[saminfl]

An excellent book and one that should be read by anyone who lost faith in how the whole thing was handled. Two specifics, from the book:

I haven't read the book. In the book, does he actually tell about any of the evidence? I have been curious as to when or if the public would ever be made aware of what that evidence is.

[Mia T]

 

 

 

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.

 

 

[Michael.SF.]

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.