Dave Schippers Comments on Prof. Scranton's "CLINTON 101" at U of Arkansas

There is one thing wrong with the Ron Brown funeral. If you let it run longer you see Bubba looking back to see if he is still being watched.

Sell Out: Why Bill Clinton's Impeachment Was Over Before it Began
by David P. Schippers

'It was a sellout. A pitiful, cowardly
sellout.'

Find out what really happened with the
Clinton Impeachment by the man
Congress hired to prosecute Clinton.

David Schippers has written the political
expose of the year that everyone is talking
about - from Rush Limbaugh to the Drudge
Report. Sell Out is a stunning indictment
of President Clinton's corruption - and of
the congressional leaders who let him get
away with it.

David Schippers, the former Chief
Investigative Counsel of the House
Judiciary Committee, and a loyal
Democrat, went against his party, the
press, and public opinion to build a
powerful case against the most corrupt
President in American history and bring
him to justice.

As a former Chicago prosecutor, David
Schippers thought he had seen everything
- treachery, double crosses, sellouts. But
what he saw behind the scenes at the
Clinton impeachment shocked him to his
core.

In this startling book, schippers shows how
the entire impeachment process was what
Chicago politicians call a 'First Ward
election.' In other words, a rigged ball
game, a tank job, a sellout. And he tells
you who took the dives. Retail $27.95.
Hardcover.

'They'll call me a liar...a traitor...and
worse. But I was there. At the
impeachment. Every day. Behind the
closed doors. I was there when the brave
House managers were sold down the river.
I saw it all. The small lies, the big lies, and
the damn lies. It's time to tell the
truth...and name the names. I just can't
keep silent about it anymore.'
...The House Managers were real heroes. Trent Lott stabbed them in the back. They were not allowed to argue their case or to present any witnesses. Regardless of the final vote, one hundred (100) senators agreed from the start to go along with the bogus rules dreamed up by Lott and Daschle. That ended any possibility of a fair trial based on the evidence. They all broke their oaths of office and their trial oaths by doing this.

Cicero

Historians will record that Republicans could not muster the necessary sixty-seven vote Senate majority to convict the President at trial.
Those same historians should note, if only in a footnote, that not a single senator made the trip to the Ford Building to review documentation of Clinton's "nauseating", "alarming" and "horrific" sexual misconduct; evidence that ultimately made the difference in the impeachment vote.

America's Impeachment Secret

Musings:
Senatorial Courtesy Perverted

by Mia

Well, with the help of the 100 corrupt and cowardly cullions, clinton
walked. The senators' justification for their acquittal votes requires
the suspension of rational thought (and, in the curious case of Arlen
Specter, national jurisdiction).

I don't think it's over, though.

There are cloakroom whispers of incipient (spiked) charges and imminent
(spike heel) shoe-droppings.

And from Drudge:
Broaddrick is talking to WSJ's Dorothy Rabinowitz in Arkansas while 60
MINUTES is "circling" the clinton rape covered wagon.

Of course, a clenched-jawed clinton reeks revenge. I suppose the best
take is that, at the very least, his utter degeneracy has been exposed,
no one of any import will ever believe him again, and he is effectively
muzzled and hog-tied for the rest of his tenure.

All this while hillary indecorously impales herself on the horns of a
dilemma. (I am finding the farm animal metaphor for this pair especially
cathartic today.) hillary's megalomania pushes her toward a Senate run
in which her opposion will doubtless dredge up her criminality. What to
do?

Clinton's acquittal is reducible, I think, to the fact that the
irrational fear of the "right" whipped up by clinton spinners (watch
them spin), has trumped the very rational fear of the pseudo-leftist
psychopath.

A final thought (for now):
To spite us all, Arthur Schlesinger will live

to 120 just so he can write the definitive clinton hagiography.

THE OTHER NIXON

by Mia T

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):
"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. Of all people, Federal Judge Walter Nixon certainly knew this.

"So I am going to vote 'guilty' on articles one and two. Judge Nixon lied to the grand jury. He misled the grand jury. These acts are indisputably criminal and warrant impeachment."

Senator Tom Daschle (November 3, 1989):
"This morning we impeached a judge from Mississippi for failing to tell the truth. Those decisions are always very difficult and certainly, in this case, it came after a great deal of concern and thoughtful analysis of the facts."

Congressman Charles Schumer (May 10, 1989):
"Perjury, of course, is a very difficult, difficult thing to decide; but as we
looked and examined all of the records and in fact found many things that were not in the record it became very clear to us that this impeachment was meritorious."

Senator Carl Levin (November 3, 1989):
"The record amply supports the finding in the criminal trial that Judge
Nixon's statements to the grand jury were false and misleading and constituted perjury. Those are the statements cited in articles I and II, and it is on those articles that I vote to convict Judge Nixon and remove him from office."

* * * * *

"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.

ONE:

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, (the clinton spinners notwithstanding), clinton's perjury was not "just about sex." 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.

TWO:

Presidents and judges are held to different standards under the
Constitution.

Because the Constitution stipulates that federal judges, who are appointed for life, "shall hold their offices during good behavior,'' and because there is no similar language concerning the popularly elected, term-limited president, it must have been perfectly agreeable to the Framers, (so the implicit argument goes), to have a perjurious, justice-obstructing reprobate as president.

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.)

THREE:

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.

Next time you talk to him ask him why nothing is being said about the Iraqi connection to OKC.

If there is any truth to it(makes sense to me) now would seem like the perfect time to point it out to the citizenry and shove it in the face of the anti-war dems.

BTTT

Whenever Clinton defenders are confronted with the Juanita Broaddrick, they always respond either with silence or desperate evasion.

Juanita Broadderick is a "non-person" to the Democrats in the same manner as Stalin's enemies became the same. Her photo's will disappear. Photos, with her in them with others, will be retouched with her image absent.

Ten years from now, Clinton's; "I did not have....etc." will have disappeared from the Planet. If you should have a copy, it's possession will be a crime.

"Big B*tch is watching you!"

I haven't read the book. In the book, does he actually tell about any of the evidence?

As an example: He speaks of Juanita Broadrick and was in posession of the notes from the FBI Agents who interviewed her. Their notes indicated that she was 'entirely' believable, and her story was 'credible'. As I recall, he also interviewed these agents and found the whole story to be absolutely amazing.

He also states that those who saw the evidence he had were w/o exception swayed to his side.

Much of the evidence was not allowed.

He also loved the idea about FReepers delivering tapes of Juanita's interview on NBC to the students in the class.

Is anyone up for this FReep? We need copies of the video and someone who can deliver them to the students as they are walking into her classroom.

If available, I myself would like a copy of this. Hope I don't have to take the class though. :)

Duh. I missed it. :)

re: OKC

I had Dave on the DFU RADIO HOUR some months back to talk about OKC and other issues. He is very supportive of the work of Jayna Davis (who was on my show last month). The shows are in the Radio Free Republic archives.

Yeah but you know whats going to happen, these students are going to take it as the rest of the "rats" do; they`ll see it as so horrible an acusation that it must be false, a lie perpetrated by the radical right. Hey, I`ve tried it and they look at you like your insane.

David Schippers, the nice Catholic family man from Chicago, actually voted for Clinton twice. The first time was bad enough -- the second time was an inexusable disgrace.

I won't pay a nickel to buy a book from him, so I'll have to steal one from someone else.

Same old same old. Whenever an unpleasant topic arises, they plead ignorance!!!

I just had a phone conversation with Katherine Prudhomme. She may join us on this thread.

Hello Freepers and Doug,
Katherine Prudhomme here.
Yeah, This accusation is so bad alot of people resond as if your nuts when you talk about it. What cowardly idiots they are for the truth to upset their reality so much.
Broaddrick was at the hotel she said the rape happened in, records Lisa Meyers of Dateline NBC dug up show that. Clinton has never said where he was that day. Very weird to have such spotty records of your time when you are running for Gov.
Try to get the tape from Dateline NBCs transcript service, they may or may not have it now, I tried to get it in 2000 for that protest outside Hillarys HQ and couldnt.
At least Cristopher Hitchins second edition of No Left To Lie To has good reporting on the issue. I sent that to the former Gov, of NH, Jeanne Shaheen, who also pretended not to know who Broaddrick was.
Make sure the campus rape crisis center has a copy, maybe someone there will care- they should! Also, send it to the on campus Republican group, if there is one, they may care too.

Thanks for the ideas. We are not going to sit still while Professor Scranton whitewashes it.

Hi KP, so nice to hear from you.

Try to get the tape from Dateline NBCs transcript service, they may or may not have it now, I tried to get it in 2000 for that protest outside Hillarys HQ and couldnt

Did you hand my copy of the Broaddrick interview to Hillary's staffer?

Clinton: "Is that babe on buffy the vampire Slayer 18 years old yet?"

I do not think that would stop him. Would you trust him with a 17 year old girl?

"This accusation is so bad alot of people resond as if your nuts when you talk about it.

Or if you bring up Vince Foster's "suicide".

I still would like to know how a man can shoot himself in the mouth, not leave a blood splatter and then lie down, while also holding the gun.

Just like Juanita was rapped, Foster's body was moved after he was shot (I will concede that he may have killed himself). But the body was moved.

Good luck to you!

Would you trust him with a 17 year old girl?

Only if his zipper was booby-trapped.

Rumor has it that him and Jesse sometimes fought over the same woman.