberal media venues.Danny Williams,Clinton's hidden son and Chelsea's neglected half-brother,will emerge from the shadows at long last. ..But looks like the Presidential DNA may come in handy for something else beside flushing out the liar via Monica's semen-stained dress.."
"For the children" rhetoric v. NewsMax.com 11/2/98 Carl Limbacher ".Thirteen-year-old Danny Williams knows all about his famous parent and he wants the truth to come out, says his aunt, Lucille Bolton. "He wants to get it out in the open," Bolton told NewsMax.com, speaking out for the first time. "He's aware that Bill Clinton is supposed to be his father." Bolton was the boy's guardian for years as his mother, Bobbie Ann Williams, led a hard life on the streets of Little Rock. Meanwhile, Danny's alleged dad mapped out his road to the White House, offering neither financial nor emotional support for the boy. In an exclusive interview with NewsMax.com, Bolton described some of the challenges of caring for the boy she believed to be the president's only son as he grew up unacknowledged by his biological father in the poor black section of Arkansas' capital. Once, she even tried to enlist the help of Hillary Clinton during a personal conversation with the state's then first lady. Another time, Bolton showed up at the governor's mansion with little Danny in tow -- only to be turned away at the gates.."
National Review 11/3/98 Jonah Goldberg ".The President who has authored what his aides call "one-nation politics" has sanctioned this Democratic ad to be run on radio stations: "When you don't vote, you let another church explode. When you don't vote, you allow another cross to burn. When you don't vote, you let another assault wound a brother or sister. When you don't vote, you let the Republicans continue to cut school lunches and Head Start." ."
Landmark Legal Foundation 11/4/98 Mark Levin ".In an commentary column in today's Washington Times, Landmark Legal Foundation President Mark R. Levin raises questions about apparent contradictions in positions taken by Attorney General Janet Reno in relation to Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr and the Justice Department's campaign finance investigations.. The fact that Bill Clinton's personal lawyer and the House Democrats are demanding essentially the same investigative information is no coincidence. Recently, Gregory Craig, Mr. Clinton's taxpayer-financed impeachment counsel, told the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call that "[Mr. Starr's] referral may have misled the attorney general, may have misled the court." The newspaper reported that "Conyers' stepped-up investigation started shortly after that message was sent to congressional Democrats." "Committee Democrats insist they are not carrying the White House's water during the hearings, but Craig talks frequently with Conyers' top lawyer, Abbe Lowell, and the two see eye-to-eye on the direction of the investigation is heading, sources said." So, what will Miss Reno do in response to these congressional requests? Will she hand over to the Democrats the internal investigative information they seek, despite the fact that Mr. Starr's investigation is ongoing? Thus far, she has said nothing. Her silence demonstrates the partisanship she brings to her law enforcement job, for when the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee sought similar information from Miss Reno regarding her refusal to seek an independent counsel to investigate the 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign-finance scandal, she said no and now faces possible contempt of Congress charges.."
Condemnation of Willie Horton politics v 1996 - Social Security and Medicare to scare the seniors
Condemnation of Willie Horton politics v 1998 - Reaction to Matthew Shephard murder as a hate crime against homosexuals
Condemnation of Willie Horton politics v 1998 - Reaction to abortionist murder
Condemnation of Willie Horton politics v 1998 - Eleventh hour claims of voter intimidation
Condemnation of Willie Horton politics v 1998 - Radio ad to the affect that a vote for a Republican is a vote for a Church burning
American Spectator 11/5/98 Robert Bork ".The one hilarious moment in the sad and disgusting Clinton saga came at a fundraiser in Cincinnati. Pursued by his own manifold sins, lies, and impeachable offenses, the president managed a straight face as he assured the audience that the real scandal was a "Washington obsessed with itself instead of America." This, from a man whose self-absorption is legendary, if not pathological, at least deserves an Oscar for best self-parody.."
The Oklahoman 11/7/98 ".IN the waning days of the '98 campaign Bill Clinton turned up the heat by playing the race card. On election's eve, Clinton suggested Republicans would try to keep African Americans from voting. Clinton said: "For the last several elections there have been examples in various states of Republicans either actually or threatening to try to intimidate or try to invalidate the votes of African Americans in precincts that are overwhelmingly African American -- mostly in places where they think it might change the outcome of the election." Clinton's message was more subtle than that Missouri Democratic Party ad: "When you don't vote, you allow another cross to burn." He didn't go as far as a hate-filled piece an Oklahoma Democrat apparently sent to black churches. Yet it showed that while Clinton likes to preach racial harmony, he isn't shy about using race to divide when it suits his political interests.."
Forbes Magazine 12/10 1998 Thomas Sowell ".PERHAPS NO IMAGE better captures the duplicity of Bill Clinton than the videotape of him emerging from church services on Easter Sunday, carrying a Bible-on his way back to the White House and a rendezvous with Monica Lewinsky. Such duplicity has been the hallmark of both Clintons, whether in Arkansas or in Washington, and whether the issue concerned sex, money or anything else. Just as Bill Clinton has tried to escape a perjury charge by redefining "sex" and "alone," so Hillary Clinton sought to escape a perjury charge in connection with a fraudulent land deal known as Castle Grande by saying, "the term 'Castle Grande' was not defined" after she had denied under oath that she knew anything about it-and after evidence later surfaced, showing that she did. Castle Grande was a highly publicized land deal in Arkansas-perhaps not as highly publicized as sex, but equally unmistakable.."
House of Representatives 9/11/98 Chris Cox R-CA ". Rep. Christopher Cox. That is exactly right, and it is rather clear that Jane Sherburne, the associate White House counsel who personally drew up this list of all of these scandals, was prescient. While they were claiming no wrongdoing, behind the scenes they were putting together memorandums like this, and the result in the ensuring years has been that 5 of Bill Clinton's closest associates, including his Attorney General and including the Governor of Arkansas, have since been convicted of crimes. Rep. Robert Walker So what they were doing here was they decided that, `OK, we've got a problem. We've got a Congress that is likely to begin looking into things that have gone wrong in this administration.'."
House of Representatives 9/11/98 Chris Cox R-CA ".Rep. Christopher Cox. There is no question that this memo gives the lie to two claims made by the White House. The first is that they would be relying on outside counsel, which, of course, they should, because these are all scandals, private criminal problems of the people involved. Clearly they were still using the White House counsel's office, even after they hired their outside counsel.."
Reuters 11/4/98 Danny Gur-arieh ".The wife of convicted American spy Jonathan Pollard said on Wednesday President Bill Clinton's promise to review her husband's case was a "charade" that would not bring his release. Esther Pollard accused Israeli, Palestinian and American leaders of exploiting her husband for political gain during Middle East peace talks in the United States last month and said Pollard's cause had been dealt a setback. "The worst thing that could happen now would be for people to go along with the charade that this review is serious," Esther Pollard told Reuters in an interview. "The review business with Clinton is bogus. Clinton has used my husband like a Persian carpet in a bazaar. He has sold him five times over."."
Washington Post 11/10/98 Peter Baker ".President Clinton asked a federal judge last winter to prevent Secret Service officers from testifying in the Paula Jones case, arguing that his confidential relationship with his protectors ``should be inviolate,'' according to court documents unsealed Monday. The strongly worded plea last January, in which his attorney wrote that the president ``emphatically expresses his support'' for a Secret Service privilege, indicates that Clinton played more of a role than previously known in trying to block those who guard him from being forced to reveal his secrets. For months, the White House has portrayed Clinton as a virtually disinterested observer as the Secret Service fought unsuccessfully to block subpoenas by Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr in the Monica S. Lewinsky investigation, insisting that the president played no role in the dispute. But the papers made public Monday showed that Clinton made nearly identical arguments as the Secret Service during the Jones case in a sealed brief that also was given at the time to the Justice Department lawyers who would later represent the Secret Service against Starr.."
Washington Times Weekly 11/8/98 Byron York ".John McSweeney, 64 years old, died of cancer last month at his home in Fauquier County, Virginia.In the next few days it became clear that Mr. McSweeney and the others were fired because Bill and Hillary Clinton wanted to steer travel office business to friends who had supported them in the 1992 campaign. Of course, that's not what the president said publicly, and Mr. McSweeney grew angry as he watched Mr. Clinton offer several different explanations for the firings.."
Washington Times 11/11/98 Frank Murray ".The House Judiciary Committee legal staff has concluded that the crimes independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr charged to President Clinton are impeachable offenses. The staff's official printed report outlined "clear guiding principles" that make it more likely the full House will vote on the accusations against the president. The committee staff conclusions directly contradict earlier arguments by the president's lawyers and by some of the 19 constitutional scholars who debated the issue for 10 hours Monday at a contentious congressional hearing. A copy of the report was obtained yesterday by The Washington Times. It concluded that impeachable offenses include "false statements ... under oath," a lesser crime than perjury and easier to prove because intent is not an element. The 94-page committee document declared that articles of impeachment can involve personal or professional misconduct that need not be criminal, and said the constitutional standard for judges and presidents alike is meant to be identical. "There isn't much doubt that he did willfully misstate the facts under oath. It's pretty clear," Mr. Hyde said in a pre-election interview, seemingly accepting as fact a charge that his staff now says is an impeachable offense. The report was quietly distributed as a guide to the decisions by the committee's 37 members, just as a similar document guided the hands that wrote the 1974 articles of impeachment against President Nixon. White House spokesman James Kennedy argued that impeaching an elected president is far more disruptive to the continuity of government than impeaching one of hundreds of appointed federal judges. "So they've fallen short of constitutional standards, they've departed from past precedent and they've broken with past Republican precedent on that issue," said Mr. Kennedy, who said he had not seen the document..Mr. Watt charged that the title pages implied it was the bipartisan product of the committee, rather than simply the majority staff. "I don't think the criticism is appropriate," Mr. Hyde responded to Mr. Watt. He said Democratic staff members were given a copy before it was printed and asked for input. "They came forth with nothing," Mr. Hyde said, adding that Democrats put out three analyses in 1973 and 1974 without ever consulting with GOP committee members. Mr. Watt replied, "Two wrongs don't make a right" and contradicted the assertion that minority staffers had a chance to respond before the printing date. "I keep hoping that we will rise to the level of statesmanship here, rather than lowering to the standard that somebody who did something that was not justified in the past did," Mr. Watt said."
New York Post 11/11/98 ".Someone high up in the Clinton administration owes Scott Ritter a public apology. Last August, Ritter resigned in disgust as chief U.N. arms inspector in Iraq. The courageous ex-Marine charged that Washington had backed off its policy on Saddam Hussein, quietly abandoning support for the international team that was aggressively searching for the Iraqi despot's weapons of mass destruction. The Clinton administration hotly denied Ritter's assertions. At first, it suggested he'd overstepped his mandate. Then it leaked baseless accusations that he was illegally slipping classified information to Israel. It now turns out - no big surprise - that Ritter was absolutely on target. According to numerous reports this week, the Clintonites secretly decided last spring to undercut the weapons inspections in favor of a policy of containment - abandoning the search for such arms in hopes of merely preventing their use. Ritter & Co. had uncovered secret Iraqi caches of deadly, forbidden weapons - including anthrax (2,000-plus gallons), botulinium toxin (5,125 gallons), ricin, sarin and VX; some of these chemicals need just a few drops to kill thousands. They also found evidence that Iraq lacks only enriched uranium to detonate nuclear weapons. Some of these deadly weapons have been destroyed; others remain hidden. Even as Ritter and his U.N. team launched surprise inspections of Iraqi facilities, however, the Clinton administration moved swiftly to cut the legs out from under them. Publicly, meanwhile, the president has talked tough - only to back down at the last minute in favor of a conciliatory settlement."
ABC News 11-11-98 Freeper reports ".In the wake of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, many Americans may feel that it is okay to lie under oath in a civil suit. This is simply not so. Sam Donaldson talks to three women who did just that, and paid a very high price- time in prison. Tonight on 20/20 - Sam intervies three who are in jail for lies under oath.."
Fox News 11/11/98 ".Republican Sen. Arlen Specter proposed Wednesday that Congress drop impeachment proceedings against President Clinton to open the way for his criminal prosecution when he leaves office.."However, if Congress deliberately avoided impeachment to leave the president open to criminal prosecution, I believe Mr. Clinton would face the distinct possibility of conviction and a jail sentence,'' said Specter, a former Philadelphia district attorney."
Investors Business Daily 11/12/98 Brian Mitchell ".It isn't every day that military officers risk their pensions to declare publicly that their commander in chief is a loser. But two Marine Corps majors have dared to do just that. In a recent issue of Navy Times, Maj. Shane Sellers called President Clinton an ''adulterous liar,'' prompting the Defense Department to remind all service members that they are forbidden from using ''contemptuous words'' about the president. That warning didn't stop Marine Corps Reserve Maj. Daniel Rabil, however. In a guest column in the Nov. 9 Washington Times, Rabil called Clinton a ''lying draft dodger'' and ''hypocrite- in-chief.'' ''I therefore risk my commission, as our generals will not, to urge'' Clinton's impeachment, he wrote. Rabil's column is the tip of an iceberg of discontent. Many more service members are fed up with the dishonesty they see not just in their commander in chief, but also in their civilian and military superiors in the Pentagon. As U.S. military activity in Iraq and the Balkans picks up, this discontent in the ranks is particularly worrisome. The credibility of the top brass has taken several beatings in recent months. The worst occurred when the Joint Chiefs of Staff finally admitted to the Senate on Sept. 29 what press reports had indicated for months: The services are facing severe readiness problems caused by overwork and underfunding. In February, the Joint Chiefs had told Congress there was no cause for alarm. The services were ''fundamentally healthy'' and ''fully capable'' of accomplishing all their missions. They could even fight two wars at once, as required by the National Military Strategy. Seven months later, after the discovery of an unexpected budget surplus, the chiefs' concern for readiness compelled them to asked the president and Congress for more money. The sudden turnaround irked Republican legislators who have pushed for higher defense funding against administration resistance. Sen. Bob Smith, R-N.H., pronounced the chiefs ''AWOL from the debate.'' ''We were always accused of giving more or providing more to the Pentagon than the generals and admirals asked for,'' Smith said. ''That's tough to defend out there politically.'' Defense Secretary William Cohen later tried to take the heat off the chiefs by claiming they were just following his orders. That's just the problem, say the administration's critics. ''They're following orders, and their orders are to come here and lie to Congress,'' said Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., at a recent conference in Washington on the Pentagon's problems, sponsored by the Center for Military Readiness.."
The Post-Dispatch 11/13/98 Roy Malone ".Anderson, a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter, has covered Washington politics for 52 years. He spoke to several hundred people at Powell Hall as part of the St. Louis Speakers Series.. "How can we prosecute others for perjury and refuse to act against President Clinton?" he said.."
CNS 11/13/98 Judy Cooley ".White House spokesman Joe Lockhart said he is "not aware" that President Clinton has even looked at the 81 questions the House Judiciary Committee asked him to answer for the impeachment inquiry. Lockhart had earlier said the president would complete the impeachment questionnaire as early as this week, according to published reports. The questions ask the president to confirm or deny allegations made in Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's report.."
AP 11/13/98 ".Q: Mr. President, did you ever make any sexual advances toward Paula Jones? A: No, I did not. ------ Q: Now, Mr. President, you've stated earlier in your testimony that you do not recall with any specificity the May 8, 1991, conference at the Excelsior. Is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: If that is true, sir, how can you be sure that you did not do these things which are alleged in Ms. Jones' complaint? A: Because, Mr. Bennett, in my lifetime I've never sexually harassed a woman, and I've never done what she accused me of doing. I didn't do it then, because I never have, and I wouldn't.."
Newsweek 11/23/98 Kenneth L. Woodward ".Politically, the president may survive his time on the cross, but many clergy still doubt his spiritual sincerity. In a strongly worded declaration last week, 90 religion scholars charged Clinton and his clerical apologists with "the manipulation of religion and the debasing of moral language." The president "continues to deny any liability for the sins he has confessed," and this, they argue, "suggests that his public display of repentance was intended to avoid political disfavor." The declaration is a direct challenge to Clinton's spiritual counselors, such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson and the Rev. J. Philip Wogaman, the Clintons' pastor in Washington, D.C., who have called on the nation to forgive and forget the president's sins. "The widespread desire to 'get this behind us'," the scholars declare, "does not take seriously enough the nature of transgressions and their social effects." Those who disagree are invited to debate the subject on the declaration's Web site (www.moral-crisis.org).."
New York Times 11/17/98 William Glaberson ".A Texas judge was convicted of perjury for declaring that he had used political contributions to buy flowers for his staff when, in fact, the flowers went to his wife. A Florida postal supervisor is in prison for denying in a civil deposition that she had a sexual relationship with a subordinate. An Ohio youth who was arrested for underage drinking testified that he had never been read his rights by the police. He was then convicted of perjury for lying and sent to jail for 60 days.. The president's lawyer, David Kendall, has said that "no prosecutor in the United States would bring a perjury prosecution on the basis" of the kinds of questions Clinton was asked about his sex life in the Paula Jones sexual harassment suit. But interviews with lawyers, legal experts and with a woman who is serving a sentence for lying about sex in a civil case show that, far from being shrugged off, the threat of prosecution for perjury, even in civil cases, is a crucial deterrent in the legal system... One statistic on perjury prosecutions has been widely circulated since the president's supporters began arguing that perjury was little more than a technicality seized upon by the president's enemies: Of 49,655 cases filed by federal prosecutors last year, only 87 were for perjury. State courts, where statistics are harder to come by, are another matter. Data supplied by court officials in two states, California and New York, suggest that perjury prosecutions are not as rare as some have suggested. In California alone last year, there were 4,318 felony perjury cases. In New York there were 395 perjury cases last year. And even in the federal system, prison officials said in October that 115 people were serving sentences for perjury in federal prisons alone.."
AP 11/17/98 ".An election-eve church speech by President Clinton has provoked a complaint to the Internal Revenue Service, claiming the church violated its tax-exempt status. Americans United for the Separation of Church and State said the Nov. 1 service at New Psalmist Baptist Church amounted to a Democratic rally, The (Baltimore) Sun reported today. Clinton was joined there by Gov. Parris Glendening, who was re-elected two days later...According to IRS regulations, churches and other nonprofit organizations that hold tax-exempt status are not permitted to engage in partisan politics. That includes endorsing or opposing candidates, giving money to political campaigns, or helping candidates win election. After the 1992 election, Americans United complained to the IRS that a small church in Vestal, N.Y., had bought newspaper advertisements two days before the election urging voters to reject Clinton on moral grounds. The IRS revoked the church's tax exemption in 1995. Another group then sued the IRS, contending it violated the church's free-speech and equal-protection rights. A decision in that case is pending."
Freeper EagleTD reports KABC Radio11/17/98 ".This evening, on the Ken and John Radio Show on KABC in Los Angeles, I head a Clintonista activist who just formed the "Committee to Oust Paula" (COP) from California. Her name was Temperance Lance, her argument was that since California was a state that Clinton had won, that the majority of the people in California did not want Paula around because she was part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (headed of course by Ken Starr) that unfairly wants to take their poor innocent President down. Can you imagine the sheer lunacy and meanest of this group? She is now in the process of getting ten petitions signed around the state to try and drive Paula out, or at least try to make it hard for her to stay." and Freeper Always Right observes "It's mean spirited to inform neighbors that a convicted child molester is living in your neighborhood, but it's OK to not allow a victim of sexual harrassment live in your state. These people have values."
NewsMax.com 11/17/98 Sam Smith ".Here is the president's response to a news conference question about whether the Lippo Group's hiring of Webb Hubbell after he resigned from the Justice Department and shortly before he went to jail wasn't a bit suspicious. For your benefit, we have numbered Clinton's denials: "(1)Well, first of all, I didn't know about it. (2) To the best of my recollection, I didn't know anything about his having that job until I read about it in the press. (3) And I can't imagine who could have ever arranged to do something improper like that and no one around here knows about it. (4) And I can tell you categorically that that did not happen. (5) I knew nothing about it -- no -- none of us did -- before it happened. (6) And I didn't personally know anything about it till I read about it in the press . . . (7) And I am just telling you it's not so."."
Sacbee Voices 11/17/98 George Wil ".America nearly went to war last weekend in defense of weapons inspections in Iraq that U.S. diplomacy surreptitiously subverted last summer. That subversion provoked an American rarity, a resignation on principle, by an American rarity, inspector Scott Ritter, who never learned in the Marine Corps the delicacies of surrender.."
Washington Post 11/18/98 Michael Kelly ".Over at the White House, the search continues for a Legacy (it must be here; has anyone looked in the book room?). Here's one: Bill Clinton made the world a more dangerous place. We are, and have been since the late 1980s, in the time that precedes the time of serious war, a building period of sorts. Around the world, hungry little states are building up their arsenals toward the day when they may reach out and gobble up a neighbor or two. The United States can do nothing to stop this entirely; a world unfrozen by the Cold War's thaw is bound to be a rapacious place..Clinton's responses to the great tests of foreign policy crises are a matter of personality, not strategy. Clinton lies, as all liars do, out of a failure of courage. He does not want to face hard truths; he does not want to pay a price; he does not want to feel his own pain. So, he will swallow a fiction -- yet another promise from Saddam Hussein, or from North Korea, or from China, or from India, or from whomever -- rather than deal with unpleasant reality.."
Washington Times 11/17/98 Bruce Fein ".As Jerry Zeifman, then Democratic chief counsel of the House Judiciary Committee, recently lectured in Insight magazine: "It simply is not true that the vote to reject the income tax article was based on a determination that the filing of a false income return was purely a 'personal' matter, and therefore not impeachable. The truth is that neither the House Judiciary Committee members nor my staff had found any substantial evidence that President Nixon had committed income tax evasion, which is a felony." In accord with Mr. Zeifman's understanding, the House Judiciary Committee's Aug. 20, 1974, report to the full House concluded: "The willful evasion of taxes by a president would be conduct incompatible with the duties of his office, which obligate him faithfully to execute the laws." In other words, a president's personal income tax filings emphatically do implicate his distinct presidential duty to enforce, not sabotage, the law; and, that criminal tax evasion is incompatible with that unflagging constitutional responsibility. Despite the committee's limpid language, professor Arthur Schlesinger Jr., a decorated Ursa Major among historians, boldly maintained before the subcommittee that "in 1974, the House Judiciary Committee, confronted by convincing evidence that President Nixon had connived at the backdating of documents in the interests of tax fraud, dropped the charge on the ground that such personal misconduct did not involve official actions or abuse of executive power and thus was not an impeachable offense.".
New York Times 11/19/98 William Safire ".After months of complaining that Ken Starr's initial referral was "only about lying about sex," Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee now insist the impeachment hearings be limited to sex, the whole sex and nothing but the sex. When chairman Henry Hyde steered the inquiry beyond President Clinton's Lewinsky perjuries, the Democratic leader, Dick Gephardt, had a hissy fit. Stick to the sex (which turns people off) or we walk, was his message. Hyde called that bluff; the boycott threat was hastily withdrawn .."
The New York Times 11/18/98 Maureen Dowd ".But in the weeks since the election there has been too much gloating from the White House and its supporters. And there has been too much self- lacerating journalistic commentary misconstruing the public reaction as a vindication of the President. He won. The press lost. The press should get lost. Game over. In a nation ruled by polls and ratings, where even newspapers hire focus groups to see what kind of news readers want, we are losing sight of something we should have learned as teen-agers: Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's right. At the White House, the truth is employed only to the extent that it's useful. When the Monica story broke, Dick Morris said, the President asked him to do a poll to tell him what would play better, the truth or a lie."
AP 11/18/98 ".Armed with disturbing new allegations about Espy, who was already under investigation for taking improper gifts, then-White House chief of staff Leon Panetta summoned Espy to his office in September 1994 and told him to resign, Panetta testified. ``I wanted to hear the secretary's explanations,'' Panetta told attentive jurors, as Espy scribbled notes at the defense table. ``Very frankly, at the end of that conversation I said to the secretary that based on what he said to me that he ought to submit his resignation.'' Panetta immediately told President Clinton what had happened at the meeting, and Clinton agreed that Espy must resign, Panetta testified.. Under cross-examination by defense lawyer Reid Weingarten, Panetta said he never determined whether Espy broke the law and didn't much care. The appearance of an ethical problem was reason enough for Espy to resign, and the resignation was punishment enough for anything Espy might have done wrong, Panetta said.."
Liberty 11/98 R.W. Bradford ".In the Jones case, he denied having either a "sexual relationship," or "sexual relations" or a "sexual affair" with Lewinsky. He claimed he could not remember ever being alone with her. He claimed he could not remember giving her any gifts, although he had given her gifts only three weeks earlier. He denied talking to Lewinsky about the pending Jones case. And he denied discussing Lewinsky's role in the Jones case with his friend Vernon Jordan. There is a mountain of evidence, including in the president's own subsequent grand jury testimony, that these statements were lies. In his testimony before the grand jury in August, he claimed that he never touched Lewinsky's breasts or genitals.* And he claimed that his sexual contact with Lewinsky began in 1996, after she had obtained a paying job at the White House, thus avoiding the embarrassing charge of having sex with an unpaid intern. Again, the report produces a mountain of evidence that these statements are false.In point of fact, the report is more about the president's attempts to keep Lewinsky quiet than it is about sex. The main section of the report, the "narrative," comprises some 42,948 words, of which only 7,472 are about the sexual encounters between Clinton and Lewinsky. The charges made in the report arise out of the president's lying about his sex life, so it is impossible to evaluate them without reporting on those aspects of his sex life that he is accused of lying about under oath..."
Boston Globe 11/21/98 John Ellis ".Every day, in conferences rooms and offices all across America, men and women are deposed in civil cases and criminal investigations. And every day, each and every one of those men and women raise their right hands and swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help them God. And every day, all these people are informed that if they do not tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, they will have committed a felony crime, punishable by up to five years in prison. That's the law of the land. What was most remarkable about the opening day of the impeachment hearings was that no one contested the central facts of independent counsel Kenneth Starr's prepared testimony, nor did anyone tangle with his interpretation of the law...Having neither the law nor the facts on his side, Clinton chose instead to argue prosecutorial process and to amplify an already unprecedented attack on the character of the independent counsel. Incredibly enough, this two-pronged strategy has worked. It is now likely that the House of Representatives will not approve articles of impeachment for the Senate's consideration. Assuming that no articles of impeachment are approved, the matter will then be left to the discretion of the Office of the Independent Counsel, which would be unlikely to seek indictments until after President Clinton has finished his term..Sanctioning such conduct would mean that the laws that all the rest of us must obey do not apply to Bill Clinton. That's a very dangerous precedent to establish. That's exactly the precedent that Democrats on the Judiciary Committee like John Conyers, Bill Delahunt, and Marty Meehan propose be established. It is to Ken Starr's and Henry Hyde's everlasting credit that they have resisted such an outcome and continue to do so.."
Savannah Morning News 11/21/98 Editorial ".If Americans aren't moved to mount the ramparts, they at least should take time to ponder what it means to have a president who believes it is OK to lie under oath whenever it suits him. They should weigh the consequences of denying parties in lawsuits the opportunity to obtain truthful evidence, thus depriving them of their constitutional right to equal protection under the law.."
WorldNetDaily 11/23/98 Charles Smith ".In 1997, the Clinton administration quietly announced that the Russian Zvezda-Strela Kh-31 missile would be the Navy's next generation super-sonic target drone without issuing an open contract (RFP). The reason given for the extra-ordinary Russian weapons purchase was that the Navy had run out of U.S. made super-sonic target missiles called the "Vandal." ..Yet, according to the House letter, there is no Navy "missile gap." The three congressmen wrote Defense Assistant Secretary for Research, Development and Acquisition Dr. H. Lee Buchanan: "Should the Navy procure the last 30 EER Vandal targets remaining as planned, it is our understanding they would have enough targets to meet the test requirements through 2003." Captain J. R. Trowbridge replied on Oct. 23, 1998. "We are gathering information necessary to provide you with a substantive response and will reply further upon completion of our investigation into this matter," wrote Captain Trowbridge. "You can expect a final response by 10 November, 1998.". The obviously false claim by the Clinton administration that there were no more U.S.-made missiles left is compounded by the public announcement of inflated test results by Boeing from the Russian missile test program. In 1998, Boeing claimed to Aviation Week & Space Technology that the Russian Kh-31 flew over 50 miles during live fire tests. The claim is clearly false. This author obtained the actual test results compiled by Boeing which showed the Kh- 31 flew a mere 16 miles under the best of conditions.."
FOX News 11/24/98 Reuters ".U.S. District Court judges on Tuesday sentenced one man involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing to 10 months in jail and another to eight years. Judge Whitman Knapp passed the lighter sentence - amounting to time served - on Ibrahim Ahmad Suleiman, convicted last January on two counts of perjury for lying to the grand jury investigating the bombing.."
Investors Business Daily 11/27/98 Editorial ".The conventional wisdom has President Clinton surviving the impeachment process - the rule of law be damned. If that comes to pass, future - and present - lawmakers may figure they can do as they please without fear of punishment. Beyond those pitfalls lies another danger peculiar to this president...Moreover, censure would have little redemptive effect on Clinton. Some people breathe easier after they've narrowly escaped punishment for their wrongdoing. They're truly ashamed of their behavior. They pledge to go straight. But with Clinton, we already know how good his word is. He's pledged contrition and sought forgiveness. But he continues to lie. He thinks the polls absolve him, thus reinforcing his own denial of any wrongdoing. This amoral denial will also convince him he can do no wrong. So look for even more reckless behavior.."
The Washington Times 11/23-29/98 Wes Pruden ".And in Tokyo, the president sent his flacks out to deliver one more lie, that he is not even paying attention to what's going on in Washington. Mr. Clinton was asked how he had apologized to his wife and daughter, and whether they gave any weight to his apology. "I did it in a direct and straightforward manner." "Did they forgive him?" "I believe they did, yes," He said the young Japanese inquirer should properly ask that question of Hillary and Chelsea, as if she could. There were published accounts abroad that Chelsea, along at Stanford, has had screaming matches with her father, pleading from the broken heart of a child: "How could you have done this to us?"."
New American 11/27/98 William Jasper ".In his 1992 campaign book Putting People First, candidate Clinton charged that American politics had become "hostage" to monied interests. Brimming with righteous indignation, the "Boy from Hope" asserted that "political action committees, industry lobbies, and cliques of $100,000 donors buy access to Congress and the White House." But a Clinton Presidency, the crusading "outsider" solemnly assured, would be "the most ethical administration in the history of the republic." But for those with eyes to see, the tarnish on the Clinton Camelot was glaringly obvious before his first White House inauguration. The "character" factor that had dogged him during the '92 campaign - pot smoking, lying, draft dodging, marital infidelities, financial misdeeds, gubernatorial scandals - soon proved more important than the "charm" factor that won him the election. Even some of Mr. Clinton's staunchest cheerleaders have been forced ruefully to acknowledge that his Presidency has been the most ethically challenged Administration in the history of the republic. Big-League Corruption."
Washington Post 11/29/98 ".PRESIDENT CLINTON'S answers to 81 questions from the House Judiciary Committee were guided by one basic principle: Admit nothing. Though each question was phrased as a request for an admission or denial from the president, Mr. Clinton never once responded by simply using the word "admitted." When he was asked to admit or deny that he called Betty Currie on Jan. 18 at 11:02 p.m., for example, he responded: "According to White House records included in the OIC Referral, I called Ms. Currie's residence on January 18, 1998, at or about 11:02 p.m." Even when he was asked to admit or deny that he is the chief law enforcement officer of the country -- hardly a point of serious contention -- he could not bring himself to offer a straight answer, giving, instead, a lesson in constitutional structure that was, presumably, not what the questioners had in mind. "The President is frequently referred to as the chief law enforcement officer, although nothing in the Constitution specifically designates the President as such," he wrote, noting that "the law enforcement function is a component" of the president's executive power..But the president can reasonably be expected to behave like something a little grander than a possible defendant in a criminal case. Whether he admits it or not, he remains the chief law enforcement officer of the country, and he has a continuing obligation to see that the laws are faithfully executed. His behavior is necessarily an example to the nation, and it is thoroughly beneath his office for him to respond to congressional inquiries with all the candor of a tobacco executive..Were Mr. Clinton to come forward, without regard for the eventual legal consequences, and say that it is his duty as president to confirm the truthful allegations in the Starr report and rebut others with new information, the House could at least then discuss the question of impeachment without the sense that the president is mocking its proceedings just as he mocked the federal criminal investigation that gave rise to them.."
Capitol Hill Blue 11/28/98 ".Differences between President Clinton's testimony last Jan. 17 in the Paula Jones case and some of his testimony Aug. 17 during his grand jury appearance: ON BEING ALONE Jan. 17 At any time were you and Monica Lewinsky together alone in the Oval Office? A. I don't recall. Q. Your testimony is that it was possible, then, that you were alone with her, but you have no specific recollection of that ever happening? A. Yes, that's correct. Aug. 17 Q. How many times were you alone with Ms. Lewinsky? A. Based on our records, between February and December (1997) it appears to me that at least I could have seen her approximately nine times. ... I have a general memory that would say I certainly saw her more than twice during that period between January and April of 1996, when she worked there..
Capitol Hill Blue 11/28/98 ".Differences between President Clinton's testimony last Jan. 17 in the Paula Jones case and some of his testimony Aug. 17 during his grand jury appearance: Jan. 17 Q. Have you ever talked to Monica Lewinsky about the possibility that she might be asked to testify in this lawsuit? A. I'm not sure. ... Seems to me the last time she was there to see Betty before Christmas we were joking about how you all ... were going to call every woman I'd ever talked to. Aug. 17 Q. Do you believe that Ms. Lewinsky was at the White House and saw you on December 28th, 1997? A. Yes, sir, I do. Q. And do you remember talking with Ms. Lewinsky about her subpoena that she received for the Paula Jones case on that day? A. I remember talking with Ms. Lewinsky about her testimony or about the prospect that she might have to give testimony.."
Capitol Hill Blue 11/28/98 ".25. Do you admit or deny that on or about December 28, 1997, you expressed concern to Monica Lewinsky about a hatpin you had given to her as a gift which had been subpoenaed in the case of Jones v. Clinton? A: As I told the grand jury, ``Ms. Lewinsky said something to me like, what if they ask me about the gifts you've given me,'' ... but I do not know whether that conversation occurred on December 28, 1997, or earlier. ... Whenever this conversation occurred, I testified, I told her ``that if they asked her for gifts, she'd have to give them whatever she had. ...''... I simply was not concerned about the fact that I had given her gifts. ... Indeed, I gave her additional gifts on December 28, 1997.."
Capitol Hill Blue 11/28/98 ".48. Do you admit or deny that on January 18, 1998, at or about 6:11 a.m., you learned of the existence of tapes of conversations between Monica Lewinsky and Linda Tripp recorded by Linda Tripp? A: I did not know on January 18, 1998 that tapes existed of conversations between Ms. Lewinsky and Ms. Tripp recorded by Ms. Tripp. At some point on Sunday, January 18, 1998, I knew about the Drudge Report. I understand that while the report talked about tapes of phone conversations, it did not identify Ms. Lewinsky by name and did not mention Ms. Tripp at all. The report did not state who the parties to the conversations were or who taped the conversations.."
Capitol Hill Blue 11/28/98 ".52. Do you admit or deny that on January 18, 1998, at or about 5:00 p.m., you had a meeting with Betty Currie at which you made statements similar to any of the following regarding your relationship with Monica Lewinsky? a. ``You were always there when she was there, right? We were never really alone.'' b. ``You could see and hear everything.'' c. ``Monica came on to me, and I never touched her, right?'' ``She wanted to have sex with me and I couldn't do that.'' A: When I met with Ms. Currie, I believe that I asked her certain question in an effort to get as much information as quickly as I could and make certain statements although I do not remember exactly what I said. ... Some time later, I learned that the Office of Independent Counsel was involved and that Ms. Currie was going to have to testify before the grand jury. After learning this, I stated in my grand jury testimony, I told Ms. Currie, ``Just relax, go in there and tell the truth.''
Capitol Hill Blue 11/28/98 ".A: As I have previously acknowledged, I did not want my family, friends, or colleagues to know the full nature of my relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. In the days following the January 21, 1998, Washington Post article, I misled people about this relationship. I have repeatedly apologized for doing so. 80. Do you admit or deny that you made false and misleading public statements in response to a question asked on or about January 26, 1998, when you stated ``... I never told anybody to lie, not a single time. Never''? A: This statement was truthful: I did not tell Ms. Lewinsky to lie, and I did not tell anybody to lie about my relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. I understand that Ms. Lewinsky also has stated that I never asked or encouraged her to lie.."
MSNBC 11/20/98 Dennis Shea ".IF THE PRESIDENT didn't lie under oath, you'd think his $500-an-hour lawyer, David Kendall, would have used his precious hour of questioning time to rebut Ken Starr's damning charges. If the president didn't obstruct justice, a felony, you'd think Democratic counsel Abbe Lowell would have eagerly presented "exculpatory evidence." And if the president didn't engage in a criminal conspiracy, you'd think the defense team of Conyers, Frank & Waters would still be shouting this truth from the top of the Capitol dome. But no. Barely a word was uttered in the president's defense yesterday. It was all attack, attack, attack, time once again to play beat up on the Ken Starr pi¤ata. And so John and Barney and Maxine continued to do what they apparently enjoy: smearing the independent counsel with a ferocity and relentlessness that would make 'Ole Tailgunner Joe blush with pride. It didn't work. Ken Starr appeared at the hearing wearing a gray suit and a blue shirt, not two black horns and a big red tail. He came across not as a sex-obsessed pervert but as a man obsessed with vindicating the rule of law. He entered the hearing room carrying not a copy of Hustler but a copy of the Constitution. Starr was not about to become an accomplice to his own character assassination. When he finally did have a chance to defend himself in a public forum, he did so with force and clarity. His anger was real, not manufactured; his passion sincere, not contrived..."
FOX News Wire On-Line 11/28/98 Pete Yost AP ".President Clinton's written answers to 81 questions from the House Judiciary Committee are viewed by legal experts as making the best of a bad situation. His responses fall into three broad categories: Saying he can't remember, giving answers that conflict with Monica Lewinsky's version of events and declaring that his answers are technically true under the law. Clinton pleads forgetfulness at least 17 times in his 24-page response. In 20 instances, the president refers to his previous sworn answers or to the favorable testimony of other witnesses such as friend Vernon Jordan. "He's in a corner,'' New York University law professor Stephen Gillers said of Clinton. "He really cannot admit that his grand jury or deposition answers were lies.'' "He's gone as far as he can go as far as being candid and now he's digging in his heels and letting Congress do what it wishes,'' Gillers added. In an introductory statement to the answers he furnished the committee Friday, the president emphasizes that his relationship with Monica Lewinsky was "wrong.'' The problem for Clinton is that the questions he's answering deal not with sex but with his own alleged perjury and obstruction of justice..."
Daily Republican 11/28/98 Amy Williams ".Clinton acknowledged on Friday what he had steadfastly refused to admit for several months. He admitted there were discussions on how to handle the Lewinsky matter with political consultant Dick Morris in the early hours after public disclosure of Mr. Clinton's alleged sexual harassment of a White House student intern in January. ..Mr. Clinton also admitted for the first time that his lawyers and his re-election campaign had hired two well-known private investigators, Terry Lenzner and Jack Palladino. But Clinton provided only a vague description of their duties, saying they were engaged for "legal and appropriate tasks" and "a variety of matters." Mr. Clinton said that he also had consulted with Betsey Wright, his former chief of staff and scandal control officer when he was governor of Arkansas, "on a wide range of matters." Morris, in grand jury testimony in August, described Lenzner, Palladino and Ms. Wright as part of a "White House Secret Police Operation" used to dig up dirt on the president's political opponents. White House officials have denied the existence of such a unit and said that the private detectives and Ms. Wright were used only for legitimate investigative jobs... In summary, Mr. Clinton in responding to 81 questions from the House Judiciary Committee, again made a statement, under oath, that he did wrong by his friends, his staff and his nation but did not commit perjury, [as he defines it] although he did lie in a sworn testimony made to the grand jury.."
Investor's Business Daily 11/30/98 ".It's hard to believe it was only six years ago that Bill Clinton, then-president-elect, promised the most ethical administration in the history of the republic. Harder still to believe how indulgent the American people have become of his ethical lapses. By now, of course, the ''most ethical administration'' label is little more than a punch line for a late-night talk show joke. Remember, Clinton ran against the ''sleaze'' and ''moral swamp'' of the Reagan and Bush administrations. He denounced the prosperous '80s as the ''decade of greed.'' Looking back at the old news clippings, the sanctimony of Clinton and his team seems farcical. Clinton's first act as president, just a few hours after his inauguration on Jan. 20, 1993, was to sign an executive order setting stringent ethics rules for his staff..We remember when the very ''appearance of impropriety'' was enough to taint a presidency as corrupt. Six independent counsels in six years. At least half a dozen congressional probes. Indictments of Cabinet officials. Three convictions and 10 guilty pleas in the Whitewater case alone. But in true hair-splitting fashion, former Clinton press secretary Mike McCurry once admonished, ''I hope you're not equating indictments with convictions.'' How about lying to the public? All politicians do that, we're told. Very well, how about lying under oath? Clinton did it not once, but twice, in the Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky matters. But several other Clinton subordinates have lied, too. Ira Magaziner lied to a federal judge about the makeup of Hillary Clinton's Health Care Task Force. Former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros lied to the FBI about payments to a former mistress. Former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy allegedly lied to investigators about accepting ''gifts'' from firms regulated by his agency. Is it ethical to buy the silence of would-be grand jury witnesses with the promise of cushy jobs? How about ''misplacing'' billing records? ''Bureaucratic snafus'' involving FBI files of political enemies? Selling the Lincoln bedroom to the highest bidder? White House coffee klatches at $50,000 a head? Shaking down Indian tribes for campaign cash? Selling sensitive satellite technology to dangerous foreign powers? Clinton has invoked executive privilege more times than any president. When that hasn't worked, he's invoked lawyer-client privilege for attorneys on the public payroll, and then invented the ''protective-function privilege'' to keep Secret Service agents from talking to the grand jury..More disturbing is how accepting and how forgiving the American people have been of Clinton and his excuses. Poll after poll shows that a majority of Americans don't trust this president as far as they can throw him. But they approve of the job he's doing..."
Scripps Howard News Service 11/29/98 Richard Powelson ".A crisis management expert who has helped cigarette, beer and soft drink companies overcome bad publicity has joined the White House team working with President Clinton to avoid impeachment. Public relations executive Guy L. Smith IV, who once successfully argued with a TV reporter that he did not really have a beer bottle with a rat inside it, now tries to convince a majority of Americans that they don't have a rat in the White House. Polls suggest his latest project may succeed, too."
MSNBC - 11/29/98 Christopher Hitchens Meet the Press ".MR. HITCHENS: ...Mr. Clinton fired his surgeon general, Joycelyn Elders...for mentioning the word "masturbation" in a discussion of adolescent sexual health. He's imposed warrantless searches of public housing. He's throwing women off welfare because their moral standards don't meet what he says they ought to be. He's a zero-tolerance, law- and-order Democrat who now, suddenly, has turned into a civil libertarian, you'll notice....He has to be commander in chief of armed forces, where adultery is a punishable crime. He says that homosexuals do not have the right to wear the American uniform, unless they're prepared to lie about it-"don't ask, don't tell." This is an extraordinary record of hypocrisy and very reactionary hypocrisy, too....the most startling thing in this whole business is the willingness of liberals to carry water for someone who does not give a damn for them and who's betrayed them at every turn....I think he should be cuffed. I think he should be cuffed and taken downtown..." .."
Worldnet Daily 11/30/98 David Limbaugh ".Reactions so far to Clinton's latest round of perjury are mixed, but modestly encouraging. The naysayers complain that his responses to Chairman Hyde's 81 Requests for Admission are predictable and useless. Others, including some liberals, have been astounded by the arrogance and brazenness with which Clinton continues to treat this matter. In an earlier column I contended that Hyde's requests were a masterstroke because they would force Clinton either to admit the factual allegations, thereby narrowing the issues and expediting the hearings, or face responsibility for requiring the committee to call further witnesses to support charges he refuses to admit. Of course, this strategy will only work if the committee has the mettle to follow up and hold Clinton's feet to the fire. Clinton's answers have produced more of a stir than expected, rekindling the ire of Republicans and igniting that of some Democrats, even if they do not ultimately effect a change in the outcome of these proceedings. Again, he has admitted none of the incriminating allegations, proving that his repeated professions of contrition have been a ruse. Apologies without confessions are meaningless. Because the answers constitute further felonies they demonstrate that Clinton's criminal activities are ongoing and completely discredit those who say his transgressions ended at some finite point in the past..."
MSNBC http://www.msnbc.com/ 11/30/98 Deroy Murdock ".EXCERPTS: "...Clinton's defenders have claimed that prosecutors, judges and juries tend to wink at such (perjury) misbehavior. Barbara Battalino and Pam Parsons would beg to differ...Veterans Administration psychiatrist Barbara Battalino was prosecuted for denying that she performed oral sex...she pled guilty...she was fined $3,500 and sentenced to a year's probation, including six months of house arrest monitored by electronic bracelet. She also was removed from her federal job. "I don't have the ability anymore to practice medicine," she (said)...In a sworn deposition, Parsons falsely denied a sexual relationship with the athlete....Parsons was prosecuted for perjury....she and her lover were sentenced to four months in a minimum-security prison....if...Clinton gets away with perjuring himself in a sexual harassment case and before a federal criminal grand jury...why should Americans bother to tell the truth in divorce, paternity, and harassment cases? After all, they're often just about sex...."
Freeper L.N. Smithee detective work 12/2/98 from www.whitehouse.gov, Roll Call, FreeRepublic.com ".The President of the United States, in one of his answers to the 81 questions sent to him by Rep. Henry Hyde, alleges that the reason a seemingly false and/or misleading statement by was made in a Roll Call interview was due to a mistake by Roll Call. But the Press Secretary's official released transcript of that interview--STILL ONLINE AT THE WHITE HOUSE WEB SITE--contains the version of his answer as it was published by Roll Call, and not his "revised" version that he insists is confirmed by audiotape. The question is important because it goes to the credibility of Clinton's razor-thin defense against perjury regarding the meanings of the word "is" and "was." Here is the question posed by Rep. Hyde, as published at ABCNEWS.com . 76. Do you admit or deny that you made false and misleading public statements in response to questions asked on or about January 21, 1998, in an interview with Roll Call, when you stated "Well, let me say, the relationship was not improper, and I think that's important enough to say..."?. A. The tape of this interview reflects that I in fact said: "Well, let me say the relationship's not improper and I think that's important enough to say..." .Compare this with the interview as transcribed by the Press Secretary's office: http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri- res/I2R?urn:pdi://oma.eop.gov.us/1998/1/22/7.text.1 Q Okay. Let me just ask you one more question about this. You said in a statement today that you had no improper relationship with this intern. What exactly was the nature of your relationship with her? THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me say, the relationship was not improper, and I think that's important enough to say.. On Sunday, I was going through the White Water Archives for the month of January 1998 and found the first stories of Lewinsky posted on Free Republic.." .Freeper is continuing efforts to obtain the audiotape from Roll Call's Mort Kondracke directly.
Jewish World Review 12/3/98 Paul Greenberg ".Having found a way to confess without confessing to anything that might involve a legal or political penalty, William Jefferson Clinton has found a way to atone without atoning....the president of the United States even declines to admit that he is the country's chief law enforcement officer: 'The President,'' he responds, "is frequently referred to as the chief law enforcement officer, although nothing in the Constitution specifically designates the president as such.''....Bill Clinton doesn't even remember swearing to tell"the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth'' when he testified in the Paula Jones case....Censure without impeachment is something like confession without atonement. It is a hollowed-out thing that will not satisfy. Because amends will not have been made. The harm -- to truth, to law, to the character of the presidency, to the American people's sense of justice -- will linger in history, unresolved....Cheap grace, it turns out, is no grace at all.."
Drudge 12/3/98 ".Friday's NEW YORK TIMES is set to report in late editions that Kenneth Starr's prosecutors did not forbid Monica Lewinsky to call her lawyer when they first confronted her at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel on Jan. 16, and in fact they gave her several opportunities to call anyone she chose, a federal district judge concluded. "Contrary to that finding, issued last April but kept sealed until now, President Clinton's lawyers and House Democrats have argued that prosecutors mistreated Ms. Lewinsky by repeatedly refusing her the opportunity to call her lawyer," reports the paper's Don Van Natta, in a story to be posted on NEWYORKTIMES.COM shortly after 5:00 UTC. "They maintain that the incident illustrates Starr's overzealousness, perhaps even misconduct... But Judge Johnson said lawyers and agents from Starr's office had not barred Ms. Lewinsky from calling her lawyer and had 'acted within the ethical rules in questioning Ms. Lewinsky without her attorney present.'" At no point in his testimony did Starr mention the ruling -- subsequently upheld by an appellate court -- that had exonerated his office. Starr's spokesman Charles Bakaly tells the paper: "This is an example where our prosecutors did not discuss rulings that would have helped us to respond to attacks against the office. We were prohibited from discussing it, because it was under seal, and we adhered to that." The ruling by Judge Norma Holloway Johnson is part of a ream of documents ordered released this week by a federal appeals court. James Kennedy, a White House spokesman, said late Thursday that lawyers had not reviewed the newly unsealed papers and would have no immediate comment.."
House Judiciary Committee Hearing 11/18/98 ".KENDALL: You mentioned the experience of Miss Lewinsky at the Ritz-Carlton on Friday, Jan. 16, 1998. KENDALL: One of the reasons your agents held Ms. Lewinsky was that they.... STARR: That is - I - I have to interrupt. That is - the -that premise is false. KENDALL: I was not meaning to be offensive. STARR: That is false and you know it to be false. KENDALL: I'll rephrase the question. STARR: She was not held. KENDALL: She - her own psychological state will speak for itself as to how she felt. It's in the record in her testimony. STARR: You said she was held. You didn't say how she felt. You said she was held. And I think that's unfair to our investigators. And this issue has been litigated, David, as you well know, with respect to the constitutional rights of the individual involved. Excuse me. KENDALL: During her sojourn with your agents. STARR: Well, the Ritz-Carlton is a very pleasant place to have a sojourn.."
World Net Daily 12/4/98 Jerome Zeifman ".In a letter to the editor of the Washington Post Nov. 24, 1998 (explaining his resignation from the staff of Kenneth Starr), Sam Dash made several statements, which, to my personal knowledge, are false -- and which I believe he knew to be false. In addition, Mr. Dash has in my view failed to publicize the "whole truth" about both his role on the Senate Watergate Committee and his questionable role as ethics adviser to the office of the independent counsel, and Kenneth Starr. In his letter Mr. Dash refers to the 1974 impeachment proceedings of the Rodino Committee, to which I then served as chief counsel. Dash, in my view, is now a knowing purveyor of false information, stating: "Even there, John Doar, chief counsel of the Nixon impeachment inquiry, held that because of the Constitution's "sole power" language, and the political nature of the impeachment process, even committee counsel should refrain from drawing conclusions but should present only facts and leave it to the committee to decide." The simple truth, as reflected in my diary as well as the official publications of the House Judiciary Committee, and a book published by me in 1996 based on my diary, is that Doar did in fact become an outspoken public advocate for the impeachment of President Nixon, as follows:..When Doar delivered the statement about a half hour later, he began by introducing about four pounds of documents that he had handed out to the members. Then he read his prepared summary and added, "Members of the committee, for me to speak like this, I can hardly believe I am speaking as I do or thinking as I do ... I realize that most people would understand an effort to conceal a mistake. But this was not done by a private citizen and the people who are working for the President are not private citizens. This was the President of the United States. What he decided should be done following the Watergate break-in caused action not only by his own servants, but by agencies of the United States, including the Department of Justice, the FBI, the CIA, and the Secret Service. "It required perjury, obstruction of justice, all crimes. But most important, it required deliberate, continued, and continuing deception of the American people. "It is that evidence that we want to present to you in detail and to help and reason with you, and this summary of information is the basis, or a work-product, to help you."."
World Net Daily 12/4/98 Jerome Zeifman ".Another truth known to both Doar and Dash ever since 1974 is that I, and not Doar, (whose title was "special counsel") was then the committee's chief counsel. I gave my professional advice to all members who sought it. I gave all members the same advice. I advocated that President Nixon be impeached long before Doar did.. In my view, which differs radically from that of Mr. Dash, Ken Starr was properly performing his professional duties to the committee -- as I and later John Doar did in advocating the impeachment of President Nixon. Indeed, Mr. Starr was directed by a federal statute to perform such duties for the Congress. As Mr. Dash knows full well that statute was not in effect at the time of Watergate.. Let me also add that Mr. Dash and his White House supporters are currently not publicizing the "whole truth" regarding Mr. Dash's ethically questionable career. The truth is that at the time of Watergate, Dash appointed the now famous Terry Lenzner to be Dash's chief investigator of Watergate -- and has maintained a relationship with Lenzner ever since. ."
N.Y. Times 12/5/98 ".Following is the text of a letter signed by Charles Ruff, the White House counsel, and Gregory Craig, the special White House counsel who is coordinating President Clinton's defense, about plans for impeachment hearings:.With the exception of one hour of time provided to us for questioning Mr. Starr at the end of his appearance before the committee on Nov. 19, however, we have been foreclosed from playing any role. ..."
Freeper Wil H reports 12/5/98 on FoxNews ".Morris is on the O'Reilly Factor and is stating point blank that Clinton is a perjurer. He says that Clinton definitely does remember the conversations with him about Polling that he said he had forgotten when asked under oath. Morris cites Clinton's amazing recall for minute facts and he doesn't believe Clinton's lies."
The Washington Post 12/1/98 Richard Cohen ". Kenneth Starr knows this lie well. He mentioned a prime example when he testified recently before the House Judiciary Committee. Starr recalled the time last spring when Clinton was asked by reporters why his lawyers had invoked executive privilege to block Hillary Rodham Clinton and others in the White House from testifying before the grand jury. The date was March 24. The president was traveling in Africa. This is what he said: "You should ask someone who knows. I haven't discussed that with the lawyers. I don't know." Lest you think that was a slip of the tongue, Clinton essentially repeated his statement to Walter Isaacson, Time's managing editor. In an Air Force One interview on the way back from Africa, Isaacson asked for the legal justification of executive privilege. "I think you have to ask my counsel's office because the first time I learn about a lot of these arguments is when I see them in the paper." But on Nov. 19, Starr said that just a week before Clinton made those statements, White House counsel Charles Ruff had sworn otherwise. In a secret affidavit filed in federal court Ruff "swore that he had discussed the assertion of executive privilege with the president and the president had approved its invocation." Why lie about a matter that would soon become a matter of public record? Why not take responsibility for your own policy and not act, as Clinton did, as if you were a passive client? It's not, mind you, that anyone believed the president at the time. It's rather -- and here's the nub of it -- that no one could then prove otherwise. This has been Clinton's MO, an in-your-face assertion of something that simply cannot be disproved. Remember the advice he purportedly gave Gennifer Flowers -- that if both parties to an affair deny it, no one can prove otherwise? If you say it didn't happen, it didn't happen -- even though everyone knows it did. This kind of behavior induces a sort of rage in others. It clearly pitched Starr into a medieval madness and helps explain why the mere mention of Clinton's name sets much of official Washington to foaming at the mouth (often on television) and vowing to help the man pack -- if only he would leave town.."
New York Post 12/8/98 Dick Morris ".IN his answers to the written queries posed to him by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, President Clinton compounded perjury with more perjury. In question 71, Hyde asked the president about his Jan. 21 conversation with me about how to handle the Lewinsky affair. Clinton said that he remembers our discussion of the results of the poll but ''does not recall'' saying ''well, we just have to win, don't we?'' Baloney. I've known Bill Clinton for more than 20 years and there is no way on earth that he would forget telling me that. Those lines represented his deliberate strategic observation after a 15-minute discussion of the survey and its findings. I could tell that the moment that he said it, he wished he hadn't. The very next day, he phoned me to remind me, ''I have told you that the charges against me aren't true, haven't I?'' It was an obvious attempt to blur the bold strategy he had hinted at the night before. More times than I can count, the president and I have had conversations which have led to similarly dramatic conclusions, and I have found that he remembers them in great detail - decades later. To imagine that he forgot this statement in a mere 10 months begs credibility.."
The Federalist Brief 12/8/98 ".In recent years, the Clintonistas have creatively used federal racketeering laws to hammer those who disagree with some of their pet agendas. The most notable use of these statutes has been against pro-life advocates and organizations that peacefully protest the killing of unborn children. Before the advent of such statutes, the Justice Department resorted to ''second tier'' laws such as tax evasion and mail fraud to bring down notorious gangsters like Al Capone, who had otherwise successfully utilized cutouts to insulate themselves from prosecution for more serious crimes. It is worth reiterating our previous editorial arguments that notorious politicians like Bill Clinton, who successfully utilize political cutouts to insulate themselves from prosecution for more serious crimes, are, like Mr. Capone, ultimately trapped by more inane legal missteps. In this case, Mr. Clinton lied under oath in a sexual harassment lawsuit by a former employee before he found out his DNA was on the dress of another employee. Now that Mr. Clinton is on record acknowledging that he ''mislead'' everybody, he may have inadvertently stepped into one of his ''racketeering'' traps. Mr. Clinton sent out thousands of letters soliciting money for his legal defense fund, letters on his personal signature, claiming his innocence. But he knew at the time those letters were sent, that he was guilty as charged. Thus, Mr. Clinton conspired to defraud those from whom he was soliciting money. Lying under oath is perjury, and lying to obtain funds via the U.S. mail is ''mail fraud.'' Further, a senior Justice Department official says, ''The fund-raising appeals were in furtherance of a conspiracy and could easily rise to racketeering. [This is] not just a fraudulent scheme but also the use of the mails to perpetuate the fraud.'' And Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch says, ''The law (5 U.S.C. 7353) prohibits any federal official, including the President, from soliciting, accepting or benefiting from monies from private citizens -- the President's legal defense fund is an illegal operation.'' Of course, Mr. Clinton's defense will hinge on his interpretation of the word ''innocence.''."
From Freeper Stayfree on CNN 12/9/98 coverage Greta ".was asserting the wisdom of the panel of "prosecutors" regarding their viewpoint that the evidence against Comrade Clinton doesn't warrant prosecution. In her next breath, she said that it was necessary for Clinton's defense team to continue with hair-splitting and the use of technicalities, etc. because Clinton is still in danger of being prosecuted once he leaves office."
AP 12/10/98 Tom Raum ".In advance of President Clinton's visit to the Middle East, incoming House Speaker Bob Livingston and other Republicans complained Thursday that his pledge of nearly $1 billion in U.S. aid to the Palestinians violates an earlier commitment to Israel. Clinton's proposal for financial aid to support the Wye River agreement is subject to congressional approval. And Livingston, R- La., and the incoming chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Rep. Bill Young, R-Fla., protested Congress wasn't consulted. The administration has pledged $900 million over five years in U.S. Economic aid to the Palestinians - and plans to ask Congress for a $400 million installment early next year in an "emergency'' spending bill. This, together with administration plans to seek an additional $1.2 billion for Israel and $300 million for Jordan, "calls into question an earlier agreement with Israel to phase out most economic assistance to that region,'' Livingston and Young wrote Clinton. "At the very least, we would ask you to consult senior members of the congressional leadership on both sides of the aisle before committing billions of taxpayer dollars to foreign governments,'' they said.."
Meet the Press Transcript 12/13/98 Tom Delay and Tim Russert ".MR. RUSSERT: This is what you said about the president: "I don't believe a word he says." Why? REP. DeLAY: Because he has either lied or broken his word to me the four years that we have been a majority. MR. RUSSERT: To you personally? REP. DeLAY: Absolutely. MR. RUSSERT: On what? REP. DeLAY: Well, it starts on November the 19th, when the leadership made an agreement with this president to open the government, and he promised to balance the budget, save welfare, reform welfare, cut taxes and save Medicare. Within 15 minutes he reneged on that. We've had to deal with this president like that for four years, but that's not the point here. That i-my personal feelings about this president and what he has done in, I think, denigrating his office has nothing to do with the charges before us. MR. RUSSERT: If on Wednesday the president of the United States came home and said, "Saddam Hussein will not comply with United Nations inspections. We must attack him militarily today," would you take him at his word that it was necessary to do that on the day before the impeachment vote? REP. DeLAY: No, because he hasn't done that all this year. Remember about the time he was supposed to give the deposition in January, he sent the troops and rattled his sabres at Saddam Hussein? Nothing happened. Remember in November-I mean, in June he went to China after moving that trip from November to June, when he thought he was going to be in trial with Paula Jones? And then again in August he starts rattling his saber again and backs off. That's what's happening. MR. RUSSERT: So you're suggesting the president of the United States would use the military of this country in order to distract from his difficulties? REP. DeLAY: I'm suggesting that the president of the United States cannot be believed, and I think it's reflective in his foreign policy.."
Freeper toonces T Cat on FoxNews 12/20/98 ".FOX news just ran a great interview with Fyfe Symington, the former governor of Arizona. he was driven from office by the Clinton justice dept. for lying to investor before he even elected governor. The similarities and the all too OBVIOUS double-standard were startling! ."
New York Times 12/25/98 Richard Berke ".Because Moynihan is known for his strict interpretation of the Constitution, supporters of a censure compromise had feared that he might argue that censure had no constitutional basis.Asked whether he was driven by partisan loyalty or by his concern for the presidency, Moynihan said emphatically, "It's the institution." In the interview on Thursday, Moynihan expressed great annoyance that Clinton staged a rally with two busloads of congressional Democrats on the South Lawn of the White House after the impeachment vote in the House. He suggested that Clinton had turned a somber day for the nation into a political spectacle. "If the rally was meant for the president's spirits, that was just fine," Moynihan said. "If it was meant to influence the Senate, that's just wrong. We take an oath. Our oath is to the Constitution, to uphold and defend the Constitution." Moynihan also invoked his concerns about the Constitution when asked whether he would support levying a fine on Clinton as part of a censure arrangement. "Bad, bad, bad!" he said of the idea. "Wrong, wrong wrong!" He explained: "I'm sure the people who are proposing it are doing so in perfectly good faith. Impeachment is not about punishment. The Constitution is very clear." For those who think Clinton should pay a fine, he said, "It might be dealt with elsewhere. We are not a court." Despite his belief that a compromise would be reached, Moynihan said he could not be certain. "The question is, 'Do these allegations rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors?' " he asked. "And we will have to judge. We will have to make up our minds. The list, high crimes and misdemeanors, begins with treason, bribery.".."
James Gerstenzang 12/25/98 San Francisco Chronicle ".The battle over President Clinton's impeachment, nasty during the House debate, threatened yesterday to grow nastier as the president's trial looms in the Senate. The White House and its Democratic allies cried foul over unpublished and uncorroborated evidence collected by investigators about Clinton's private life. House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said senators should consider the material, in addition to the formal record compiled as part of the House debate that led to the president's impeachment. Senator Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, responded by calling DeLay ``a frustrated moral ayatollah.' .``He wants to impose his twisted morals on everyone else,'' Harkin said, adding that out of frustration of failing to gain popular support for his position, ``DeLay must be approaching an apoplectic state.'' ``We know what the evidence is'' against Clinton, said Harkin. ``What the Republicans are afraid of is (that) Clinton will win big.'' ."
Jewish World Review 12/25/98 Thomas Sowell ". Bill Clinton is not simply a "flawed" man, as some of his apologists now say. He is a thoroughly corrupt man, cynical and shamelessly selfish. He has corrupted every institution of government that he has touched. Arkansas health officials who threatened legal action against the Clintons' business partner Jim McDougal for not putting adequate sewage facilities into a project he was building were summoned to Governor Clinton's office and told that McDougal was "a supporter of mine." Shortly thereafter, these health inspectors were fired. A state medical examiner who ruled the mysterious deaths of two teenage boys "accidental" was given a hefty raise by Governor Clinton, even though a later autopsy and grand jury investigation concluded that these deaths were homicides. Later the medical examiner was promoted to a job as consultant to Joycelyn Elders, even though a prosecutor linked these deaths to drug traffickers. A convicted drug trafficker who had hired Clinton's brother was given a pardon by the governor. Earlier, Clinton had awarded this same drug trafficker a $30 MILLION state bond underwriting contract. In short, the law has long taken a back seat to Clinton's own interests and agenda. Whether as governor or as president, Bill Clinton has attacked those who have tried to enforce the law and come to the aid of law- breakers ranging from a drug dealer in Arkansas to Webster Hubbell in Washington. British statesman Edmund Burke said it all two centuries ago: "There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men." This has long been a thoroughly corrupt man and the only question now is whether he can corrupt the Senate.."
News Max.Com 12/27/98 Richard Brookhiser ".REPUBLICANS say it won't fly. But many Democrats, opinion-makers, and poll respondents say they like the idea of censure. They are reluctant to remove a President from office, but they don't want to approve of perjury and cigar parties either. Censure sounds good, and it means nothing: a perfect punishment for the age of Clinton...Censure is a non- punishment appropriate to President Clinton's non-repentance, and to the non-forgiveness he seeks from us. With one face, tear-stained, he tells us he has sinned, while with another (belonging to David Kendall) he still denies ever having had sex with Monica Lewinsky. Meanwhile Americans, between gagging and gags, tell pollsters (some of them at any rate) that it is all a private matter..."
The Village Voice 12/23-29/98 Jason Vest ".Was that a tomahawk missile in his pants or was Bill Clinton just happy to see Richard Butler's report? Even before the bombs actually rained down on Baghdad, cries of "wag the dog" went up from Capitol Hill to Dag Hammarskj"ld Plaza, and accusations characterizing the UNSCOM chairman as a geopolitical handmaiden to his beleaguered American patron began to fly like lethal airborne ordnance. Such speculation was hardly untoward: As former UNSCOM inspector Scott Ritter ably demonstrated earlier this year, Butler does seem to take the Clinton administration's input more seriously than that of his UN bosses. In another vein, it was on the same day Monica Lewinsky gave her grand jury testimony that Clinton commenced an utterly unnecessary bombing of Sudan and Afghanistan under the pretext of immediate "clear and present danger." And, if we reach a little further into the recess of memory, we recall that it was on the eve of Gennifer Flowers's revelations in 1992 that then governor Clinton returned to Arkansas to preside over the execution of a retarded African American..It's always been hard to say what's more amazing about Clinton: his willingness to use his office for self-gain, or his ability to simultaneously co-opt Republican positions and get his fellow Democrats to abandon traditional principles in the name of defending his perpetually imperiled posterior. During the Judiciary Committee's proceedings, for example, New York's Jerrold Nadler held that LBJ should have been impeached for deceiving Congress into passing the Gulf of Tonkin resolution; rather than publicly pondering if a similar standard might apply to Clinton's attacks on Iraq and Sudan, Nadler, like so many other Democrats, rallied round the flagpole.."
Creators Syndicate - www.creators.com 12/27/98 L. Brent Bozell III ".Bill Clinton's decision to unleash the dogs of war as he tip-toes on the precipice of impeachment conjures up a vision of White House defense lawyer Greg Craig appearing before Congress declaring: "The President's military action was evasive, incomplete, misleading, even maddening - but it's not impeachable." There's no dodging the suspicion that Clinton is seeking to save his bacon by dropping some megatonnage on Saddam Hussein. After all, it's just what he did when he bombed Osama bin Laden's alleged facilities in Sudan and Afghanistan this summer. Both actions were launched with little or no consultation with Congress, and with too little consultation with the service chiefs at the Pentagon. Oh my, how the talking heads like Alan Dershowitz and NBC anchor-in-training Brian Williams are going nuts over that suggestion. How vile! How unpatriotic! What hypocrites. How about the Democrats? In 1983, Clinton defender John Conyers called for Reagan's impeachment for invading Grenada. (For good measure, he earlier called for impeachment over the Gipper's alleged "incompetence" in dealing with unemployment.) In 1984, as he ran for President, and again in 1986, Jesse Jackson suggested Reagan should be subject to an impeachment probe over U.S. actions in Nicaragua. Rep. Henry Gonzalez called for impeachment in 1983 over Grenada and again in 1987 over Iran-Contra. The National Organization for Women and the American Civil Liberties Union advocated impeaching Reagan in 1987. The major media didn't thump the tub for impeachment, but did suggest forcefully that Reagan's actions were even worse than the Watergate offenses that got Richard Nixon impeached. For example, in the January 9, 1984 New York Times, then-Senior Editor John B. Oakes proclaimed: "President Reagan's consistent elevation of militarism over diplomacy creates a clear and present danger to the internal and external security of the United States. Presidents have been impeached for less." Oakes wasn't alone at the Times. On December 12, 1986, columnist Tom Wicker offered an echo: "Mr. Reagan probably won't be impeached or forced to resign - though the offenses resulting from his policy, or his somnolence on the job, are more serious than any charge the House Judiciary Committee approved against Mr. Nixon.".So where are these noble folks today? Have you noticed how the words "War Powers Act" haven't been invoked much by the liberal media in the last, oh, six years, now that a President they favor is lobbing the bombs? Where are the calls for impeachment from John Conyers and Jesse Jackson? Where are the charges of abuse of power from the editorial pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post? Nothing but silence. Stinking dead silence.."
Creator's Syndicate 12/28/98 Tony Snow ".It takes Olympian shamelessness to send private detectives after your enemies, use the artifice of law to hoodwink your friends, sew seeds of hatred everywhere -- and then beg, as Bill Clinton did on Dec. 18, to "stop the politics of personal destruction ... (and) get rid of the poisonous venom of excessive partisanship, obsessive animosity and uncontrolled anger. ..." Clinton is the undisputed master of practicing everything he condemns, whether it be the glib abuse of power in Iraq or the reduction of women to carnal playthings. But nowhere has he explored the possibilities of cynicism more fully than in his recent quest to portray Republicans as foaming vessels of hatred and himself the saintly target of their rage. Rush Limbaugh, who has taken shots at Clinton and felt the heat of returning fire, recently compiled a long litany of Democratic Party quotes. It made for riveting listening because it confirmed what many conservatives have long known: The Democratic Party has become hooked on political libel.."
Washington Times 12/31/98 Suzanne Fields ".As 1998 draws to a close, President Clinton remains commander in chief of the Men Behaving Badly Brigade. Whether or not he's forced from office, we've learned he's not very nice to women. In the war between the sexes he's a bully, not a gallant. That sounds old-fashioned, and it is. More's the pity. When his public battle with Monica Lewinsky heated up he used his power to cast a slur upon his former "playmate." He told Sidney Blumenthal that she was a "stalker" and intimated she had emotional problems. If Miss Lewinsky hadn't saved that blue dress with the DNA, the president would have used his powerful office and friends to destroy her. He said" vs. "she said" wouldn't have given Miss Lewinsky any more cover than Kathleen Willey, who received a full frontal attack by the president's men. Miss Lewinsky without the dress would have been as powerless as any Victorian upstairs maid in the house of a gentleman. Smearing a woman he had once enjoyed in a sexual relationship is not merely ungentlemanly, it's misogynistic. No matter who seduced whom in the manners of sexual relations, men have traditionally been taught to protect the woman at hand. Men who do otherwise are pigs."
Capitol Hill Blue 12/31/98 Staff and Wire reports ".Committee members refused to discuss specifics Wednesday after unanimously adopting their report and did not release the 700-page document, much of which is classified. But sources close to the committee tell Capitol Hill Blue the committee's investigation concludes: The Clinton administration allowed the transfer of sensitive technology to the Chinese, threatening US national security; Transfers of technology were approved for companies whose political action committees and executives made large contributions to President Clinton's reelection effort; China used Asian-American middlemen to launder contributions to the Clinton campaign and for a number of key Congressional campaigns; US intelligence officials had warned the White House of the Chinese efforts, but these warnings were ignored.."
The Boston Globe 12/31/98 Jeff Jacoby ".The worst political slur of 1998, to judge by the media attention it drew, was uttered by Al D'Amato, New York's Republican senator. In a private meeting with supporters during his reelection campaign last fall, D'Amato called his Democratic opponent, Representative Charles Schumer, a ''putzhead.'' Now, it is not nice to call people ''putzhead,'' and I wasn't sorry to see D'Amato spanked for his boorish language. But it is also not nice to call people white-sheeted racists, yet so far as I know, none of my media brethren spanked Illinois Senator Carol Moseley-Braun when she implied that George Will, the noted commentator, belonged to the Klan... In Salem, the superintendent of schools declared that Barbara Anderson - the state's leading taxpayer activist - ''should be tried for murder'' for her opposition to raising property levies. In Berkeley, Calif., advocates for the homeless denounced bookseller Andy Ross - who campaigned to keep vagrants from sitting and lying in the streets - as a ''fascist'' and defended the swastikas that were painted in front of his store. In Washington, Republican foes of a campaign finance bill were likened to ''terrorists'' by Gwen Ifill, a reporter for NBC. This is liberal hate speech, and I choose the word ''hate'' advisedly.. This is why Alan Dershowitz, a formidable liberal who defends rapists and murderers, could publicly curse congressmen who voted for impeachment as ''the forces of evil. Evil. Genuine evil.'' This is why Tom Shales, the Washington Post's gifted TV critic, could suggest of independent counsel Kenneth Starr: ''Beneath the dullness lies pure evil.'' This is why liberal talk show host Phil Donahue could go postal during a conversation about politics ''and begin shouting,'' as the New York Post reported this month, ''how much he hated Republicans.'' ..Repugnant stuff. Yet liberals routinely get away with injecting it into the public discourse. Just ask Starr, who would have been crucified if he had hurled at his critics the sickening libels many of them hurled at him...That is hate speech so monstrous the outcry against it should have cost Baldwin his career. But Baldwin is a liberal. So, of course, there was no outcry, and his incitement cost him nothing.."
New York Post 12/31/98 David Gelertner ".IF you think the House of Representatives did right when it impeached the President, hold the phone for a message from professor Alan Dershowitz, famed Harvard law professor. You represent ''the forces of evil, evil, genuine evil.'' Got that, or shall I repeat? .. These ''forces of evil'' presumably have a grip on the entire pro-impeachment population. That means me, and many other people who write for this newspaper, and possibly you.. Several reasons. One is a matter of perspective. The other is basic household psychology: Nothing makes a man angrier than to be wrong and know it. Certain crimes are forgivable and certain others are not. ... For Republicans, context makes forgiveness impossible. It's exactly because the man is President that letting him get away with perjury is such a dangerous idea. Laws that apply to the people apply to the President. No man is above the law. These principles are basic to American democracy; it's even possible they are taught at Harvard, although presumably not by Professor Dershowitz..Opposite viewpoints on a forgivable crime explain a lot, but not everything. They explain why certain liberals got angry, but not why they went crazy... Democrats love to talk about the rule of law, and how the Constitution applies to everyone, and how justice must be served. They enjoy lashing out against powerful men who twist the law around their little fingers, and big-shot executives who outmaneuver justice with the help of their craven staffers, and male bosses who dominate female subordinates without even trying and then chuckle about it. Democrats love to explain how government prosecutors must attack injustice no matter what, and how arrogant white males must be brought to heel, and how the legal system must do what is right, period, and to hell with public opinion. And now they are forced to listen as Republicans solemnly (while attempting to keep straight faces) repeat the whole list right back at them..."
Washington Times 12/31/98 John McCaslin ".It's a good thing Bill Clinton's bottom was spanked in the U.S.A., or else he might have a difficult time becoming an American. We've just obtained the current "Application for Naturalization" from the U.S. Department of Justice's Immigration and Naturalization Service. The form is for use by anyone who wishes to become a naturalized citizen of the United States... Take Question 3, under Eligibility Factors: "Have you at any time, anywhere, ever ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person because of ... political opinion?" More paper, Mr. Clinton? Or Question 4: "Have you ever left the United States to avoid being drafted into the U.S. Armed Forces?" ..Question 15 is more timely: "Have you ever knowingly committed any crime for which you have not been arrested?" Pass more perjury, er, paper please ... "
Worldnetdaily.com 12/31/98 John Doggett ".In fact, Bill's campaign even called me when the Gennifer Flowers story broke and asked me to speak out in defense of his morals. They knew that I had testified for Clarence Thomas a half year earlier and obviously felt that my support would help. I must confess that I made a big mistake. I thought that I could trust Bill Clinton to tell to truth about something as important as marital fidelity. I didn't think that he would use a classmate and lie to America. I was wrong on all counts..At the time I spoke, both Bill and Hillary knew that he had "sexual relations" with Ms. Flowers. Both knew that they were using one of their "friends" in the most venal and exploitative way. They apparently believed that if they lied loud enough and long enough, they could turn night into day. What's ironic is that if they had settled with Paula Jones in 1992, they just might have gotten away with it.."
worldnetdaily Alan Keyes 1/2/99 ".Many people try to pretend that the Clinton impeachment is an isolated instance caused by a mere lapse on Bill Clinton's part. We know that this is nonsense, of course, even in terms of the President's own behavior. But it is also nonsense because of the environment of lying, cover-up and law-breaking that permeates the entire administration. Such offenses have been constant characteristics of this administration, noted even by members of the press when they say that these are people who will never tell you the truth if a lie will do. This pattern of deception has also been recognized officially before, as it was in the case of Ira Magaziner when he lied about activities of the health care task force. Clinton administration officials work for a real prince of lies -- Bill Clinton -- and the administration has been characterized by a steady stream of lies. I believe that this culture of lies extends even to the phony statistics that the administration releases. The Clinton administration is simply incapable of basic integrity in dealing with the business of the country, because everything has to be twisted and distorted to serve its various power agendas. And in the current case a federal judge reached the same conclusion, noting that in the case of the investigation of the Commerce Department the Clinton administration showed "disregard for law." So these things all fit a pattern."
www.turnleft.com What Liberals Stand for ".Law is the framework in which society operates. There can be no society without justice. Justice means that those who commit crimes must be made to answer for them, and that the criminal code is fair and wisely constructed. When criminal actions go unpunished, respect for the law weakens. The law applies to all, including all agents of the government.."
Reuters 1/6/99 ".Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott said Wednesday the impeachment trial of President Clinton, which formally opens Thursday, will move forward next week even without an agreement on its duration. After an early morning meeting with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, Lott said he thought the first presidential impeachment trial in 130 years could begin without an ironclad agreement on its length or how many witnesses would be called."We made a strong representation that we need witnesses and he was not unreceptive,'' Hyde said, adding the 13 House of Representatives managers who will act as prosecutors would have to justify to the Senate the need for each witness. Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle objected to starting the trial without an agreement, and said calling witnesses would open the door to a protracted process. "My advice to the White House would be as soon as the first witness is called, all bets are off with regard to agreeing on a procedure,'' he said, because the defense would not be able to anticipate what prosecution witnesses would say. ."
Wall Street Journal 1/6/99 A22 From The Forward, Dec. 25: ".It was a Clinton classic. President Clinton stood before the Palestinian National Council and spoke of "two profoundly emotional experiences in less than 24 hours." One of those experiences was his meeting with the children of jailed Palestinian-Arab terrorists. The other experience was meeting Israelis, "some little children whose fathers had been killed in conflict with Palestinians." ..Other Israeli government sources who would speak only on condition of anonymity said Mr. Clinton never met with the Israeli children. The White House and State Department did not return calls about whether such a meeting took place. There was no such event on the public schedule of the trip.."
WorldNetDaily 1/6/99 Gabrielle Stevenson by Freeper pfesser ".You may soon hear the following ad on your local radio station: "Dear Mr. President," says the voice of a little boy. " My mom's mad at me. I was playing ball in the house when a vase got busted. My mom asked me if I broke the vase and I said 'No' because I didn't. I wasn't anywhere near it when it broke. Sure, I threw the ball that knocked over the vase, but it was the floor that actually broke it. So technically, I was telling the truth. So mom grounded me, not for breaking the vase, but for lying about it. Now I can't play Little League anymore and I'm the team's best pitcher. Could you please call my mom, Mr. President, 'cause you can explain lying better than anybody. Thanks, Joey. P.S. When I grow up I want to be president just like you." ."
American Spectator 1/99 Kenneth R. Timmerman by Freper Stand Watch Listen ".China, Iran, and North Korea already have us in their sights, yet President Clinton denies that there is any threat. It's no surprise that the same people who once caved in to the Soviets on missile defense now do the same for the Chinese.... ...Misleading statements and outright lies about America's vulnerability to missile attack have become standard fare of the Clinton administration. As president, Clinton has said more than 130 times that "no missiles" are currently aimed at the United States, a statement Clinton himself showed was patently false when he negotiated a missile de-targeting agreement with China's Communist leaders during his June 1998 trip to Peking. No less of a threat in this regard are rogue states such as Iran and North Korea, about which the administration has shown itself even more insouciant.."
Associated Press 1/8/99 Philip Brasher ".Is lying to a grand jury an impeachable offense? Vice President Al Gore thought so in 1989. So did Defense Secretary William Cohen, as well as Trent Lott and Tom Daschle, now the Senate's Republican and Democratic leaders. They were all senators when Walter Nixon, then a federal judge, was removed from the bench after being convicted and imprisoned for giving false testimony to a grand jury investigating his dealings with a business associate..The judge's case ``is quite analogous'' to Clinton's, said Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor who is writing a law journal article on the history of the impeachment process. Other legal experts disagree, saying presidents and judges are held to different standards under the Constitution. They cite a section of the Constitution that says federal judges, who are appointed for life, ``shall hold their offices during good behavior.'' There is no similar language concerning the president, elected by the whole country for a limited term. ``When a judge has committed perjury ... it was absolutely untenable that he could stay on the bench in a life-tenured position,'' said Alan I. Baron, who was the House's impeachment counsel in Judge Nixon's case. .."
AP 1/12/99. Sandra Sobieraj ".On one level, the state of the union is a breeze. "In a sentence, here's how I assess our present condition: America is working again,'' President Clinton says. Capitalize the letters - as in, State of the Union - and things get complicated. With official Washington tied up in knots over Clinton's impeachment trial, some in Congress have called for a postponement of his annual prime-time speech to a joint session of the House and Senate. But the congressional leadership has not officially asked Clinton to put it off.."
Manchester Union Leader 1/12/99 Richard Lessner by Freeper Peggy ".What a Kafkaesque spectacle! Here we have a President who was impeached by the House and is currently under trial in the Senate preparing to address those two august bodies as though nothing untoward had transpired. Apparently, Mr. Clinton was right when he said that impeachment was "Not too bad." ."
The Village Voice 1/12/98 Nat Hentoff ".The first article of impeachment in the Senate concerns the president's perjury. Except for those who believe the earth is flat, there isn't the slightest doubt that Clinton is a perjurer. His own White House chief counsel, Charles Ruff, testified before the House Judiciary Committee that a reasonable person might well conclude that the president had lied under oath. If you still have doubts, read "The Perjury Precedent" by NYU law professor Stephen Gillers on the Op-Ed page of the December 28 New York Times.."
Washington Post 1/13/99 Michael Kelly page A23 ".The lie at the heart of the vast and varied lie that is Bill Clinton's defense is that lying is a victimless crime -- something that properly exists as a moral concern only between the liar and his maker and a few people immediately affected. But this is not so. Lying corrupts, and an absolute liar corrupts absolutely, and the corruption spread by the lies of the absolutely mendacious Clinton is becoming frightening to behold. Consider just one Clinton lie. It is a simple one -- but watch its effects, and count its victims. After the Lewinsky matter broke, it soon became clear to the president that his false denial of a sexual relationship with "that woman" could not be long sustained. So, it was necessary to build an argument that could support the president when this first lie collapsed. A cornerstone of this argument was the assertion that Kenneth Starr's case against Clinton did not concern an offense against the people but was only about a personal failing. It was not about crime; it was about sex, and only sex. This lie was perpetuated most energetically, not to say hysterically, by one James Carville, a character actor who among his credits counted a recent appearance in a film extolling the constitutional virtues of pornographer Larry Flynt. ."
San Francisco Chronicle 1/13/99 Debra Saunders by Freeper hope ".Think about it. Flynt and Rivera both called Barr a ``hypocrite'' for calling for Clinton's impeachment for not disclosing his affair with Monica Lewinsky in light of the fact Barr had refused to answer questions about his infidelity back in the 1980s. That is, Barr's a hypocrite because he didn't commit perjury........................ Excuse me, but: If Clinton had done what Barr did, there wouldn't be an impeachment trial today."
City Times 1/13/99 Editorial "."a pornographic magazine" --Geraldo Rivera "the nation's number one pornographer" --Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. "sexually explicit," "offensive," "obscene" --Rep. John Conyers .Is this the evidence we've all been waiting for, of Clinton defenders distancing themselves from "the politics of personal destruction" by attacking Hustler magazine founder Larry Flynt? Alas, this is not to be. In fact none of the aforementioned quotations are directed at Mr. Flynt or Hustler. To the contrary, they are, respectively, Geraldo Rivera on the American Spectator, historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. on Judge Kenneth Starr and Rep. John Conyers, the House Judiciary Committee's ranking Democrat, on the Starr Report. In post-Monica America, a judge who happens to sing hymns is thought indecent while a skin peddler finds himself feted on network television over morning coffee and cable TV in the evening."
Chicago Tribune (Op-Ed pages), Section 1, Pg. 15 1/18/99 Charles Krauthammer by Freeper MadAsHell ".Rarely in the annals of double-think has a party distinguished itself as has the Democratic Party of Bill Clinton.........It is most delightful to watch the Democrats trying to make a straight-faced argument that the Senate trial of the president of the United States must prohibit witnesses. When it is pointed out that it is customary in the United States--as it is in Mongolia and was in Sumeria--to call witnesses in a trial, the Democrats protest that this is not a real trial.."
Daily Republican 1/19/99 Mike Rathco ".President Clinton announced what he depicted as "... the settlement," Monday saying the Columbia National Inc., a Maryland savings and loan had, "... agreed to make $6 billion in home mortgage loans available over five years to minorities and low to moderate income families in 28 states." ..However, Columbia National said there had been no such settlement. Spokespersons for the savings and loan told reporters Monday, Mr. Clinton made up the $6.5 billion figure. It said it was told by HUD that there was no finding of discrimination."
FoxNews Freeper PrinceofCups reports 1/20/99 ".Dick Morris just said that Clinton asked him how to respond if he was asked whether he had sex with Susan McDougal during Jim Guy Tucker trial. How 'bout that?."
FoxNews Freeper karth reports 1/20/99 ".With Brit Hume this afternoon, Morris said that Clinton was worried about the gifts when they talked about the polling he wanted Morris to do right after the Lewinsky story broke. Just now on Hannity and Colmes, Morris says that back in 94, Clinton told him he was worried about what to say if Starr's prosecutors asked him if he'd ever had sex with Susan McDougal in the original WhiteWater trial. Morris said this is the first time he's said this on TV.."
AP Pete Yost 1/20/99 ".What was the president doing that Sunday afternoon when he summoned secretary Betty Currie to his office and said: ``Monica came on to me, and I never touched her, right?'' He says he was just refreshing his memory. But didn't he already know the answer? .Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, said Wednesday night that some questions came to her mind as she watched the presentation by Mills, such as: Why did Clinton talk to Betty Currie, when Judge Susan Webber Wright had issued a protective order for the president not to discuss his testimony? ``And yet the next day he invited Betty Currie to the White House to have a discussion,'' Snowe said on CNN's ``Larry King Live'' show. After the day's impeachment proceedings concluded, a House manager, Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., asked why if Clinton was worried about the media why he didn't just talk to then-White House spokesman Mike McCurry? ."
Washington Post 1/21/99 George Will "."I regret that what began as a friendship came to include this conduct." -- President Clinton, Aug. 17, 1998 Such is Bill Clinton's fecundity as a liar, there still are darkly illuminating lies that are just now being scrutinized for the first time, even by people who have been attentive to this scandal. Consider the lie printed above. Like Poe's purloined letter, Clinton's lie has been in plain view. For five months. And it was neither a slip of the tongue nor a flustered response to an unexpected question. It was a carefully written part of a crafty script, coldly calculated and finely calibrated. It was in the written statement he read to the grand jury when he was asked the first question about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. But this relationship that supposedly "began" as a friendship actually became something else very quickly. The "conduct" that included oral sex (and e-mail describing the effect of chewing Altoids before performing oral sex) began the very day in 1995 that Clinton first met Lewinsky.."
NewsMax 1/21/99 Thomas Sowell ".Bill Clinton's State of the Union speech offered something to everybody -- farmers, children, Palestinians -- regardless of whether they are naughty or nice. St. Nick himself can't beat that. It was of course a shameless farce -- spending like a drunken sailor on innumerable new government programs, while "saving" the budget surplus for Social Security. But shamelessness goes with the territory when Bill Clinton is involved..He also urged that we "put a human face on the global economy" and "bring down the barriers to racial prejudice." This last phrase makes no sense, but making sense is not a requirement for popularity.."
WorldNetDaily 1/21/99 David Limbaugh ".Democrats never once concerned themselves with the potentially distracting and damaging effect the Watergate hearings would have on the president's handling of the nation's business. And I dare say the nature of that business was far more delicate and demanding than anything with which Bill Clinton has been involved during his tenure in office.."
WorldNetDaily 1/21/99 Joseph Farah ".The man is a master hypnotist. He has you mesmerized with his soothing demagoguery about peace, safety, security, prosperity. All the while he is planning pointless airstrikes, arming enemies, disarming the citizenry and buying your loyalty with your own money. Has there ever been a man who more persuasively takes credit for events, developments, trends, coincidences and acts of God over which he has no responsibility, no authority, no control, no influence? We're so much better off than we were six years ago, he reminds us. Are we? Do people really believe that? Or is it just a matter of saying it often enough so people will accept it as fact? The lies are so thick, so frequent, so blatant, so audacious, it is impossible to sort them out, to count them, much less counter them.."
Washington Times John McCaslin 1/21/99 Freeper pfesser "."As a young governor, Dale Bumpers recalled on that occasion, he had had a conversation with Mr. Truman and he still remembered what Harry told him: 'And he said -- at that time Richard Nixon was president -- he waved his arm and he said, 'the only time this country ever gets into trouble is when there is some so-and-so in the White House lying to the American people.'" ."
Reuteres 1/21/99 Daivd Wiessler ".``Ms. Lewinsky has repeatedly and forcefully denied any and all suggestions that the president ever asked her to lie,'' Kendall said. ``Ms. Lewinsky's testimony is credible and she has the motive to tell the truth because of her immunity with the independent counsel, where she gets in trouble only if she lies.'' Kendall omitted other Lewinsky testimony that might be more supportive of the House case. House prosecutors, who presented their case last week, said they hoped to respond during the question-and-answer period. ."
Navy Times 2/1/99 Bob Barr Freeper Stand Watch Listen ".Clinton's misuse of the military started Aug. 25, 1992, when Governor Clinton told the American Legion's national convention in Chicago: "As commander in chief, I will fight to ensure that our troops who must go into battle are the best trained, best equipped and the best supported in the world." ...* In each defense budget for the past five years, inadequate funding has clearly jeopardized national defense. Army Gen. John Shalikashvili, Powell's successor, warned Clinton that his budget for weapons procurement posed a national security threat that will "risk future combat readiness of the U.S. military." Based on recent testimony by the service chiefs, the president now concedes a readiness problem exists in our armed forces.."
Whom Have We Elected? - The New American 1/22/93 William F. Jasper Freeper Rodger Schultz ".The Clinton/Holmes letters also belie Mr. Clinton's claims concerning his radical anti-war activism. Back in 1978 Mr. Clinton told the Arkansas Gazette that he had only observed, not participated in, anti-war demonstrations. In an October 1992 appearance on Donahue, long after his own letter -- in which he admits to leading and organizing anti-war demonstrations -- became public, he modified his anti-war involvement position but still contradicted his 1969 admission. He told the Donahue audience, [emphasis added] "I have said repeatedly that I was in two or three marches during the course of my life as an opponent of the Vietnam War .... I did go to a couple of rallies .... I was not a big organizer of anti-war activities." ."
Capitol Hill Blue 1/27/99 Doug Thompson Freeper CHIEF negotiator ".Sid ''the Squid'' Blumenthal is a professional liar. After his appearance before Kenneth Starr's grand jury last year, he went before the TV cameras and claimed he was asked a lot of embarrassing questions about the President and First Lady's private life. The transcripts of his grand jury testimony released in Starr Report shows Blumenthal lied through his teeth. Anybody who worked with the Squid during his laughable days as a ''journalist'' knows Blumenthal wouldn't know the truth if it bit him in the ass.."
CSPAN 2 Senate Budge Committee hearings by Freeper A Whitewater Researcher ".BREAKING: FED CHIEF GREENSPAN AND SENATOR HOLLINGS: CLINTON ADMINISTRATION IS CURRENTLY RUNNING A $100 BILLION BUDGET DEFICIT."
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm 1/27/99 Public Debt to the Penny ".01/26/1999 $5,608,458,532,981.22 ."
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm 1/27/99 Public Debt to the Penny ".01/26/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03."
FoxNews 1/28/99 Martin Crutsinger AP ".Republicans, meanwhile, were even more pointed in their criticism of the plan Clinton unveiled in last week's State of the Union address. They charged that on closer examination, the administration is relying on funny bookkeeping to dodge the tough choices needed to provide retirement benefits for 75 million baby boomers. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici called Clinton's program an ``elaborate shell game'' to make the Social Security and Medicare programs appear to be in better shape than they are... And Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., said, ``The president extends the lifespan of Social Security by double-counting the projected surplus.'' Right now, Social Security is collecting $100 billion more than it needs each year to pay out current benefits. An IOU for that amount is deposited in the Social Security trust fund and the money is spent on other government programs. Clinton's new proposal would continue to employ this system -- but it would also deposit in the trust fund a second IOU representing the amount that growing surpluses will allow the government to pay down the national debt. Administration officials concede that the bookkeeping appears complex. But they say the bottom line is that Clinton's approach would reduce the national debt and put the government's books in better shape to deal with future retirement payments.."
Monica's GJ testimony Freeper mare ". For me, the best way to explain how I feel what happened was, you know, no one asked or encouraged me to lie, but no one discouraged me either. ...A: Yes and no. I mean, I think I also said that Monday that it wasn't as if the President called me and said, "You know, Monica, you're on the witness list, this is going to be really hard for us, we're going to have to tell the truth and be humiliated in front of the entire world about what we've done," which I would have fought him on probably. That was different. And by him not calling me and saying that, you know, I knew what that meant. So I -- I don't see any -- I don't see any disconnect between paragraph 10 and paragraph 4 on the page. Does that answer your question? ..Q: Did you understand all along that he would deny the relationship also? A: Mm-hmm. Yes. Q: And when you say you understood what it meant when he didn't say, "Oh, you know, you must tell the truth," what did you understand that to mean? A: That -- that -- as we had on every other occasion and every other instance of this relationship, we would deny it." ."
Associated Press 1/29/99 Laurie Kellman ".Democrats pressing for letting the public witness the Senate's deliberations in the impeachment trial of President Clinton are also fighting to keep secret another phase of the trial -- the videotaped deposition of witnesses. Democratic Sens. Tom Harkin of Iowa and Paul Wellstone of Minnesota have taken the lead in trying to prevent the Senate from going behind closed doors for the final debate on the impeachment articles. ``Let's let the sunshine in and protect the interests of the American people,'' Harkin said in a statement when he and Wellstone announced their plan to make a motion to open final deliberations. ``Openness will help heal our nation after this divisive episode.'' But both senators also voted for a Democratic plan that would have prevented the videotaped depositions next week of Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan and Sidney Blumenthal from being released publicly.."
The Washington Times 1/29/99 John McCaslin about Senator Byrd Freeper Ron in Lompoc ".his own words, in fact, from Nov. 4, 1993, when it was a Republican, Sen. Bob Packwood of Oregon, who was being pushed through the exit door. "The issue is whether or not we are going to have a double standard," Mr. Byrd began, "whether we are going to have a different standard for a senator from that which governs Joe Six-Pack or the ordinary citizen. It is whether or not we are going to add to the already regrettable perception throughout the land that we, the Senate, will not police ourselves, that we will gather around one of our own and that we will protect him. ... "Every time that one of us tarnishes the Senate by not living up to the title and high calling of senators we are hurting much more than ourselves or our families or even the constituents we serve. Every time that a member brings less than honor to this chamber, a little more of the marble of the people's trust is chipped away from this institution. ... "None of us is pure or without flaws, but when those flaws damage the institution ... it is time to have the grace to go." ."
American Spectator 1/29/99 Emmett Tyrrell Jr. ".Last weekend, when I saw Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) defending President Bill Clinton, I thought back to last September when his lechering and lying were so luridly exposed to the American people. Back then Senator Boxer called the President's behavior "wrong" and "indefensible." And when on one of the Sunday morning talk shows I saw Senator Fritz Hollings (D-S.C.) blustering in his nearly unintelligible corn-pone drawl that the Boy President's behavior was not impeachable, I thought of his earlier bluster. Last September he confessed, "We're fed up. The behavior, the dishonesty of the president is unacceptable."."
Freeper report 1/29/99 RLK ". To begin with, we are facing a situation that is obvious and obviously insane. Does anyone really believe that it is not, at the very least, inappropriate for the president of this country to be receiving oral sex in the Oval Office at the very moment he is on the phone arranging for the American military to be sent to a war zone? Not on the sane side of the boundary between sanity and profound mental disorder. But, the evidence is clear that it happened and there is no denial of it. It is obvious that Bill Clinton lied to the American people and the courts with an open defiance that approached contempt and ridicule. Bill Clinton's deceptions are not characterized as the masterful work of superior intelligence. The stuff he is pulling is the type of stuff any third grader would get slapped for. Any child could see the obvious lies and manipulations. In fact, Bill Clinton's manipulations are based not so much upon clever deception, but upon the unspoken confidence that no one can, or will, do anything about it.The only and best refutation to the assertions is their own insanity. There is no more valid refutation possible. We are attempting to reason with a man who cynically and ostentatiously marches to church with a bible displayed under his arm on an Easter Sunday and returns to nearly immediate extramarital sexual liaisons, as if he were a person of serious integrity rather than someone without serious intent, morality, or ethics. .
TAS Byron York 1/30/99 ".Lindsey, the president's closest confidant, stonewalled Kenneth Starr's grand jury for 6 months--and got away with it. He was first summoned to testify on February 18, 1998. less than a month after the Lewinsky scandal broke. Early in the questioning, Lindsey read a prepared statement to the grand jury in which he claimed that executive privilege and attorney-client privilege might prevent him from answering many of the government's inquiries.."And you understand that President Clinton is on record as saying that he would fully cooperate with the investigation?" "Yes, sir." I'm here. I'm fully cooperating." He wasn't.."
Fox News Wire 1/31/99 Freeper boston ".President Clinton's policies, not only his personal behavior, display an "absence of character,'' Democratic Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan said in an interview with The New Yorker magazine released Sunday. "There is a sort of absence of character that has been the quality of this administration,'' said the 71-year-old Moynihan, who plans to retire in 2000.. But Moynihan described "a budding triumphalism'' among Democrats over the outcome. Senate votes last week made clear that there was not the two-thirds majority required to convict Clinton and remove him from office. "And it's true that we thwarted a coup, and that's a good thing. But you have to say they (the Republicans) didn't start this. The president did,'' Moynihan said. ."
Daily Republican 2/1/99 Rich Davis ".During the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, a woman (Anita Hill) came forward with a very old, poorly corroborated story. The story was a stretch in it's attempt to accuse Judge Thomas with a watered-down sexual harassment accusation. At the time, however, it was considered to be newsworthy..An old, highly corroborated story has been discovered about the President. It is not sexual harassment. It concerns rape. And later intimidation of the victim (Juanita Broaddrick) that resulted in her signing a false affidavit for the benefit of the President. The charge is relevant to the impeachment proceedings because the President has been accused of encouraging the signing and filing of a false affidavit in a sexual harassment case (Paula Jones). The affidavit was needed to unfairly de-rail that sexual harassment claim against the President. Now, whether or not the Senate considers this old story may largely depend upon the news media. The media (NBC news), whose responsibility is to inform the public about corruption by public officials, is struggling with whether to share such information with the public... Hiding relevant information from courts is punishable by law. Hiding relevant information from citizens is a breech of responsibility. Both types of cover-ups are corrupting influences. Both are manipulative acts geared to protect, in this case, a master manipulator. Both are corrosive to the fabric of trust that should exist between our judicial branch and citizen and between media and citizen.."
Union Leader 2/2/99 Linda Bowles ". ".One is not surprised that Mills is, along with a multitude of pseudo-feminists, indifferent to Bill Clinton's multiple criminal acts as he sought to derail Paula Jones' sexual harassment lawsuit against him. After all, Paula Jones is no Anita Hill. Mills and the sisters have a heinous and hypocritical "understanding" with Bill Clinton. If he publicly supports the application of sexual harassment laws to others, they do not care if he does not apply them to himself. That hypocrisy is no surprise. But one has to be surprised at Mills' lack of outrage -- and the lack of outrage of the entire black community -- to the way this president degraded and humiliated his personal secretary, Betty Currie, who just happens to be a black woman. Bill Clinton drew Currie deeply into his own personal corruption by using her to aid and abet his adulteries with Monica Lewinsky. She arranged and facilitated their sick trysts. Bill Clinton aggressively solicited her to commit perjury, for which she might have been imprisoned.When Mills said that the "president's record on civil rights, on women's rights, on all of our rights, is unimpeachable," why did she not include the president's record on looking after the rights of Betty Currie? ."
Washington Post 2/2/99 Charles Krauthammer ".The Constitution provides impeachment for removing the president. It says nothing about findings of fact. Democrats are aghast at such extraconstitutional innovations. Well, well. Is it not the Democrats who for months have been insisting that Congress censure the president? In the House they protested loudly when their censure motion was not allowed to reach the floor. Some of the Democratic censure proposals -- remember the vogue for ``censure plus''? -- would have required a presidential admission of guilt or a hefty fine, both of which are clearly unconstitutional (the latter an explicitly prohibited bill of attainder).."
New York Post http://www.nypostonline.com/ 2/3/99 Deborah Orin Freeper A Whitewater Researcher ".EXCERPTS: "...Top Republicans blasted...Clinton's Social Security plan yesterday as phony because it uses "double-counting" - and Democratic Sen. Daniel P. Moynihan said they're right...."The Social Security proposal seems to really be smoke and mirrors...I think you've done some double-counting," Sen. Don Nickles (R-Okla.) fumed to Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin...Quipped Sen. Phil Gramm (R- Texas): "If my dear friend Secretary Rubin used accounting practices like this when he was in private practice [on Wall Street], he would be in prison today,"...Asked afterward if the Republicans are right about the double-counting, Moynihan - one of Social Security's chief advocates - nodded yes and said, "Wise and experienced persons say so."...At issue is Clinton's claim that he can use most of the government surplus to shore up the Social Security retirement system without any need now for painful choices on benefits....In 2001...a $134 billion (budget) surplus...will come from a surplus in Social Security..." ."
WorldNetDaily 2/3/99 Joseph Farah ".You see, the fix is in. It has been from the beginning. Even though you saw U.S. senators swear to carry out their constitutional duty and weigh the evidence against Clinton objectively and honestly -- forswearing their preconceived notions and political considerations -- it ain't gonna happen that way. It hasn't happened that way. And you can't expect a group of people to require the president to uphold his oath of office when they have no respect for their own oaths. In other words, the senators who voted last week to dismiss the charges against Clinton without hearing any testimony and without disputing the facts of the case lied to themselves, the American public and to God just as surely as Clinton did.."
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette 2/4/99 ". AND YOU thought the Democrats in the U.S. Senate didn't want Monica Lewinsky called as a witness because she had nothing new to say. Or maybe because she did have something new to say. Pick one, depending on your political preferences. But, no, it turns out that our fast-growing Party of Polls and Perjury wants to--get this--protect and preserve the dignity of the young lady...Why didn't these Democrats, for they are all honorable men since their titles say so, stand up for this damsel in distress when she was first swept up in this political maelstrom? Why didn't they seek to preserve the dignity of that twentysomething intern when the White House was planting those stories about Monica the Stalker? Stories that, according to Sidney Blumenthal, our ever impeachable source, came straight from the president's mouth.."
Wall Street Journal 2/5/99 ".The feminists have impaled themselves with their Clinton defense. Who can possibly take their next moral crusade seriously? Barbara Boxer has earned cult status in the annals of political hypocrisy. Sexual harassment law won't be reformed, alas, but the public now sees these cases as the political gambits that most of them are. The left is now long on Bill Clinton. Once their votes save him, Senate Democrats may want to hire a chaperone because the next scandal is on their credit card. They'll be the ones who kept him around to do it again. This means 21 months of nightmares and cold sweats. Had Mr. Clinton been removed, he would have been a martyr and Al Gore would have two years to act presidential. Now the veep must win the presidency in his own right, while carrying the heavy backpack of his boss's ethics..From civil rights to Watergate, liberalism's trump was its moral high-mindedness. In covering for Bill Clinton, the left has shown that what it really cares about now is power. Democrats have excused campaign-finance violations because "everybody does it," perjury because "it's just about sex," and trashing an individual civil-rights plaintiff because Mr. Clinton is good on civil-rights in general. (The last was Cheryl Mills's defense). So much for moral authority..."
Creators Syndicate 2/7/98 Linda Bowles ".The president's guilt of serial felonies is beyond dispute. The rationalization that he must not be thrown out of office is centered on the idea that his crimes involve a private matter totally unrelated to his public duties as president. Deputy White House Counsel Cheryl Mills, a black woman, was talking to this point when she argued before the Senate, "I'm not worried about civil rights, because this president's record on civil rights, on women's rights, on all of our rights, is unimpeachable." One is not surprised that Mills is, along with a multitude of pseudo-feminists, indifferent to Bill Clinton's multiple criminal acts as he sought to derail Paula Jones' sexual harassment lawsuit against him. After all, Paula Jones is no Anita Hill. Mills and the sisters have a heinous and hypocritical "understanding" with Bill Clinton. If he publicly supports the application of sexual harassment laws to others, they do not care if he does not apply them to himself. That hypocrisy is no surprise. But one has to be surprised at Mills' lack of outrage - and the lack of outrage in the entire black community - to the way this president degraded and humiliated his personal secretary, Betty Currie, who just happens to be a black woman. ."
Washington Times 2/9/99 John McCaslin Freeper dwhite02".One 12-year-old boy, Derek Robertson of Stafford, Va., came up with a stamp depicting current events. Inside the Beltway asked the boy's mother if we could print his proposal, and she said by all means. "My new postage stamp would be about honor," Derek wrote on his application. "This nation is in need of that dearly with the reputation America has right now. On the stamp, you could have a picture of Bill Clinton in court raising his hand to be sworn in and dishonoring our country and its people by lying and making America look like a comic show. There would be a circle around that picture and a line going through it. And at the top of the stamp, the word 'HONOR' would be printed in big giant letters."."
Manchester Union Leader 2/10/99 Richard Lessner Freeper RR ". When snarling independent counsels were fully occupied harrying Republicans, the American Bar Association just loved the law it had helped create in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal. Now that the tables have turned, however, and a Democrat President has become the target of the independent counsel law, well, the ABA has changed its mind. Suddenly the bar association says the law should be allowed to expire.."
http://www.usia.gov/current/news/latest/99021003.tlt.html?/products/washfile/newsitem.sh tml 2/10/99 Transcript Freeper gocowboys ".... Q: Joe, you just said that you had no reason to doubt Sidney's testimony. Does that mean that you are now acknowledging that the President told Sidney Blumenthal that Monica was a stalker, that she -- and that she made an advance on him and he rebuffed her? LOCKHART: Again, I have no reason to doubt that Sidney did not testify truthfully in his grand jury testimony and his deposition before the Senate. Q: So you're saying that the President did say that Monica Lewinsky was a stalker? LOCKHART: I'm saying that I haven't had this conversation with anyone, but I have no reason to doubt that Sidney didn't testify truthfully. Next.."
Roll Call 2/10/99 Mort Kondracke ".Despite the lock-step loyalty Democrats have shown President Clinton on impeachment, many of them fear he will sell them out this year on budget issues. Liberals fear he may cut a deal with Republicans on tax cuts in order to get a Social Security bill that gives him a legacy other than scandal. Meantime, New Democrats fear he's in the process of selling out necessary reforms of Medicare and Social Security in order to keep the Democratic base happy. "Given the record, you never can tell with this guy" is a refrain repeated over and over among Democratic Members and top staffers of both camps about Clinton..At the House Democratic retreat this week at Wintergreen, Va., Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.) was quoted as warning colleagues that they could not be seen as the party of obstruction this year. Still, Democrats will pursue a strategy of "our way or no way" -- demanding GOP capitulation on key policy issues and practicing "principled obstruction" of "bad policy." .."
The Washington Times 2/12/99 Wesley Pruden ". Shame is always scarce in Washington, but some of these worthies have less of it than Bill Clinton. After Sidney testified that he had never passed on the skinny that Bill Clinton was telling everyone what a stalker Monica was, and then was caught in the lie when his pal Christopher Hitchens said Sidney did so tell him that, Arlen Specter started calling around to see what kind of dirt he could find on Sidney. He was determined not to let anybody get by with lying to a senator, even though it's perfectly OK for a president to lie to a grand jury.. "
Fox News- Brit Hume Show 2/12/99 Freeper navigator reports ".John Zogby just announced on the Brit Hume show on FoxNews that his latest poll shows NO erosion of support for Republicans. Quite the contrary, 50.4% identify themselves as R's to 49.6% Democrats when the two groups are compared. This represents a net change of ZERO. Or NO BACKLASH against the Republicans over Impeachment. ."
Fox News Wire 2/12/99 ".They called him heinous, immoral, repugnant and shameful - and these are Senate Democrats who will try to steer President Clinton's policies through Congress for the remaining 20 months of his term. Democrats have relied on sometimes tortured rhetoric to explain how they would never condone the behavior the leader of their party has displayed but think he should remain president anyway. "He's demeaned the office, spoken untruths, misled the American people, lied to the American people, lied to his colleagues, and he did all kinds of heinous things ... done all of the things you do not expect of a president - short of, I think, committing impeachable crimes,'' Sen. Herbert Kohl of Wisconsin said Thursday, the day before he cast his votes to acquit Clinton. A resolution to censure Clinton, pushed Friday by Democrats who wanted to make sure their constituents did not confuse acquittal with approval, said equally ugly things about the president.."
Elephants! Newsletter Charles P.T. Moore 2/12/99 ".Let's think about this. The Democrats have squandered any pretense of moral authority that they claim to have had. For what? To defend Bill Clinton. Who is Bill Clinton to the Democrats? He is the President who has presided over the single greatest loss of legislative seats in the history of the country. He has presided over the greatest defection of elected officials from any party in the history of the country. He is the first elected President ever to be impeached. He has presided over welfare reform, the execution of a mentally retarded prisoner. He has armed the Chinese so that they might threaten our country. He has allowed the North Koreans, the North Koreans of all countries, to develop missile which can hit American soil. He has destroyed the Middle East Peace Process. He has destroyed sexual harassment law. He has made it so that bosses can now once again prey on subordinates whom they have authority over for sexual gratification and if they complain about it, he has made it so that they can be destroyed by delving into the victims' sexual history... The bottom line is that when it counted, the Democrats stood up in favor of lying, of perjury, of witness tampering, of destroying and hiding subpoenaed evidence, of intimidating witnesses, of misusing government officials and offices to lie as a part of rigging a civil trial, of violating a unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court that the president is like the rest of us. They will all have to bear the burden of shame for this. Not the Republicans. And Democrats did it to save a President who has lost the House to the Republicans for three straight elections for the first time in five generations.."
NEW YORK POST 2/13/99 STEVE DUNLEAVY ".Yet, there was Clinton rehearsing his Oscar material, complete with reddened eyes, and he comes up with this word, this smirking word, forgiveness. He used it when a reporter asked if he could forgive and forget. His response: "I believe any person who asks for forgiveness has to be prepared to give it." We have to ask his forgiveness? The boy has lost it. There is something sociopathic, psychopathic or downright arrogant about this president. This guy who wags his finger at the country telling us a constant tissue of lies somehow can't help himself. It starts with the original flawed character: A complete show on "Nightline" in 1992 denying that he'd ever had an affair outside of marriage and wasn't a draft dodger. Do you know what? He was so good at his first Oscar- winning award in those days that I believed him. Then he went on "60 Minutes" denying his affair with Gennifer Flowers, and I, and the collective nation, believed him. We should have checked our brains at the door. He told us American troops would only be in Bosnia for one year. We believed him. He blamed the Republicans for the shutdown of government, and we believed him.. He talks on the day of his impeachment to a bunch of his brain-dead cheerleaders about ending the politics of personal destruction. Personal destruction? He has left a whole cemetery full of emotional corpses wherever he goes.."
THE WASHINGTON TIMES 2/12/99 Greg Pierce ".Wednesday on "Larry King Live," Mr. Bennett let loose with his indignation: "Here's the worst thing. Apart from wagging the finger in the face of the American people, it was using this girl, as he called her, and then being prepared to destroy her. And if the Democratic Party wants to swallow that, he was also corrupting a witness at the same time. If the feminists want to swallow that, I want to know how they take that down." Mr. Bennett went on to say, "This is not female problems. This is not a soft spot for girls. This is a man who uses women and destroys them -- destroyed her reputation. 'She's a stalker. She stalked me.' ... Am I the only person in America who is shocked by this?"."</UL.
Progressive Review 2/12/99 Sam Smith Freeper incognito ".The polling data that pro-Clinton media have used to sway public opinion has been highly distorted as well. A fair summation of the public's view would be that it has been consistently conflicted. For e xample, three quarters of the public believed Clinton committed the crime of perjury but almost that many didn't want him removed from office and gave him high marks for his performance as president. And that's just part of the confusing story. A recent survey by the Center on Policy Attitudes finds, for example, that the percent of Ameri cans who trust the federal government has dropped from 38% in 1997 to 21% today. Back in the 1960s 75% of Americans said they trusted the government. Thus at the height of the president's popularity, few trust his government.."
Chicago Sun-Times 2/15/99 Robert Novak ".After once threatening to abandon the president for reprehensible personal conduct, they militantly defended him after learning of substantial evidence that he had engaged in a cover-up.. The proliferation of so many Sandman look-alikes is explained by them as reaction to the tactics of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr and the House Republican managers. But the real source of their support was suggested by the much-criticized remarks of Sen. Robert Byrd, the Senate's senior Democrat. He said what many colleagues feel: Clinton is surely guilty of impeachable offenses but is too valuable to remove from office. No narrow partisan, Byrd is talking about Clinton's value to the nation. But during last year's campaign, I encountered many Democrats who saw the president as their political savior. ."
Original Sources 2/15/99 Mary Mostert ". The DEMOCRATS agree that Bill Clinton "violated the trust of the American people" and deserves the "condemnation of the American people and the Congress" - but they still want him to remain president. The DEMOCRATS say they believe his conduct with a subordinate employee was "reprehensible" but they don't think his reprehensible conduct is anyone else's business? So, then why did they urge that censure resolution be passed? If the conduct of the president is none of anyone else's business, how come the Democrats think he ought to be scolded for it? And, it is the DEMOCRATS, in a bloc, 100% of them, with a small sprinkling of Republicans, who voted to acquit this president and "remains subject to criminal and civil penalties" for his conduct, once out of office.. In his 1831 trip to America, almost 45 years after Washington's Farewell Address, Alexis de Tocqueville, observed, "Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the greatness and the genius of America .... America is good. And if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great." ."
Washington Post 2/15/99 David Broder ".In a statement explaining his votes to convict President Bill Clinton of perjury and obstruction of justice, Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, an influential Republican voice on foreign policy, raised the most important question left unanswered by the Senate's acquittal verdicts: Is Mr. Clinton still trusted enough to lead? ''The president of the United States is the most powerful person in the world, because we are the strongest country economically and militarily - and in the appeal of our idealism,'' Mr. Lugar said. But a president can exert that influence only to the extent that ''he personifies the rule of law that he is sworn to uphold and protect.'' ''We must believe him and trust him if we are to follow him,'' Mr. Lugar said. ''His influence on domestic and foreign policies comes from that trust.'' Mr. Lugar's words, and his votes, carry special weight because there is no one on Capitol Hill with wider contacts in the international community and no one whose views on foreign policy sway more colleagues in both parties... "
Washington Times Greg Pierce 2/16/99 Freeper Lance Romance "."The eloquence and dignity with which the 13 House 'managers' defended the rule of law and sexual harassment will remain shining moments in the history of the women's movement," the Dulles Area Chapter of the National Organization for Women said in a prepared statement yesterday. .The Dulles group's statement continued: "Even though its outcome had been predetermined when the Democrat senators decided to vote as one block, the courage the 'managers' displayed in presenting their case under a vicious barrage of organized ridicule calls for recognition and applause. "Although we believe Mr. Clinton is guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice as charged, we accept the judgments rendered by the Senate. We are, however, unmoved by the display of moral outrage Democrats profess to feel toward a man they otherwise passionately support, someone we concluded uses and abuses women and then seeks to destroy those who attempt to expose the harm they suffered. "American women deserved better than the year of unabashed sexism we just endured, relentlessly fueled by a political party we have long supported. Given the shameless performance of the NOW four National officers and of the National Board, Dulles NOW will continue to ask for their resignation and we will not rejoin the organization until such blessed event occurs." .."
Catholic World News 2/16/99 ".Christian leaders on Friday criticized the US Senate's decision to acquit President Bill Clinton of impeachment charges that he lied in a civil rights case and obstructed justice following revelations of an illicit affair. "Allowing Bill Clinton to get away with what he's done completely undercuts the legal and moral foundations of American society and deals a severe blow to women who are fighting sexual predators in the workplace," Randy Tate, executive director of the Christian Coalition, said in a statement. He added that the acquittal leaves a permanent scar on the rule of law. James Dobson of Focus on the Family echoed his comments, saying: "This is indeed a sad day in our nation's history. The Office of the President has been severely damaged not only by President Clinton's shameless actions, but by the Senate's failure to remove him." He also condemned the liberal Republican Senators who voted with the Democrats to acquit Clinton, but added high praise for the House managers who tried the case. "We are indebted to them for their devotion to our Constitution and to the good of this country," he said. .."
Chattanooga Free Press 2/16/99 Editorial Freeper newsman ".What are the United States senators who voted not to convict President Bill Clinton for lying under oath to a federal grand jury going to tell U.S. District Judge Walter Nixon now? Judge Nixon was impeached and removed from office in 1989 for giving a "false or misleading statement to a grand jury." At that time, Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis., summed up the situation clearly when he said: "One might argue, as Judge Nixon does, that his false statements were not material. ... But Judge Nixon took an oath to tell the truth and the whole truth. As a grand jury witness, it was not for him to decide what would be material. That was for the grand jury to decide. So I am going to vote "guilty' on articles I and II. Judge Nixon lied to the grand jury. He misled the grand jury. These acts are criminal and warrant impeachment." When the vote was taken on Judge Nixon's guilt, 27 Democrats who remain in the Senate today and 21 Republicans still in the Senate were among those who provided the two- thirds vote to remove Judge Nixon from office. But when the showdown vote came last week on whether to remove President Clinton from office for the identical offense that ousted Judge Nixon, all 27 of those Democrats who voted to remove Judge Nixon voted not to remove President Clinton, and five of the Republicans who voted to oust Judge Nixon voted not to oust Mr. Clinton.."
NewsMax 2/16/99 Linda Bowles ".Unfortunately, the end of the impeachment trial of William Jefferson Clinton is not the end of the story. In fact, as many understood from the start, the only way to get this sorry mess behind us was to get Clinton behind us. But Clinton didn't have the good grace to resign and spare us the misery and humiliation of the past 15 months, and his party did not have the courage to convict him and spare us the probable misery and humiliation of the next two years. One cannot but help feel a measure of compassion for Democrats. While all of us have to live with an impeached president Clinton in the times ahead, Democrats have the additional burden of suffering him as the sub-standard bearer of their party.. How could anyone not be stunned by the pathetic efforts of Senate Democrats to rally support for this censure of the president after they had voted in a block to find him not guilty of essentially the same offenses for which they wished to censure him? What is the Democrat logic? .How does Byrd reconcile his judgment that Bill Clinton is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors with his vote to acquit him of high crimes and misdemeanors? He explains that you can't impeach a "popular president." He did what the "people" wanted him to do. He and his fellow Democrats have set a pernicious precedent that the opinion poll, being the measure of what the "people" want, is the ultimate arbiter, with the power to nullify what the law says, what facts and evidence reveal, what the Constitution demands, and what justice requires. If the shouts and threats of the mob outside the courthouse are heard and heeded inside, the O.J. Simpsons of the world -- and, alas, the Bill Clintons -- will walk free. Thank God for the Republicans in the Congress who had the courage to challenge this president. One shudders at what might have been his sins and excesses if the Congress had been controlled by Democrats.."
CNN 2/17/99 ".What about the Lewinsky scandal's effect on youth views of right and wrong? Most adults think Clinton's behavior has made children feel that you can sometimes lie and get away with it. Adults also think Clinton's behavior has made children feel that important people can break the law and get away with it. But here's the good news: 11- to 17-year-olds report that Clinton's behavior has not affected them that way. Only 40 percent say his behavior has made them feel that lying is OK. And only 42 percent say Clinton has taught them that influential people can get away with breaking the law."
NewsMax.com Inside Cover 2/17/99 ".National Organization for Women (NOW) chief Patricia Ireland confessed in late January that she had made no attempt to contact Juanita Broaddrick, who, court documents claim, was "forcibly raped and sexual assaulted" by then-Arkansas attorney general Bill Clinton 21 years ago. "I heard her name for the first time only a few days ago," Ireland told WABC radio's Sean Hannity, who brought the Clinton rape allegation to her attention on his Fox News Channel TV show. But a source who spoke to Broaddrick herself threw cold water on Ireland's alibi, telling Inside Cover that he had called her NOW office two days before she claims to have heard Broaddrick's name for the first time. Ireland's assistant had promised to bring Broaddrick's story to Ireland's attention that day. The NOW staffer was briefed on the apparent cover-up underway at NBC, which filmed an eight hour interview with Broaddrick on Jan. 20. NOW was provided with information on how to reach Broaddrick directly. But a week later Ireland was still pleading ignorance, telling Hannity only that the charge would be very serious if Clinton was "convicted." Ireland did not explain why NOW had not waited for convictions in the Clarence Thomas and Bob Packwood cases, before throwing their full support behind sexual harassment charges against each. ."
Newsday 2/16/99 James Pinkerton ".Whereas in 1995 Clinton acknowledged that critics had raised "legitimate questions about the way affirmative action works," his own vice president has since assaulted the legitimacy of the questioners. Last July 16, Al Gore spoke to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in Atlanta: "I've heard the critics of affirmative action," he declared. "I've heard those who say we have a color-blind society. They use their color-blind the way duck hunters use a duck blind: They hide behind it and hope that the ducks won't notice." The obvious implication of Gore's words was that enemies of affirmative action are to blacks what hunters are to ducks. Such inflammation is to be expected from Louis Farrakhan, not from the vice president of the United States."
JWR 2/17/98 Cal Thomas ".OF ALL THE RIVERS OF LIES that have flowed from the Clinton administration, none will have a greater impact than the stream of bogus assertions that public and private morals are separate. A U.S. News and World Report poll taken immediate after the President's acquittal shows the public isn't buying the administration's line -- or never did. According to the poll, 56 percent of the public believes Bill Clinton is the least moral of all our modern presidents, including Richard Nixon. Sixty-four percent believe the Clinton sex scandal and the President's subsequent impeachment will have a negative effect on the country's moral fiber. Sixty-one percent think it will cause children to have less respect for the country and the presidency. Forty-eight percent directly blame Clinton for the controversy, while just 20 percent blame Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. Until now, none of this has been reflected in the big media or by politicians for whom "compartmentalization'' was the only creed. ."
The Manchester Union Leader 2/18/99 Richard Lessner ". You're Bill Clinton. You're President of the United States. You were impeached and acquitted. Today you're visiting New Hampshire. You're probably feeling pretty good today because you got away with it. All of it. You dishonored your office, betrayed your oath, dragged the nation through a tawdry year-long sex scandal when you could have stopped it before it began simply by telling the truth. You lied your way out of the Monica Lewinsky scrape just as you lied your way out of military service back in the 1960s. You've lied about so many things, to so many people, for so long that you no longer are capable of telling the truth without hedging or weaseling. You lie so habitually, so pathologically, that for you even common everyday words have lost their meaning. Doubtless you're still chuckling about your quibbling over the definition of "is." .."
newsmax 2/18/99 Robert Novak ".In 2013, money pouring out of the government to pay Social Security benefits will exceed taxes coming in to finance the system. What does President Clinton's much-ballyhooed proposal to save Social Security do about this? Absolutely nothing. That is the dirty little secret in post-impeachment Washington. Only a few Republicans understand the White House deception. The president's economic team adamantly refuses to talk about it. Its principal spokesman, National Economic Director Gene Sperling, will not publicly admit that the Clinton plan fails to delay for one minute the 2013 day of reckoning. David Walker, the non-partisan comptroller general of the United States, confirmed this reality to the Senate Finance Committee last week in language that, though bureaucratic, was clear: "The president's proposal does not alter the projected cash-flow imbalances in the Social Security program." Indeed, said Walker, Clinton's overall approach "is extremely complex and confusing." The bottom line is that the president's plan does not "save" Social Security as he has promised for more than a year.."
CNS 2/1/99 Charles Colson Freeper hope ".At the National Prayer Breakfast this month, President Clinton described how hard his administration had worked to pass the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998--a law designed to fight the torture and murder of people of faith around the world. A few days later, the president's budget was unveiled. How much money did the president earmark to enforce the Religious Freedom Act? Not one plug nickel.."
Wall Street Journal 2/19/99 Review and Outlook ".If he had been somehow removed, he could parade as martyr and no one would much rise to say him nay. Acquittal, if that's what we're to call the hung jury, is instead freeing withheld truth. Judge Susan Webber Wright is considering holding him in contempt for his lies to her court in the Paula Jones case. With the revelations about the Juanita Broaddrick story by Dorothy Rabinowitz alongside1, perhaps NBC President Andy Lack will stop censoring his news division. Webb Hubbell is still in court, albeit before Clintonista Judge James Robertson. Susan McDougal goes on trial next month for criminal contempt in refusing to say whether Mr. Clinton perjured himself over the key Whitewater loan. The delicious prospect of Hillary Clinton running for the Senate in New York will provide occasion to revisit the $100,000 commodities coup, the Castle Grande land flips, missing billing records and the rest. Mr. Clinton's continued tenure, too, provides the opportunity to explore how similar habits have bent public policy. The Cox report on technology transfer to China is still pending, for example. We divine from rivers of ink in The New York Times that Robert Rubin and Larry Summers, on whose watch the world economic crisis erupted, are preparing to blame it on too free markets and too much foreign investment. We hope we're not alone in exploring what part the late Ron Brown and his Commerce Department's flying fund-raisers played in the investment process.In the largest sense, though, it is not Mr. Clinton's small lies that matter. His whole career has been a lie.. Impeachment made this more evident than ever, with the liberal interest groups returning Mr. Clinton's favor with their own lies in his behalf. David Frum caught their position neatly in The Weekly Standard: "Apparently, requiring presidents to tell the truth under oath is the first step on a slippery slope to the prosecution of fornication and the outlawing of abortion." Democratic self-parody clearly opens an opportunity for Republicans with the positive agenda, but we wish it were clearer that they would seize it.."
Federalist Digest 2/19/99 Editors ".For seven months, Mr. Clinton's operatives and his media apostles have characterized his impeachment as a ''partisan Republican'' effort. And they have employed the likes of pornographer Larry Flynt to make hay of Mr. Livingston's short-lived Speakership as a fine example of Republican hypocrisy. But who are the real ''partisans and hypocrites''? A bit of elementary math exposes the answer to the first question. In the House, taking the sum of the votes on the original four articles of impeachment, there were 912 GOP votes cast, and 786 (86%) voted with party leadership. Thus, 126 (14%) voted no with the Democrats. On the other hand, there were 818 Democrat votes cast, and 802 (98%) voted with party leadership, while only 16 (2%) voted with Republicans. In the Senate, on Article One, 18% of Republicans crossed party lines. On Article Two, 9% of Republicans crossed party lines. No Democrats broke ranks with their party leadership. Now, we ask, who are the ''partisans''? On the question of hypocrisy, as we noted in The Federalist edition 99-02, ''Mr. Clinton's defenders (with a few outstanding exceptions) claim that lying under oath does not 'rise' to the level of 'high crimes and misdemeanors.' But 27 Senate Democrats sitting in judgment of Mr. Clinton today voted in 1989 to remove Judge Walter Nixon from office for giving a 'false or misleading statement to a grand jury'.''.. All 27 of those Democrats who voted to convict and remove Judge Nixon voted to acquit Mr. Clinton on perjury charges.Now, we ask, who are the ''hypocrites''? ."
Freeper Allan Favish 2/19/99 observes ".If Juanita Broaddrick is telling the truth about the rape, then Clinton committed perjury when he testified in his deposition in the Jones case that he has "never sexually harassed a woman...." Judge Susan Weber Wright must investigate the Broaddrick claim.."
Heterodoxy 2/99 Noemie Emery ".THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL of William Jefferson Clinton may be a spine-tingling drama of law and bad feeling, but it is also a story of another sort: the implosion of our very first feminist government-the first of its kind in our national history-as it cracks under the strain of its own constantly regendered deviance. In this bizarre spectacle, the feminist male is revealed as a serial abuser, defamer, and groper of women; the feminists denounce their own laws and precedents; and the First Lady-hailed at the start of the administration as the apotheosis of an empowered Strong Woman-is adored now as an old kind of feminine victim, and seeks a new path to redemption and power as the most mistreated woman in the world.."
Stephanie Salter 2/29/99 "…It is with a heavy heart and not a little nausea that I resign from the Bill Clinton defense team. I have run fresh out of the benefit of the doubt and can no longer bend way over backward. Saddest of all, the cost of keeping a staunch defender of reproductive rights sitting in the White House just climbed out of my price range. Like all Americans, I got to choose this past week whether I believe Bill Clinton or a 56-year-old Arkansas nursing home operator named Juanita Broaddrick. Unlike the legions who came before her, Broaddrick did not allege that sometime during the last two decades she had a consensual sexual affair with Clinton. She didn't say that he made a pass (crude or benign), which she rebuffed and he never tried again. Broaddrick said Clinton raped her. Not a jump-from-the hedges stranger rape. A "date" rape. The kind that rarely results in an arrest, let alone a conviction, because it almost always comes down to the man's word against the woman's….In truth, Broaddrick had absolutely nothing to gain by speaking up now and everything to lose, especially her privacy and good name. The impeachment trial is over, the statute of limitations on the alleged crime has long run out. As NBC's exacting research revealed, no rightwing foundation seems to be bankrolling Broaddrick. No book agent has promised a contract. Her upper middle-class lifestyle, 18-year marriage, non-existennt police record and apparent lack of any psychosis indicate a solid, believable citizen. Meanwhile, there is the word of the man she has accused. It is good for nothing…."
Capitol Hill Blue 2/28/99 Daniel Harris "…As the White House maintains an official silence on Juanita Broaddrick's charges of rape, Bill Clinton has admitted privately to his closest advisors he was with her at the Camelot Hotel in Little Rock on April 25, 1978, and that they did have sex, but he claims the sex was consensual, not forced. "The President has admitted to his closest advisors that he and the woman had a sexual encounter on that morning, but he maintains it was consensual sex and says he did not, in any manner, assault her," one White House source confirmed over the weekend. "It is a very, very sticky situation." …"
Long Island Newsday 2/28/99 Editorial "…Why Kosovo and not Rwanda? Washington stayed out of the Tutsi-Hutu conflict that killed a half million Africans. Why? No national interests were at stake, no alliance was threatened. It would have taken more than a million peacekeepers to make a difference. The logistics would have been nightmarish, the expense horrendous. Lesson: We intervene where it's relatively easy and not terribly expensive and where others can take up the burden alongside us…."
Jewish World Review 3/1/99 Tony Snow Freeper Marcellus "…This president treats women like throw-away pleasure vessels and beats up on them, physically or psychologically, after the fact. The Broaddrick story has chilling echoes in the tale of Kathleen Willey -- who discovered that the only thing worse than giving in to Bill Clinton is talking about it. We have reached the sorry state in which millions of Americans now suspect a rapist runs our country -- and that he is able (that old rascal!) to evade justice simply by refusing to acknowledge that the concepts of right and wrong apply to his private behavior. But this inaction has consequences. Barbara Ledeen of the Independent Women 's Forum says a dozen or more women called her office in tears the day after the Broaddrick interview ran on TV. They worried the president had declared open season on women and effectively granted a pardon…"
Jewish World Review 3/1/99 Cal Thomas Freeper Marcellus "…Immediately following Broaddrick's rape charge against Bill Clinton, there was a deafening silence from the National Organization for Women crowd. Feminists have submitted to this president and allowed him to abuse them for the cause of abortion and gay rights. How anti-woman. How pathetic....First it was a bailout on sexual harassment laws in the Paula Jones case. Now it is inattention to a charge of rape against a man who is president of the United States. Why should feminists ever be listened to again? They have been accessories in Bill Clinton's raping of America, its laws and its virtue…."
National Post 3/2/99 David Frum Freeper praise "…Last September, as the Democrats in Congress were worrying whether to defend Bill Clinton or to break with him, one of them asked him at a private meeting for a promise that there would be "no more surprises." Mr. Clinton gave his word. SUPRISE!…"
The Salt Lake Tribune 3/2/99 Editorial "…In other circumstances, that supporting evidence still might not be enough to justify publication of such a story about the president of the United States, particularly when he has denied the charge in a statement issued by his lawyer. By now, however, there is no presumption of believability favoring the president. He denied the Gennifer Flowers story for six years, then admitted that he had a sexual relationship with her. He denied Paula Jones's charge of a crude advance in a Little Rock hotel, but he paid her $800,000 to settle her lawsuit. He denied the Monica Lewinsky story for eight months to anyone and everyone with an interest in knowing, then admitted it was true. So the legal presumption of innocence has been lost with the press, although it still may apply in the court system…. "Where have we gone when an unsubstantiated allegation becomes a fact if others report it?" he [Lanny Davis] asked. "It is not corroborated because her girlfriend saw her with a swollen lip. That doesn't make the charge of rape a fact." But because of Clinton's history of dissembling and lying about these personal matters, the answer to "where have we gone" is that we have gone to a situation in which the word of the president of the United States is greeted with deep skepticism….."
The Kansas City Start 3/3/99 Mark Bredemeier "…"He was such a different person at that moment," murmurs Broaddrick, through tears. "He was just a vicious, awful person." Her testimony is disturbing and credible. Perhaps too credible. Apparently the top brass at NBC was looking for another Gennifer Flowers tryst to hype ratings, not tears from a violent attack. NBC sat on the interview for a month, claiming a need to firm up details. Bunk! The Wall Street Journal "outed" the Broaddrick story on Feb. 19 and the interview was finally televised last Wednesday…. On the other hand, how feminists respond to the Broaddrick affair will establish their legacy in the post-feminist era. We will learn if they are serious about protecting all women from all sexually predatory males in the workplace, even guys named Clinton or Kennedy. Their responses to the claims of Flowers, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey and Monica Lewinsky have not been encouraging. Remember Bob Packwood? …Then there was Clarence Thomas…. Of all the flags raised by the women's movement in recent years, none flies higher than the double standard. As conservative author William Bennett recently remarked, "If you're gonna be a rapist, be pro-choice (on abortion)." He could have added liberal and Democrat…"
The Village Voice 3/3/99 Nat Hentoff Freeper Roscoe Karns "…On Frontline, Tony Marley, a consultant at the State Department in 1994, says that a Clinton administration official cautioned him that in view of the coming congressional elections, the Democrats could lose votes if Clinton "admitted that genocide was taking place in Rwanda and was seen to do nothing about it. . . . It indicated to me that the calculation was based on whether or not there was popular pressure to take action— rather than taking action because it was the right thing to do." William Jefferson Clinton survives because of his close— often daily— attention to polls telling him the popular thing to do…."
Jewish Task Force 3/3/99 Aryeh ben Moishe "…Can one imagine what the left-wing news media would be doing now if it had been revealed that a conservative Republican President had sadistically raped a woman 20 years ago?
We need not rely on our imagination to determine what the media reaction would be. When Clarence Thomas was first nominated for the U.S. Supreme Court, he was reviled by the left for defining himself as a black conservative. Thomas was accused of merely engaging in verbal sexual harassment against Anita Hill. Hill never accused Thomas of ever doing anything physical. She claimed that he essentially propositioned her. There were no witnesses to the Hill allegations, and Clarence Thomas eloquently and forcefully denied the charges. Furthermore, no one else had ever made such an accusation against Thomas. And so he had no "history" of doing such things…. Now let us compare this to what has happened to the Satanic serpent Bill Clinton. Clinton is accused not of verbal harassment, but of numerous instances of physically assaulting and even raping women. And these are not the mere accusations of one woman, but the credible and substantiated accounts of many….. With revelations like these, if Clinton were a Republican, is there any doubt that he would long ago have been removed from office? Yet NBC, owned by the multinational General Electric Corporation, had this story since early January and refused to air it. Could this be the same Tom Brokaw of NBC who was the first to reveal the name of William Kennedy Smith's rape victim contrary to her wishes? Significantly, the left-wing, Clinton-loving media keep referring to Mrs. Broaddrick's violent rape as a mere "sexual assault," in a transparent attempt to whitewash and minimize the gravity of Clinton's offense…."
Seattle Times 3/5/99 Freeper Publius "…At the center is a man who continues to hide in the White House behind a phalanx of lawyers; a man who has abused the public's trust with his lies. He is hard to believe, whether he's talking about a rape accusation, a new children's program or the bombing of Iraq. He is hard to believe, all the time…"
Observation 6/30/98 by Migdia Chinea-Varela "You may remember several months ago, a high- level Texaco executive was hailed as a hero for surreptitiously taping private conversations with other Texaco executives during which it was revealed that his co-executives referred to their African-American employees as "black jelly beans . Why is it then, that similar tapings made by Pentagon employee Linda Tripp of phone conversations with Monica Lewinsky are being called by many pundits and reporters a "betrayal" and the actions of Ms. Tripp reviled before the American viewing public? "
New York Post 2/22/99 Steve Dunleavy Freeper A Whitewater Researcher "...EXCERPTS: "...Dorothy Rabinowitz of The Wall Street Journal (reported)...her (Broaddrick's) allegations of forced sex and being badly bitten on the lip (by Clinton)....Broaddrick told me Clinto n was "a cold bastard who might have been killed [in retribution] if he had not been governor of Arkansas."...(The WSJ's) John Fund...addressed the NBC silence:..."If it [the rape allegation] was good enough for NBC to report it without corroboration on M arch 28 of last year, why not now - when they have actually spoken to Mrs. Broaddrick?"...For Bill Clinton's sake, I hope he is proved innocent. In 1989, under Bill Clinton's stewardship, an Arkansas man named Wayne Dumond was convicted in a highly contro versial case of raping a relative of Bill Clinton....Despite overwhelming evidence that Dumond was innocent, Clinton, as governor, refused to review the case and let stand a 50-year sentence which Dumond is still serving...Dumond almost bled to death afte r two masked intruders castrated him...."
Wall Street Journal 2/22/99 "...What the press needs to help the public understand is that there is a scale in public life between mere sin and outright depravity. Henry Hyde is one place on that scale, Bill Clinton is another. Over the years, however, Bill Clinton has been the beneficiary of the press's current confusion about where to draw the line in coverage of him. Gennifer Flowers was right, and so by any reasoned conclusion was Paula Jones. Quite different standards applied here than applied to Clarence Thomas, Cardinal Bernadin and others...."
WorldNetDaily 2/22/99 Joseph Farah "..."Any allegation that the president assaulted Mrs. Broaddrick more than 20 years ago is absolutely false," said Clinton lawyer David Kendall over the weekend in response to public charges by Juanita Broaddrick, a former Clinton campaign worker.... But let's remember. This is a Clinton lawyer. So we had better analyze that statement carefully. Where are the loopholes? How can this statement be, perhaps, legally accurate yet totally untrue at the same time...."
Augusta Chronicle 2/21/99 "...As soon as it was evident there was to be trouble about airing the piece, she recalls Lisa Myers told her: `The good news is you're credible. The bad news is you're very credible.' ``Mrs. Broaddrick repeats this more than once, as though trying to puzzle its meaning -- but it's meaning, of course, is entirely clear to her. ... It meant that to encounter this woman ... was to understand that this was an event that in fact took place.'' Yet the pro-Clinton liberals running NBC killed the piece. What a sad commentary on a once-great network. It's also a sad day, too, for so-called ``women's rights'' groups that are still in love with Clinton. Feminists defended Clinton against Kathleen Willey because she told him to stop and he stopped. They pooh-poohed the Monica affair as ``consensual.'' Are there any honest Democrat feminists who'll finally admit that, in this case, this is sexual harassment?..."
TIME Magazine 3/1/99 Adam Cohen "...Corroboration is scant, the White House denials are emphatic, but this tale has an unpleasant new twist: it is a charge of sexual assault. ...With impeachment over and the statute of limitations on the alleged crime long passed, the story seems unlikely to have much traction. Broaddrick herself says, "I'm just hoping this absolutely goes away in the next week." A weary nation would probably agree...."