FROM A HIGH TECH LYNCHING TO IMPEACHMENT

Someday historians will acknowledge the direct causal relationship between the near high tech lynching of Clarence Thomas and the impeachment of Bill Clinton.

Liberal partisans such as Nina Totenberg, disguised as reporters, contrived as feminists to enrage much of the world against Clarence Thomas for alleged offenses which, in the wake of Clinton's sordid grotesqueries and felonies committed during the Monica Lewinsky affair, can only be considered trivial. What exactly did Thomas do to Anita Hill? She testified for the first time years after the alleged facts, that he (1) exclaimed that there was a "pubic hair" on his coke can and that he (2) had seen the movie Long Dong Silver. She also alleged that Thomas repeatedly (3) asked her out, (4) bragged of his sexual prowess, and (5) said that he had satisfied women with oral sex.

What Bill Clinton did a couple of years later was so egregious that it renders these unsubstantiated allegations merely frivolous, a fey neuroses of a bizarre era: Bill Clinton, in contrast to Thomas, sodomized a young intern in the Oval Office with a cigar and masturbated into the presidential sink; Bill Clinton repeatedly talked dirty to his young intern over the telephone while they mutually masturbated ; Bill Clinton suffered his young intern to fellate him while she was crouched under the presidential desk. I wonder what Nina Totenberg's reaction would have been had she learned that Bill Clinton had committed the atrocity of asking Monica Lewinsky out on a formal date?

Liberals say that the matter was all about redressing the imbalance of the power relationship between men and women, between master and servant, and between boss and employee. Of course, the relationship of Clinton and Lewinsky fit this template perfectly. But the Clintons did not stop there, they tag-teamed women who complained of sexual mistreatment (even actual assaults) by Bill Clinton and compounded his original crimes. Gennifer Flowers was made to lie publicly to protect Bill Clinton, to sign a perjurious affidavit denying their relationship, and suffered her apartment to be ransacked. Kathleen Willey was intimidated professionally by ominous strangers. Juanita Broderick was admonished by Hillary Clinton, the implication clear that Broderick was to remain silent about her rape by Bill Clinton. Those women whose silence and lies could not be assured by intimidation were vilified, publicly humiliated, and discredited as "sluts and nuts".

There are other such examples that make anyone who has even the most cavalier concern for women's rights righteously indignant. The Nina Totenberg's of the world never turned a hair.

It is hard to believe how the liberals succeeded with the Thomas hearings in convulsing a nation over these frivolous charges which were very likely untrue, explicitly denied, and otherwise uncorroborated. For three days the nation sat transfixed before its television sets absorbing a drama played out in the judiciary committee of the United States Senate.

As a result of these proceedings it is possible, if not likely, that four leftist women were added to the United States Senate as Democrats: Murray, Moseley Braun, Mikulski, Feinstein, and Boxer. Indeed, 1992, the year following the hearings, became known as the "Year of the Woman." The ripple effect from these proceedings extended beyond politics and beached again in the judiciary as Bill Clinton appointed to the Supreme Court an extreme feminist, an arch advocate for the ACLU, and, in my view, a bloodthirsty abortionist, Ruth Bader Ginsburg,

It is not a stretch to assert that the election of Bill Clinton was clearly advanced by the contrived hysteria surrounding the Clarence Thomas hearings. Clinton's famous sales pitch, "vote for me and you get her-two for the price of one", referring to Hillary Rodham-Clinton, was simply echoing the drumbeating on behalf of Clinton and Rodham by the mainstream media press who had dubbed Hillary to be, "the smartest woman in the world" in the run-up to The Year of the Woman. Polls taken during the course of the hearings of Americans who actually watched the proceedings on television and drew their conclusions from what they saw, revealed that Americans believed Clarence Thomas and did not believe Anita Hill. Polls taken months and years later, after the mainstream media had its relentless way with the public, reflected precisely the opposite sentiment.

After Clinton attained the White House, and a coalition of Democrats passed The Violence against Women Act over the opposition of minority Republicans. That pernicious statute federalized domestic violence and distorted our precious presumption of innocence. If there is a saying of the law, "hard cases make bad law", surely there is a corollary, "mass psychosis makes for bad laws." Even the ACLU was led to criticize the excesses of the statute.

The Clintons and the Democrats shamelessly exploited the feminist pathology as the national psychosis played out in the Clarence Thomas hearings. They rode it into the White House. But irony had yet a card to play. In addition to the Violence Against Women Act, the Democrats contrived a law which made admissible into evidence alleged incidences of sexual-harassment which a defendant in such a lawsuit might have previously engaged in against a third unrelated party. The theory behind the law: once a cad always a cad; so evidence of bad behavior on one day is proof of bad behavior on another day. Bill Clinton signed this bill into law. With the stroke of his own pen, Bill Clinton ensured that his sexual peccadilloes against Kathleen Willey, Gennifer Flowers, and especially, Monica Lewinsky would become the stuff of Paula Jones' lawsuit.

When the Monica Lewinsky scandal erupted, I was struck by the dichotomy between the reactions of folks here in Germany and back home in America. Later, I was to be struck by a similar dichotomy in reaction to the invasion of Iraq. The unanimity of opinion in Germany was striking. Germans simply could not believe America had lost its mind over a trivial matter like sex and they certainly could not believe that the world's only superpower would overthrow its government over a few bumps and tickles. Ultimately, the German view would come to prevail in America and the case in impeachment against Bill Clinton would not lie in the Senate. The assault on Clarence Thomas also failed, but no one ever said he got even any bumps or tickles in compensation for his ordeal. To the contrary and unto this day he is denied by the left even the decency of an acknowledgment that he has conducted himself utterly free of taint. Justice Thomas' only compensation would be the quiet inner satisfaction that comes from a righteous life, a "Normal Christian Life,"

I did not share the German view then and I do not hold it now. I believe that Bill Clinton committed high crimes and misdemeanors in trying to fix a civil trial (for money and reputation), that he conspired to fix a court case (with Monica Lewinsky, Betty Currie), that in furtherance of that conspiracy he suborned perjury (of Monica Lewinsky, Betty Currie), conspired to hide evidence, hid evidence (gifts hidden under the bed), and actually committed perjury (too notorious to require recounting). These were all felonies and as such they qualify as "high crimes and misdemeanors" under the constitutional standard for impeaching a president. Further, the president is the chief law enforcement officer in the land and by committing a string of felonies he breached his constitutional duty to see to the faithful execution of the laws-which misfeasance constitutes additional impeachable offenses. One need only consider the brouhaha over the alleged misrepresentations to Congress of Attorney General Gonzales, or the ordeal of Scooter Libby, to understand the gravity of the real offenses committed by Clinton.

As the Lewinsky impeachment drama played out and it became apparent that Slick would slither around impeachment, those of us who had a memory span larger than a gnat and so recalled the hysteria of the Clarence Thomas hearings, were utterly dumbfounded. I can recall explaining to my German friends and neighbors that the Monica Lewinsky affair was not just about sex but about the very real and important felonies I have described. One could tell from the expression on their faces that they had never heard this information before yet they received it quite skeptically even begrudgingly. I challenge any reader to lay out Bill Clintonâ€™s crimes to your apolitical American friends and neighbors. I bet you will get the same reaction today of surprise, indifference, and even hostility from most Americans. Like the vines of Angkor Wat, time has shrouded Clinton's crimes.

It is a sure bet that few of them will remember the Clarence Thomas hearings, their context and aftermath, much less will they be aware of the chain of causation which led from the near high tech lynching of Clarence Thomas to the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton.

This vanity was initially published in October 2007 and it is reproduced here in the hope that conservatives will be refreshed with respect to the history of the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton and armed with facts to repudiate the lies and trivialization of the impeachment.

If Hillary is busy with the White House, Democrats will dismiss the impeachment as an unfortunate eruption by sexually obsessed conservatives who unsuccessfully attempted to impose their puritanical sexual mores on the whole country, in effect, moving the government into the bedroom. It is important to make clear that Bill Clinton committed numerous felonies in the travesty which is become known as the Monica Lewinsky affair. It is important to make clear in today's environment that Clinton was a serial abuser of women and a serial abuser of his power and influence of office to evade the consequences, he was a felon, a criminal, a recidivist.

If the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton was a miscarriage, the miscarriage occurred among pusillanimous Republicans and venal Democrats in the United States Senate. The role of the media in facilitating this miscarriage should be made notorious by contrasting its treatment of Justice Thomas.

Germans simply could not believe America had lost its mind over a trivial matter like sex …

The opinion of a people so base as to legalize zoophilia (bestiality; legalized 1969 and banned 2013) really is not worth a scintilla of consideration. Such a people would easily dismiss adultery that destroys families as mere “sex” of course.

I remember the fawning and pity Anita Hill got for being such a fragile victim - she was a powerful civil rights attorney in real life. They treated her like she was a 12 year old rape victim. It was disgusting.

Here’s a list of reminders...

Did you see Uncle Lonny’s list?
____________________________________________________

Bill Clinton’s record of misogyny and brutality against women:

Juanita Broaddrick (AR)- rape
Eileen Wellstone (Oxford) - rape
Elizabeth Ward Gracen - rape - quid pro quo, post incident intimidation
Regina Hopper Blakely - forced himself on her, biting, bruising her
Kathleen Willey (WH) - sexual assault, intimidation, threats
Sandra Allen James (DC) - sexual assault
22 Year Old 1972 (Yale) - sexual assault
Kathy Bradshaw (AK) - sexual assault
Cristy Zercher - unwelcome sexual advance, intimidation
Paula Jones (AR) - unwelcome sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
Carolyn Moffet - unwelcome sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
1974 student at University of Arkansas - unwelcome physical contact
1978-1980 - seven complaints per Arkansas state troopers
Monica Lewinsky - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Gennifer Flowers - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Dolly Kyle Browning - post incident character assault
Sally Perdue - post incident threats
Betty Dalton - rebuffed his advances while married to one of his supporters

For three days the nation sat transfixed before its television sets absorbing a drama played out in the judiciary committee of the United States Senate.

Those three days, of course, were never supposed to occur.

Paul Simon, his abortion fanatic wife, NARAL, and Senator Metzenbuam's staff had been hoping Anita Hill would make her accusations public without the need to testify under oath.

When it became clear that the testimony of another witness -- fired by Thomas at the EEOC for publicly berating a fellow employee as a "faggot" -- would not be deemed credible, Nina Totenberg "broke" a story that was well known in Washington for most of the summer, forcing Hill's hand.

This kind of behavior: the attempted destruction of a decent man through rumor and innuendo lies at the bottom, I suspect, of some of the enthusiasm for Trump in some circles here on FR [which, frankly, I do not share, but understand.] No one can imagine that The Donald® would be the least bit intimidated by reckless talk -- even his own -- or have any patience for the spectacle of what even Arlen Specter deprecated as "flat out perjury."

We are where we are because for too long thoughtful conservatives have lamely endured the machinations of these Alinksyites. Now comes the Deluge.

Thank you for the excellent summary. As I read I was amazed by the the Thomas/Hill segue and how it actually helped Clinton. The Clintons are a big source of our cultural rot that occurred in the 90's. I still remember how depressed I felt after he got reelected in 96. I had this gnawing foreboding about America and our culture after 96. . and now we've had Obama, similar ilk, twice. . another random thought is our youth never experienced Reagan, he's like FDR to them, some President from the past and they just accept the current cultural rot as normal. . the language, drugs, music, attitudes, manners, morals, etc. I guess I want the good old days or at least a semblance of the old America.

Will we get it back? Again,thank you for your excellent article. Always appreciate your thoughtful and insightful writing.

One last point, do you remember the American Spectator, the one that did all the Troopergate Articles? I remember an article they did that said the Clintons had about 100+ years each of indictable offenses including multiple repeat felonies. Have searched the Internet and haven't found it. IIRC, they had each offense described with it's associated indictable jail time. Was a fantastic piece.

Also reminded of A brief guide to Clinton scandals from Travelgate to Emailgate FR thread Here.

Mohammedism is a cult of hate started by a camel humping pedophile. Likewise, the Democratic Party is a cult of hate started by slavery favoring sex maniacs.

Over the years, they have abused and terrorized blacks (slavery and starting the KKK), abused and terrorized women (Grover Cleveland Alexander, FDR, JFK, LBJ, Clinton among others) and abused and terrorized the American people (Wilson, Obama and many others).

In the 20th century, Democrats and Republicans each had 15 terms in office. With each Democratic term, our liberties have been attacked and taken away. The Republican Presidents have been unable/unwilling to secure our freedoms. Who saves progress is such a great thing?

I checked Google, “American Spectator Troopergate”. First article was a lengthy history of the magazine, which I read in full. It killed me that at the end, the new owners just threw everything out.

Then it hit me. I used to subscribe and might have kept copies down in my basement Rubbermaid archives. Turns out I have all the issues from 1995 and 96, and most from 1997 until early 2002. Can you tell me any more about the article you remember, such as possible year? I’ll keep my eye open.

Thank you for your interest and research.

I'm not sure what year it was, maybe 96 or 97, but I distinctly remember it was both Clintons and each one had a list of indictable offenses. Bill's total was higher than Hillary's, but I remember being surprised Hillary's numbers were over 100 years. IIRC, Hillary was somewhere around 110 and Bill was around 140.

I think indictable offenses and Clintons was in the title. I think Tyrrell was the author, but can't find anything on the internet so far. I'll keep looking. Would be a real find. .

The article you are looking for is from the February 1994 issue. I was unable to find it online, but found reference to it in the November 1998 issue in a 5 page special editorial by Tyrell, “From Troopergate to Monicagate.”

Here’s the .pdf. Advance to the third page “p. 20” in the Overview.

http://visualprime.com/Pub/AmSpectator-1998nov-00018

Found it after all! In the 1998 article, Tyrell calls the list a â€œfatidical satireâ€ (prophetic).

http://visualprime.com/Pub/AmSpectator-1994feb-00016

That's it! Way to go! I even remember the article layout and the font! A spectacular find.

Slick Willie, 178 years.

Hillary, 47 years.

I wonder how many each has now?!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.