Introduction
The whole world is watching as the purported leader of the free world shoots itself in the foot because of the indiscretions of the President of the United States of America. You'll notice that I didn't say "alleged indiscretions". Yes, after four years of investigations, and after forty millions of dollars having been expended by the special counsel, Kenneth Starr, the whole universe knows that Bill Clinton was having some extra marital sex with Monica Lewinsky, a White House intern, whose claim in history will be that she flashed her underwear at the President, that she often performed fellatio on the President, that she acted like a spoiled little brat when he wouldn't give up everything to make her number one in his life, and she, like a twit, confided in a "friend", Linda Tripp, about her affairs.
There have been rumors about corruption in the Clinton presidency--people mysteriously dying; FBI files on political enemies being improperly used; "White Water", improper activities relating to campaign contributions (e.g., "renting" White House rooms, money from China, selling national security secrets); etc.; but no solid evidence has thus far been presented on these issues. Instead, the special counsel who was originally appointed to investigate "White Water" gave us Monica sucking on Bill.
Hypocrisy
Americans are very hypocritical when it comes to sex. They dont want to talk about it in polite company, but they love to read about it in the tabloids; they love the subliminal messages, as well as the blatant messages, permeating every day advertisements; and they love watching the sex show going on under the guise of self-righteous Republican Congressmen who must do their "Constitutional duty". Oh, please spare me this sanctimonious bull feces. Without condoning President Clinton's conduct with Monica, it is a fact and is common knowledge that there is a high percentage of extra marital affairs among men and women. I believe that the issue of an extra marital affair should be between the immediate parties concerned and should not be used as extortion or black mail as it has been used by the religious right and the Republican dominated Congress against Clinton.
Field Marshall Gingrich and his brown shirts have launched a merciless attack against the President of the United States of America because he (the President) had an affair and lied about it. Congressmen are concerned that someone lied to the American people. Am I the only one who sees the irony in this situation? They say the President committed a felony by testifying falsely under oath in a legal proceeding. People testify every day in some legal proceeding, and lying under oath is a national pastime. Each side of a lawsuit has people testifying, and there is invariably a dispute as to the facts presented. Someone is lying. Perjury is a felony--they say. So is smoking a marijuana cigarette. Should a President be impeached for smoking a "joint"? How many perjury prosecutions have you ever even heard of? Get the point?
Corruption of Criminal Justice
What I find to be more despicable than the allegation of perjury is the corruption of the criminal justice procedures for political expediency. Starr was appointed to be an independent counsel to investigate White Water. Instead of acting like an independent counsel, he has acted more like a prosecutor. He has spent forty million dollars of public money and four years of investigations to deliver an adultery and perjury case--such as it is. Both Starr and Paula Jones religious right attorney have gone after Clinton with a vengeance. Yet, very little is said about the illegal eavesdropping that Linda Tripp did in order to acquire tape recorded statements from Monica. That conduct is illegal. Grand jury proceedings are supposed to be secret, but there were numerous leaks about grand jury testimony from Kenneth Starrs office. That conduct is illegal. The grand jury testimony of the President was supposed to be secret, but when it was released to Congress, Congress made it public in order to try to embarrass the President. That conduct is illegal, but no one dares to challenge Congress. Congress has politicized the criminal justice process. If Bill Clinton were a Mafia hit man with 50 "hits" under his belt, his grand jury testimony still would not be made a matter of public record except upon specific order of a court. Congress has seen fit to impeach or accuse President Bill Clinton under the Constitution of the United States of America. You have heard the Congressmen grandstanding and wrapping themselves in the American flag and pontificating about their "Constitutional" duties. Lets examine just where this Constitutional scenario may take us.
Constitutional Principles
The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeachment. Article I, Section 2. The House members act as a prosecutorial body to "file charges" against the President. Although the impeachment process is a political process, it clearly has the trappings of a criminal trial.
The Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments. Article I, Section 3. When the President is tried, the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court shall preside over the trial; and the President cannot be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the Senate members present. (Id.,). If the President is convicted, he can be removed from office and disqualified from serving in other offices; and he is still liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgement, and punishment according to law. (Id.,). One can readily see that the impeachment process, although political in nature, is still a "trial" in the truest sense of the word. To emphasize this point, the Constitution says that the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury. Article III, Section 2. The President shall be removed from office if he is impeached for, and convicted of, treason, bribery, or other "high crimes and misdemeanors". Article II, Section 4.
Prosecutorial Discretion
The House has acted like a prosecutor, and as such, they could have used "prosecutorial discretion" and not have filed charges (Articles of Impeachment) against the President. It is a common practice for prosecutors to consider whether or not there is a likelihood of conviction before filing charges, but in this case the "prosecutor" (the Republican dominated House of Representatives) chose to impeach the President knowing full well that (1) the American people still strongly support the President they elected and (2) there is no likelihood that the Senate will deliver sixty-six votes to convict Bill Clinton.
There is a runaway Congress doing whatever it wants to do because one political party has acquired so much power in the legislative branch on the federal government. The media, who have no integrity at all, are loving the situation because its the best story in town, if not in the country, if not in the world.
And since we are a nation of laws, not of men, and since it is in vogue to be a "crime fighter", and since this Democratic President has been a thorn in the side of the Republicans agenda, and since Clinton's views on gays in the military, partial birth abortion, and other issues make him an easy target for the religious right--it is plain to see that the Republican dominated Congress will continue to play "prosecutor" for partisan political purposes. They are playing this serious political game of impeachment of our nations elected leader while the Middle East is still a hot-spot, Japans economy is devastated, Korea is a threat, more nations are testing their nuclear weapons, the Serbs continue to commit genocide, the U.S. stock market is having fits, corruption is rampant in all three branches of government throughout the country, the United Nations family of nations frequently votes contrary to how the U.S. votes on world issues, etc. Meanwhile, Congress is playing "prosecutor".
Presidential Power
Tyranny does not have to flow from a single despot; it can manifest itself through a group of despots or dictators such as a mob or the Congress. I believe the actions of Congress in this so-called impeachment inquiry have been in violation of the laws of the land and are far more outrageous than the ones made against the President. There are three branches of government according to our Constitution--the Executive (President), the Legislative (Congress), and the Supreme Court (and inferior courts). The executive power is in the President. Article II, Section 1. The President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces to include the Militia of the various states when he calls them into actual service of the United States. Article 2, Section 2. It is the Presidents duty to take care that the laws of the United States are faithfully executed. Article 2, Section 3.
It is clear that the President is co-equal with Congress in terms of Constitutional authority. The founding fathers wanted it that way; therefore, the President has a Constitutional duty, just as Congress claims it has, to see that the laws are faithfully executed. He cannot simply allow Congress to corrupt the criminal justice process by encouraging directly or indirectly the acquisition and use of illegally obtained evidence through eavesdropping or prosecutorial threats and grand jury leaks.
Everyone knows that there are not enough votes to convict the President of wrongdoing and that the Republican controlled Congress has politicized a criminal justice process. If Clinton is given a fair trial in the Senate, he will not be convicted. Because of the harm that the impeachment process is causing in terms of distraction of the President from his duties and the emotional trauma it is obviously causing him as he tries to perform the duties of the job to which he was duly elected, and because of the illegal conduct that Congress has engaged in either directly or through it agents, the President must take action against Congress. Congress has become tyrannical in its actions against the President of the United States and the American people.
The President will not be convicted; but if by some strange fluke he were convicted and ordered from his office, he can declare martial law in the District of Columbia because there is an absence of law and because Congress has not been acting in the best interests of the United States national security by the impeachment charade. As Commander in Chief, President Clinton can call upon his armed forces and the federalized national guard, if necessary, to enforce the laws as he and his advisors interpret them. The concept of national security has changed and a declared war is no longer a prerequisite to the use of armed forces (e.g., Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, and internal and external threats of terrorism). A runaway, partisan Congress which violates domestic laws and attacks the Executive branch of the national government for non-meritorious reasons is a threat to national security. Congress also is greatly influenced by special interests groups which also threaten our national security. (See my essay, "TERRORISM-WHAT AND WHY?").
Conclusion
One might assume that Im simply a friend of Bills, and that I am a lackey Democrat trying to cover Clinton's butt for his horrible misdeeds. Wrong! I am a registered Republican who is disenchanted with both political parties and most of elected officials at my state level (Arizona) and at the federal level. I have no special fondness for Bill Clinton who is basically a weak leader, but I voted for him in the last election because I believed he was relevant to and understood the issues and problems facing the United States in the next millennium. I am a veteran of the Vietnam War during the 1968 Tet Offensive having served with the famous 1st Air Cavalry Division as a combat platoon leader. Bill Clinton was a draft dodger. Now, he is the duly elected President of the United States; and a partisan, runaway Congress doing what it is doing is a threat to our Constitutional form of government and our national security. If Clinton were a military man or surrounded himself with people other than touchy-feely types to advise him, he might understand what I'm saying. We will have to wait and see how the scenario plays out to see what Clinton will ultimately do. I predict that he will not be convicted and that the Republicans will suffer a backlash for their actions, but I wish Clinton had the balls to take on Congress and start the revolution this country needs to flush out the crap in our federal government.
If you think what Ive said is radical, take note:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its Powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness... (Emphasis added). Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.
The whole world is watching as the purported leader of the free world shoots itself in the foot because of the indiscretions of the President of the United States of America. You'll notice that I didn't say "alleged indiscretions". Yes, after four years of investigations, and after forty millions of dollars having been expended by the special counsel, Kenneth Starr, the whole universe knows that Bill Clinton was having some extra marital sex with Monica Lewinsky, a White House intern, whose claim in history will be that she flashed her underwear at the President, that she often performed fellatio on the President, that she acted like a spoiled little brat when he wouldn't give up everything to make her number one in his life, and she, like a twit, confided in a "friend", Linda Tripp, about her affairs.
There have been rumors about corruption in the Clinton presidency--people mysteriously dying; FBI files on political enemies being improperly used; "White Water", improper activities relating to campaign contributions (e.g., "renting" White House rooms, money from China, selling national security secrets); etc.; but no solid evidence has thus far been presented on these issues. Instead, the special counsel who was originally appointed to investigate "White Water" gave us Monica sucking on Bill.
Hypocrisy
Americans are very hypocritical when it comes to sex. They dont want to talk about it in polite company, but they love to read about it in the tabloids; they love the subliminal messages, as well as the blatant messages, permeating every day advertisements; and they love watching the sex show going on under the guise of self-righteous Republican Congressmen who must do their "Constitutional duty". Oh, please spare me this sanctimonious bull feces. Without condoning President Clinton's conduct with Monica, it is a fact and is common knowledge that there is a high percentage of extra marital affairs among men and women. I believe that the issue of an extra marital affair should be between the immediate parties concerned and should not be used as extortion or black mail as it has been used by the religious right and the Republican dominated Congress against Clinton.
Field Marshall Gingrich and his brown shirts have launched a merciless attack against the President of the United States of America because he (the President) had an affair and lied about it. Congressmen are concerned that someone lied to the American people. Am I the only one who sees the irony in this situation? They say the President committed a felony by testifying falsely under oath in a legal proceeding. People testify every day in some legal proceeding, and lying under oath is a national pastime. Each side of a lawsuit has people testifying, and there is invariably a dispute as to the facts presented. Someone is lying. Perjury is a felony--they say. So is smoking a marijuana cigarette. Should a President be impeached for smoking a "joint"? How many perjury prosecutions have you ever even heard of? Get the point?
Corruption of Criminal Justice
What I find to be more despicable than the allegation of perjury is the corruption of the criminal justice procedures for political expediency. Starr was appointed to be an independent counsel to investigate White Water. Instead of acting like an independent counsel, he has acted more like a prosecutor. He has spent forty million dollars of public money and four years of investigations to deliver an adultery and perjury case--such as it is. Both Starr and Paula Jones religious right attorney have gone after Clinton with a vengeance. Yet, very little is said about the illegal eavesdropping that Linda Tripp did in order to acquire tape recorded statements from Monica. That conduct is illegal. Grand jury proceedings are supposed to be secret, but there were numerous leaks about grand jury testimony from Kenneth Starrs office. That conduct is illegal. The grand jury testimony of the President was supposed to be secret, but when it was released to Congress, Congress made it public in order to try to embarrass the President. That conduct is illegal, but no one dares to challenge Congress. Congress has politicized the criminal justice process. If Bill Clinton were a Mafia hit man with 50 "hits" under his belt, his grand jury testimony still would not be made a matter of public record except upon specific order of a court. Congress has seen fit to impeach or accuse President Bill Clinton under the Constitution of the United States of America. You have heard the Congressmen grandstanding and wrapping themselves in the American flag and pontificating about their "Constitutional" duties. Lets examine just where this Constitutional scenario may take us.
Constitutional Principles
The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeachment. Article I, Section 2. The House members act as a prosecutorial body to "file charges" against the President. Although the impeachment process is a political process, it clearly has the trappings of a criminal trial.
The Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments. Article I, Section 3. When the President is tried, the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court shall preside over the trial; and the President cannot be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the Senate members present. (Id.,). If the President is convicted, he can be removed from office and disqualified from serving in other offices; and he is still liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgement, and punishment according to law. (Id.,). One can readily see that the impeachment process, although political in nature, is still a "trial" in the truest sense of the word. To emphasize this point, the Constitution says that the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury. Article III, Section 2. The President shall be removed from office if he is impeached for, and convicted of, treason, bribery, or other "high crimes and misdemeanors". Article II, Section 4.
Prosecutorial Discretion
The House has acted like a prosecutor, and as such, they could have used "prosecutorial discretion" and not have filed charges (Articles of Impeachment) against the President. It is a common practice for prosecutors to consider whether or not there is a likelihood of conviction before filing charges, but in this case the "prosecutor" (the Republican dominated House of Representatives) chose to impeach the President knowing full well that (1) the American people still strongly support the President they elected and (2) there is no likelihood that the Senate will deliver sixty-six votes to convict Bill Clinton.
There is a runaway Congress doing whatever it wants to do because one political party has acquired so much power in the legislative branch on the federal government. The media, who have no integrity at all, are loving the situation because its the best story in town, if not in the country, if not in the world.
And since we are a nation of laws, not of men, and since it is in vogue to be a "crime fighter", and since this Democratic President has been a thorn in the side of the Republicans agenda, and since Clinton's views on gays in the military, partial birth abortion, and other issues make him an easy target for the religious right--it is plain to see that the Republican dominated Congress will continue to play "prosecutor" for partisan political purposes. They are playing this serious political game of impeachment of our nations elected leader while the Middle East is still a hot-spot, Japans economy is devastated, Korea is a threat, more nations are testing their nuclear weapons, the Serbs continue to commit genocide, the U.S. stock market is having fits, corruption is rampant in all three branches of government throughout the country, the United Nations family of nations frequently votes contrary to how the U.S. votes on world issues, etc. Meanwhile, Congress is playing "prosecutor".
Presidential Power
Tyranny does not have to flow from a single despot; it can manifest itself through a group of despots or dictators such as a mob or the Congress. I believe the actions of Congress in this so-called impeachment inquiry have been in violation of the laws of the land and are far more outrageous than the ones made against the President. There are three branches of government according to our Constitution--the Executive (President), the Legislative (Congress), and the Supreme Court (and inferior courts). The executive power is in the President. Article II, Section 1. The President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces to include the Militia of the various states when he calls them into actual service of the United States. Article 2, Section 2. It is the Presidents duty to take care that the laws of the United States are faithfully executed. Article 2, Section 3.
It is clear that the President is co-equal with Congress in terms of Constitutional authority. The founding fathers wanted it that way; therefore, the President has a Constitutional duty, just as Congress claims it has, to see that the laws are faithfully executed. He cannot simply allow Congress to corrupt the criminal justice process by encouraging directly or indirectly the acquisition and use of illegally obtained evidence through eavesdropping or prosecutorial threats and grand jury leaks.
Everyone knows that there are not enough votes to convict the President of wrongdoing and that the Republican controlled Congress has politicized a criminal justice process. If Clinton is given a fair trial in the Senate, he will not be convicted. Because of the harm that the impeachment process is causing in terms of distraction of the President from his duties and the emotional trauma it is obviously causing him as he tries to perform the duties of the job to which he was duly elected, and because of the illegal conduct that Congress has engaged in either directly or through it agents, the President must take action against Congress. Congress has become tyrannical in its actions against the President of the United States and the American people.
The President will not be convicted; but if by some strange fluke he were convicted and ordered from his office, he can declare martial law in the District of Columbia because there is an absence of law and because Congress has not been acting in the best interests of the United States national security by the impeachment charade. As Commander in Chief, President Clinton can call upon his armed forces and the federalized national guard, if necessary, to enforce the laws as he and his advisors interpret them. The concept of national security has changed and a declared war is no longer a prerequisite to the use of armed forces (e.g., Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, and internal and external threats of terrorism). A runaway, partisan Congress which violates domestic laws and attacks the Executive branch of the national government for non-meritorious reasons is a threat to national security. Congress also is greatly influenced by special interests groups which also threaten our national security. (See my essay, "TERRORISM-WHAT AND WHY?").
Conclusion
One might assume that Im simply a friend of Bills, and that I am a lackey Democrat trying to cover Clinton's butt for his horrible misdeeds. Wrong! I am a registered Republican who is disenchanted with both political parties and most of elected officials at my state level (Arizona) and at the federal level. I have no special fondness for Bill Clinton who is basically a weak leader, but I voted for him in the last election because I believed he was relevant to and understood the issues and problems facing the United States in the next millennium. I am a veteran of the Vietnam War during the 1968 Tet Offensive having served with the famous 1st Air Cavalry Division as a combat platoon leader. Bill Clinton was a draft dodger. Now, he is the duly elected President of the United States; and a partisan, runaway Congress doing what it is doing is a threat to our Constitutional form of government and our national security. If Clinton were a military man or surrounded himself with people other than touchy-feely types to advise him, he might understand what I'm saying. We will have to wait and see how the scenario plays out to see what Clinton will ultimately do. I predict that he will not be convicted and that the Republicans will suffer a backlash for their actions, but I wish Clinton had the balls to take on Congress and start the revolution this country needs to flush out the crap in our federal government.
If you think what Ive said is radical, take note:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its Powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness... (Emphasis added). Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.
RSS Feed