Posted on 04/30/2003 1:57:56 PM PDT by doug from upland
For those who do not know, two of the ultimate Clinton buttboys are Gene Lyons and Joe Conason. I actually had the pleasure of calling Joe Conason a Clinton buttboy on the Gloria Allred Show a few years back. He screamed his head off on the radio and didn't want to talk to me.
The two Clintonistas wrote a book called THE HUNTING OF THE PRESIDENT in an attempt to try to save the legacy of the impeached rapist who played in the White House for eight years instead of looking after the defense of this nation.
Steven Spielberg is doing the movie. Are any of you going to again spend any money on a Spielberg movie? Not me.
The movie will include clips from THE CLINTON CHRONICLES. It is obvious that they negotiated those rights so they could pick out some things to go after.
Many of you have heard that THE CLINTON CHRONICLES accuses Clinton of murder. For the record, the only charge like that comes from an interview with Gary Parks, son of murder victim Jerry Parks. Gary believes that Clinton had his dad killed and says so.
I wonder what Spielberg will leave out of the movie? Will Juanita Broaddrick be asked details about her rape? Will witnesses to Clinton's cocaine use be put on camera? Will Spielberg really tell the audience that Clinton, the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, tried to fix a federal sexual harassment trial? Will he talk about the 900K from Bernie Schwartz who is lucky to not be on the wrong end of a rope?
What about "Don't worry, that's Lasater's deal"? Will he reveal the cushy hospital job Lyons' wife has because of Clinton? How about perjury and suborning perjury? And poor Betty Currie being asked to hide evidence under her bed. Oh my, Steven, what is sealed in the Ford Building? Will Spielberg get the real story by talking to David Schippers ---- a lifelong DemocRAT who twice voted for Clinton? How about the threats on the lives of Kathleen Willey's children just before she was set to testify in the Paula Jones case? Gee, and how did that intern who was described as a crazed stalker get Top Secret clearance at the Pentagon? Steven, how did those billing records disappear until after the statute of limitations had run? Who took Vince Foster's computer?
Steven, did you go to England to get Eileen Wellstone's story? Did you finally discover that Clinton was kicked out of Oxford and out of England because of the assault? Oh, you didn't know that?
Steven, you are not going to touch those questions? I didn't think so. This will be one more Hollywood attempt to rehabilitate a disgraced, impeached ex-president and make it possible for his wife, Satan's Daughter, to run for the presidency.
And to you, Joe Conason. Is the DNA still dripping down from your chin?
One can only pray.
Too bad he hasn't made a good movie in five years.
Heck, forget about all of the really off-the-wall crimes that Clinton committed (simply because they are too unbelievable for mainstream America to ever accept), here's a nice, easy, Black and White "ethical lapse" by Clinton.
One of President Clinton's first items of business upon becoming sworn in as our 42nd President was his signing of Executive Order #12834.
To much fanfare and great fawning, the American press trumpeted this Executive Order as proof that Bill Clinton would run the "Most Ethical Administration In History."
That Executive Order (12834) required all Senior Level appointees to sign legally binding pledges that they would not lobby governmental contacts for five years after they left the Clinton Administration.
But on December 28, 2000, President Clinton revoked not only that Executive Order, but he also revoked all of those pledges that had been signed by his appointees.
And so the most "ethical administration in history" officially came to an end about three weeks early by their own admission.
Basically, any and all restrictions against "revolving door" jobs on the outside for senior administration officials were rescinded.
Just as those rules would have started applying (actually, in the case of at least two Clinton Administration officials who left the White House to go lobby for *ENRON*, were already breached) the Clinton Administration decided that they didn't want to apply those rules after all.
Clinton's December 20, 2000 Executive Order says that we'll just forget the ethical promises that the employees made. Their written pledges are no longer valid. This line tells it best: "Employees and former employees subject to the commitments in Executive Order 12834 will not be subject to those commitments after the effective date of this order."
President Clinton could have revoked the EO without removing the commitment of the employees to the oath they took. He did not. Instead, he reversed the EO and former and current employees' signed commitments to it, thereby allowing those employees to be free of repercussions from any perceived ethical breeches due to lobbying those they were formerly employed with (or even employed over).
Further, the notion that clause 3 of 12834 has been revoked should be of grave concern for those loyal Democrats who are fearful of the appearance of impropriety, especially after President Clinton and Vice President Gore's ChinaGate fundraising scandals of the mid 1990's.
Clause "3. I will not, at any time after the termination of my employment in the United States Government, engage in any activity on behalf of any foreign government or foreign political party which, if undertaken on January 20, 1993, would require me to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended.
Thus the lifetime ban on Presidential appointees lobbying on behalf of Communist China was revoked by President Clinton.
In fact, every one of the so-called "ethical commitments" (that had to be sworn to by Clinton's appointees) were revoked with the stroke of a pen.
But this was one order which was intended (we were led to believe) to operate after the Clinton administration ended. For five years after the administration ended, to be precise.
Poof! Gone. Probably not even to be seen in this new movie, either...
Such a movie would sell fewer tickets than AI or the re-release of ET, and be even less entertaining.
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.