PERIMENOPAUSAL, NEO-FEMINIST CLAPTRAP
- by Mia T, September 30, 1998
fter reading the latest version of Dowd's perimenopausal, neo-feminist claptrap, "Maladroit du Seigneur," I quickly checked the relevant sections of both The Constitution and The Federalist Papers and concluded that being a lousy lover isn't grounds for impeaching a president (although it is still an open question as to whether global knowledge of same isn't).
Interestingly though, the bimbo eruptions themselves may provide such grounds.
Federalist No. 76, in which Hamilton describes the president as someone who "will have fewer personal attachments to gratify than a body of men," tacitly rejects the notion of a phalanx of fellating females in the Oval Office.
Hamilton's rationale: The president would "be so much the less liable to be misled by the sentiments of friendship and of affection. There is nothing so apt to agitate the passions of mankind as personal considerations"
So my advice to the honest patriots of this country is this:
Forget about clinton's perjury, suborning perjury, obstruction of justice.
Forget about his witness intimidation and tampering, his evidence concealment and destruction.
Forget about those 900 FBI files, the IRS audits, the Commerce Department corruption, China, missiles, the oxymoronic Public Integrity Section, WhoDB, the Secret Police.
Forget about the abuse of power, the treason, the corpses, the HIV-tainted blood.
Forget even about Federalist No. 57, and hillary rodham's treatise on impeachable acts--written when she wanted to impeach a president. (Both do mention "bad conduct" as grounds for impeachment.)
NOTE: Because the Framers did not anticipate the demagogic efficiency of the electronic bully pulpit, constitutional provisions deal inadequately with an MTV mis-leader and power abuser 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."
So I say forget about all those conspicuous, standard issue impeachable offenses. Concentrate instead on the bimbos.
Cite Federalist No. 76. The endless phalanx of fellating females clearly demonstrates clinton's recklessness and utter disregard for the security of the country.
Then either invoke the 25th Amendment and eject the reprobate for unfitness. Or impeach the bum and convict.
- Epilogue:
Boris, Bill and Monica: trouble ahead for Hillary?
Dr. Jack Wheeler
BrookesNews.Com
Monday 13 November 2006
Will the saga of the world's most famous fellatrice return to haunt Hillary in 2008? There's this fascinating whisper making the Washington rounds that says yes. While convoluted and circumstantial, a number of plugged-in Washingtonians believe it. The story starts with Boris Yeltsin who was President of Russia from its emergence after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 to 1999. In October of 2000, part three of his autobiography was published, Midnight Diaries. In it, there was an astounding revelation:
That in "late 1996," after Bill Clinton's re-election in November, he (Yeltsin) received a highly classified report from his Foreign Intelligence Service (Russian acronym SVR, formerly a branch of the KGB). Russian intel had learned that the President of the United States was having an affair with an intern named Monica Lewinsky. This was over a full year before the world learned of the scandal via the Drudge Report internet website on January 19, 1998.
Lewinsky's first tryst with Clinton was in November 1995. Her last ones were March 28 and 29, 1997, as shown by White House Security logging her in to visit the Oval Office. In her testimony for Ken Starr's Grand Jury, she told of a curious comment of Clinton's after she performed her services: that he was worried about a "foreign power listening in" to their activities and conversations. He was especially concerned about the many phone-sex conversations he had with her, calling her from the White House and Air Force One.
Somehow, it seems, Clinton had learned of Yeltsin's SVR memo. Who told him? Suspicion has focused on a meeting in Moscow between Clinton confidante Strobe Talbot and Russian power-broker Anatoly Chubais on March 5, 1997 -- three weeks before Clinton told Monica of his "worry." Talbot was far more than just Deputy Secretary of State. A fellow Rhodes Scholar with Clinton at Oxford, he was one of Bill's most closely trusted friends. Fluent in Russian, his contacts among the Russian power elite were deep. One of his best contacts was Anatoly Chubais. Yeltsin had placed Chubais in charge of the "privatization" program selling off Soviet state enterprises. It was a multi-multi-billion dollar scam, creating "oligarch" billionaires, of whom Chubais became one himself.
The scam, however, was threatened with exposure by the IMF (International Monetary Fund). By early 1997, Chubais's looting of the Russian economy was so vast that a complete crash was imminent. A "rescue package" of billions in IMF loans was required to stave off disaster. The green eyeshades at the IMF examining Russia said no way, JosÈ. Chubais was desperate. Yeltsin told Chubais of the SVR memo. Chubais asked his buddy Talbot to come and see him in Moscow, where he explained that if the IMF loan wasn't approved, he might not be able to keep the lid on Lewinsky. The President of the United States was being blackmailed.
Thus Larry Summers, Clinton's new Treasury Secretary, who had before was aghast at even the hint of approving IMF loans to Russia, suddenly began calling Chubais and his cronies a "Dream Team" for their "superb" job of running the Russian economy. The IMF loan was approved, the lid on Lewinsky kept on, and not until Linda Tripp taped her phone talks with Monica in November 1997 and Drudge got wind of it, did the scandal break. The IMF loan did its job, temporarily staving disaster off until August, 1998, when the Russian economy collapsed into almost total meltdown.
Now -- what has all this to do with Hillary?
One of Hillary Clinton's closest friends and traveling companions is a lady named Brooke Shearer. She retains her maiden name, for she is Strobe Talbot's wife. She also just happened to be working at the White House in charge of the White House intern program. The thinking goes that it is inconceivable that Talbot would not tell his wife that one of her interns was fellating the president and being blackmailed by the Russkies for it -- and that she would not tell Hillary.
One can easily imagine how explosively Hillary would have reacted, and how she would have demanded Bill cave to the Russian IMF demands. Thus her fingerprints would be all over a blackmail payoff of billions of American taxpayer dollars, and the resultant impoverishment of millions of Russians. She'll be questioned on this during her 2008 campaign -- as she will on so much else. The Russian Blackmail story will be one of many skeletons lurking in her presidential wannabe closet. It's yet another example of why so many Dems, desperate to recapture the White House, are so busy flogging alternatives to her.
Alternatives such as Barack Obama. That the Dems would hysterically hype a guy whose total national experience has been being a Senator for 21 months (since January 2005), and whose total real world business experience was working one single year for a company while in his early 20s (an entry-level job with the Business International Corporation), shows how terrified they are that Hillary will doom their White House dreams.
The Russian Blackmail scandal will make an interesting addition to the Democrats' Hillary Nightmare.
And why wasn't POS Clinton's gift of defense secrets to the ChiComs more of an issue then, and even now? Is Hillary complicit in this?
"Impeachment 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."
