Posted on 06/08/2003 11:21:27 AM PDT by kattracks
Bill is what he is. When I say he's interesting, I mean that there are so many events which he has hidden from the public. The wife is the last to know?? Not in my case. I've always kept a tail on Bill. It's called "spouse blackmail". Who's he gonna tell?? Nobody believes anything he says.
And what does he have on me?? Well, my thesis for one thing.
She's been that way for a long time.
I remember some stuff that was dug up about her "Watergate" tenure. She was trying to do stuff, that even the elected
democrats trying to force the Nixon impeachment issue at the time, thought was was immoral, illegal, unConstitutional, and
just plain wrong.
Date: Wednesday, August 19, 1998 10:40 PM
Subject: "Mrs. Clinton's Defense of Impeachment,"
"Mrs. Clinton's Defense of Impeachment,"
By Bob Barr,
Dear Mrs. Clinton:
In February 1974 the staff of the Nixon impeachment inquiry issued a report produced by a
group of lawyers and researchers assigned with developing a scholar memorandum setting
forth the "constitutional grounds for presidential impeachment."
You were a member of that group of lawyers and researchers, barely, I am sure, able to
conceal your dislike for President Nixon. Within the year, Nixon would leave office disgraced ,
having witnessed articles of impeachment voted against him by the House Judiciary Committee,
based in part on your report.
Relevant Today
I must give you and your colleagues credit. You did not appear to have let personal animus
influence your work product, at least not the final, published report. In fact, the report you and
your colleagues produced appears objective, fair, well researched and consistent with other
materials reflecting and commenting on impeachment. And it is every bit as relevant today as it
was 23 years ago. I presume--but I must ask whether--you stand by your research and analysis
today. You said in 1974 that impeachment, as understood by the framers of our constitution,
reflected the long history of the term used at least since late-14th-century England: "one of the
tools used by the English" to make government "more responsive and responsible" (page 4 of
your report).
Your also noted then--clearly in response to those who mistakenly claimed impeachment as a
tool to correct "corruption in office"-- that "alleged damage to the state," and was "not necessarily
limited to common law or statutory . . . Crimes" (page 7)
You quoted James Wilson, who at the Pennsylvania ratification convention described the executive
(that is, the president) as not being above the law, but rather "in his public character" subject to
it "by impeachment" (page 9)
You also-quite correctly-noted then that the constitutional draftsmen chose the terms describing
the circumstances under which a president could be impeached very carefully and deliberately.
You noted that "high crimes and misdemeanors" did not denote criminal offenses in the sense that
prosecutors employ such terms in modern trials. Rather, in your well-researched memorandum,
you correctly noted that the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" as substituted for George
Mason's less precise term in an earlier draft of the Constitution: "Maladministration" (page 12 of
your report). Not only that, but your further research led you to quote Blackstone's "Commentaries
on the Laws of England" in support of your conclusion that "high crimes and misdemeanors" meant
not a criminal offense but an injury to the state or system of government (page 12).
I applaud the extent and clarity of your research. You even note that the U.S. Supreme Court, in
deciding questions of intent, must construe phrases such as "high crimes and misdemeanors" not
according to modern usage, but according to what the framers meant when they adopted them
(page12 once again).
Magnificent research!
Even Alexander Hamilton finds a place in your research. You quote from his Federalist No. 65
that impeachment relates to "misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the abuse or
violation of public trust" that is "of a nature . . .political [emphasis in original]" (page 13 of your
report).
Finally, in bringing your research forward from the constitutional drafting documents themselves,
you find support for your properly broad interpretation of "high crimes and misdemeanors" in no
less a legal scholar than Justice Joseph Story. I was in awe of your use of Justice Story's
"Commentaries on the Constitution" (1833) supporting your proposition that "impeachment . . .
applies to offenses of a political character' . . . [that] must be examined upon very broad and
comprehensive principles of public policy and duty" (pages 16 and 17 of your report). I could
not have said it better.
You even note that the specific instances on which impeachment has been employed in our
country's history "placed little emphasis on criminal conduct" and were used to remove public
officials who had "seriously undermined public confidence" through their "course of conduct"
(page 21).
Clear Basis
Mrs. Clinton, when I first raised the notion last month that the House should take but the first
step in determining whether impeachment might lie against President Clinton for a pattern of
abuse of office and improper administration of his duties, little did I realize your scholarly work
23 years ago would provide clear historical and legal basis and precedent for my proposition.
Amazingly, the words you used in your report are virtually identical to those I use today. For
example, you said in 1974, much as I did in my March 11, 1997, letter to Judiciary Chairman
Hyde, that "[i]mpeachment is the first step in a remedial process" (page 24 of your report) to
correct "serious offenses" that "subvert" our government and "undermine the integrity of office"
(page 26)
Thank you, Mrs. Clinton, for giving Congress a road map for beginning our inquiry.
Sincerely,
Bob Barr (R., GA.)
Member of Congress
Strange things happen when one believes one's own BS. I guess it all depends on what the meaning of "perverted" is!
| Still, Ms. Walters suggested that Mrs. Clinton's book takes the scandal issue off the table for any future presidential run... "At least this book clears up a lot of things that she won't have to face in a campaign," the ABC star volunteered.
That's how they used to do it. They still try to do that, but it doesn't work anymore. Now there's a TV Network that isn't full of liberals, and they won't play along. |
When I was kid, every time I said that something was so ugly that no one would ever want it, my father would reply, "There's an ass for every seat."
Just a couple of days ago I heard that she had backed off the VRWC thing. She is SUCH a lying b*tch!
Clears up?????? What has SHE been taking????
She can write all she wants (or rather have someone else write). Anybody who believes anything Hillary says is a complete idiot!
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.
Barbara hasn't yet figured out what it means that Fox News Channel exists. In the Good Old Days, she would say something like that and the rest of the liberals in the media would take it as license to spike any story about the Clinton scandals that might come up in a Hillary campaign. They would attribute their news judgment to "it was all cleared up years ago in the Barbara Walters interview."