Skip to comments.CATCHING THE CONSCIENCE OF THE KINGFISH (differential reaction to 2 rape charges snares clintons)
Posted on 06/15/2005 9:29:28 AM PDT by Mia T
NOTE 1: 'Conscience' as in 'consciousness of guilt.' (ASIDE: No confusion, I suspect. Neither clinton has a conscience in the psychoanalytic, superego, ethical-compass sense.)
NOTE 2: This is not to say that the Klein book isn't a Machiavellian concoction of the clintons, abetted now by old media, (with perhaps even Klein having been set up), with the goal to invalidate all the legitimate (albeit outrageous and ugly) charges against the lovely couple.
NOTE 3: (YOO-HOO BILL O'REILLY! Wontcha stop already delegitimizing real clinton corruption by rationalizing your own sexual harassment suit?) Sexual harassment of women and abuse of women aren't "personal."
And besides, anything that goes to the clinton character is relevant. REMEMBER?
Did he rape that woman, Juanita Broaddrick?
"Mrs. Clinton told me she would considering suing him for outright libel," the top Hillary source explains.
RAGE AT AUTHOR AFTER CLAIM: BILL RAPED HILLARY, CONCEIVED CHELSEA
JENNINGS DOES A DIMBLEBY:
CLINTON: They're wrong about that. You know why they're wrong about it? They're wrong about it.
JENNINGS: Why, sir?
CLINTON: Because we had $100 million spent against us in all these inspections . . . In spite of it all, you don't have any example where I ever lied to the American people about my job, where I have let the American people down. And I had more support from the world when I quit than when I started. And I will go to my grave being at peace about it. And I don't really care about what they think.
CLINTON: They have no idea . . .
JENNINGS: Excuse me, Mr. President. I can feel it across the room. You care very deeply.
CLINTON: No, no. I care. I care. You don't want to go here, Peter. You don't want to go here. Not after what your people did. And the way you - your network - what you did with Kenneth Starr. The way your people repeated every little sleazy thing he did. No one has any idea of what that's like.
Hypocrisy abounds in this Age of clinton, a Postmodern Oz rife with constitutional deconstruction and semantic subversion, a virtual surreality polymarked by presidential alleles peccantly misplaced or, in the case of Jefferson, posthumously misappropriated.
Shameless pharisees in stark relief crowd the Capitol frieze:
Baucus, Biden, Bingaman, Breaux, Bryan, Byrd, Cohen, Conrad, Daschle, Dodd, Gore, Graham, Harkin, Hollings, Inouye, Kennedy, Kerrey, Kerry, Kohl, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Mikulski, Moynihan, Reid, Robb, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Schumer.
These are the 28 sitting Democratic senators, the current Vice President and Secretary of Defense -- clinton defenders all -- who, in 1989, voted to oust U.S. District Judge Walter Nixon for making "false or misleading statements to a grand jury."
In 1989 each and every one of these men insisted that perjury was an impeachable offense. (What a difference a decade and a decadent Democrat make.)
Senator Herb Kohl (November 7, 1989):
"The hypocrite's crime is that he bears false witness against himself," observed the philosopher Hannah Arendt. "What makes it so plausible to assume that hypocrisy is the vice of vices is that integrity can indeed exist under the cover of all other vices except this one. Only crime and the criminal, it is true, confront us with the perplexity of radical evil; but only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core."
If hypocrisy is the vice of vices, then perjury is the crime of crimes, for perjury provides the necessary cover for all other crimes.
David Lowenthal, professor emeritus of political science at Boston College makes the novel and compelling argument that perjury is "bribery consummate, using false words instead of money or other things of value to pervert the course of justice" and, thus, perjury is a constitutionally enumerated high crime.
The Democrats' defense of clinton's perjury -- and their own hypocrisy -- is three-pronged.
clinton's perjuries were "just about sex" and therefore "do not rise to the level of an impeachable offense."
This argument is spurious. The courts make no distinction between perjuries. Perjury is perjury. Perjury attacks the very essence of democracy. Perjury is bribery consummate.
Moreover, clinton's perjury was not "just about sex," clinton spin notwithstanding. clinton's perjury was about clinton denying a citizen justice by lying in a civil rights-sexual harassment case about his sexual history with subordinates.
Presidents and judges are held to different standards under the Constitution.
clinton's defenders ignore Federalist No. 57, and Hillary Rodham's constitutional treatise on impeachable acts -- written in 1974 when she wanted to impeach a president; both mention "bad conduct" as grounds for impeachment.
"Impeachment," wrote Rodham, "did not have to be for criminal offenses -- but only for a 'course of conduct' that suggested an abuse of power or a disregard for the office of the President of the United States...A person's 'course of conduct' while not particularly criminal could be of such a nature that it destroys trust, discourages allegiance, and demands action by the Congress...The office of the President is such that it calls for a higher level of conduct than the average citizen in the United States."
Hamilton (or Madison) discussed the importance of wisdom and virtue in Federalist 57. "The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust."
(Contrast this with clinton, who recklessly, reflexively and feloniously subordinates the common good to his personal appetites.)
Because the Framers did not anticipate the demagogic efficiency of the electronic bully pulpit, they ruled out the possibility of an MTV mis-leader (and impeachment-thwarter!) like clinton. In Federalist No. 64, John Jay said: "There is reason to presume" the president would fall only to those "who have become the most distinguished by their abilities and virtue." He imagined that the electorate would not "be deceived by those brilliant appearances of genius and patriotism which, like transient meteors, sometimes mislead as well as dazzle."
(If the clinton debacle teaches us anything, it is this: If we are to retain our democracy in this age of the electronic demagogue, we must recalibrate the constitutional balance of power.)
The president can be prosecuted for his alleged felonies after he leaves office. (Nota bene ROBERT RAY.)
This clinton-created censure contrivance -- borne out of what I have come to call the "Lieberman Paradigm" (clinton is an unfit president; therefore clinton must remain president) -- is nothing less than a postmodern deconstruction in which the Oval Office would serve for two years as a holding cell for the perjurer-obstructor.
Such indecorous, dual-purpose architectonics not only threatens the delicate constitutional framework -- it disturbs the cultural aesthetic. The senators must, therefore, roundly reject this elliptic scheme.
In this postmodern Age of clinton, we may, from time to time, selectively stomach corruption. But we must never abide ugliness. Never.
COPYRIGHT MIA T 2005
Alot of hard work went into that. Thank you.
HILLARY'S HEAD REVISITED3
"I know bill clinton. Gulping for air."
("Whence comes hillary clinton's reputation for brilliance?")
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.