TCC Logo

THE CAMPAIGN FOR A CONGRESSIONAL IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY
Information and Links

Revised: January 17, 2012
A project of  The Conservative Caucus

450 Maple Avenue East * Vienna, Va. 22180 * 703-938-9626

IMPEACHMENT LINKS
|
Home | Senate Conviction Votes 2/12/99: How did YOUR Senators vote? | House Impeachment Roll Call Votes |
Video Transcripts of Lewinsky, Jordan, & Blumenthal | Impeachment Articles | Senate Trial Procedures | Howard Phillips News Conference Nov 17 | Starr's Testimony | Hyde's 81 Questions for Clinton | Impeachment Petition | Constitutional Provisions for Impeachment | Starr Report | Video Transcripts | Lobbying Action Needed | E-Mail Your Opinion to Congress and Media | Lobbying Tips | Impeach Al Gore | Impeachment Process Information (at C-SPAN) | House Judiciary Committee | Join Us! |


How did your Senators vote on Impeachment? Please check our roll call vote list and then e-mail or call (202-224-3121) your Senators with your opinions. Thank you.
pent-a.gif (6195 bytes)

Excerpted from Howard Phillips Issues and Strategy Bulletin of February 28, 1999

SENATE REJECTS ITS THREE TOP DUTIES

Paul Craig Roberts (The Washington Times, 2/10/99, p. A14) suggests that we "Consider the Senate's three most important powers, powers independent of Congress' legislative function: the power to confirm in office or reject all presidential nominees including the appointment of federal judges; the power to ratify or reject treaties; the power to remove from office an impeached president...."

COP-OUT ON CLINTON UNDERMINES OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM

"The Senate's power to remove the president from office enables the Senate to set the standards of right and wrong for the entire country. In the current case, the Senate can turn a blind eye to perjury and obstruction of justice, thereby establishing that these are no longer crimes worthy of prosecution, or the Senate can reaffirm the seriousness of the crimes and remove the president.

"This responsibility is greater than the people's responsibility in choosing a president. Choosing a president is an important exercise of judgment, but presidents turn over after four or eight years. Decisions that impact the character of a moral and legal code are much more important because such decisions are longer lasting...."

SENATE FORGETS TO INSIST ON CONFIRMATION PROCEDURE

"20 percent of Mr. Clinton's appointees are serving without confirmation.... The Justice Department aggressively ignores the confirmation rule. Observing the Senate's weak response to the brazen challenge to its power, other executive branch departments now claim exemptions from the appointments clause and the Vacancies Act."

"SEPARATION OF POWERS" UNDERMINED BY UNCHALLENGED PRESIDENTIAL POWER-GRABS

"Our system of checks and balances is based on the separation of powers, but there are no separate powers when all power flows into the executive branch."

REQUIREMENT IGNORED FOR SENATE TREATY RATIFICATION

"Treaties are another area where government proceeds without the Senate's constitutionally mandated participation. The executive branch can make a treaty, but the treaty cannot be implemented until it is ratified by the Senate. But here, also, the weakness of the Senate has made our upper house irrelevant, and the executive branch implements unratified treaties at will.

"The global warming treaty, for example, is a massive foreign aid measure that will redistribute heavy industry from developed countries to the Third World. The economic, social, and political implications of this treaty are enormous. But an aggressive executive branch, confident that a weak Senate will acquiesce in the demise of its own power, is already spending money implementing the treaty....

"The Senate treats federal agencies as constituents and functions essentially as an appendage of the executive branch."


Excerpted from Howard Phillips Issues and Strategy Bulletin of February 15, 1999

GUILTY!

FIFTY U.S. SENATORS ARE GUILTY OF VIOLATING THEIR OATHS OF OFFICE BY VOTING AGAINST CONVICTION OF THE CRIMINAL-IN-CHIEF ON BOTH COUNTS

POLITICAL DISHONOR ROLL

*Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii)  IS GUILTY

Tim Johnson (D-South Dakota)  IS GUILTY

Max Baucus (D-Montana)  IS GUILTY

*Edward Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)  IS GUILTY

Evan Bayh (D-Indiana) IS GUILTY

*Robert Kerrey (D-Nebraska)  IS GUILTY

Joe Biden (D-Delaware)  IS GUILTY

John Kerry (D-Massachusetts)  IS GUILTY

*Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico)  IS GUILTY

*Herbert Kohl (D-Wisconsin)  IS GUILTY

Barbara Boxer (D-California)  IS GUILTY

Mary Landrieu (D-Louisiana)  IS GUILTY

John Breaux (D-Louisiana) IS GUILTY

*Frank Lautenberg (D-New Jersey)  IS GUILTY

*Richard Bryan (D-Nevada)  IS GUILTY

Pat Leahy (D-Vermont)  IS GUILTY

*Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia)  IS GUILTY

Carl Levin (D-Michigan)  IS GUILTY

*John Chafee (R-Rhode Island)  IS GUILTY

*Joe Lieberman (D-Connecticut)  IS GUILTY

Max Cleland (D-Georgia)  IS GUILTY

Blanche Lincoln (D-Arkansas)  IS GUILTY

Susan Collins (R-Maine)  IS GUILTY

Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland)  IS GUILTY

*Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota)  IS GUILTY

*Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-New York)  IS GUILTY

Tom Daschle (D-North Dakota)  IS GUILTY

Patty Murray (D-Washington)  IS GUILTY

Chris Dodd (D-Connecticut)  IS GUILTY

Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island)  IS GUILTY

Byron Dorgan (D-North Dakota)  IS GUILTY

Harry Reid (D-Nevada)  IS GUILTY

Richard Durbin (D-Illinois)  IS GUILTY

*Charles Robb (D-Virginia)  IS GUILTY

John Edwards (D-North Carolina)  IS GUILTY

Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia)  IS GUILTY

Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin)  IS GUILTY

Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland)  IS GUILTY

*Dianne Feinstein (D-California)  IS GUILTY

Charles Schumer (D-New York)  IS GUILTY

Bob Graham (D-Florida)  IS GUILTY

*Olympia Snowe (R-Maine)  IS GUILTY

Tom Harkin (D-Iowa)  IS GUILTY

Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania)  IS GUILTY

Ernest Hollings (D-South Carolina)  IS GUILTY

Robert Torricelli (D-New Jersey)  IS GUILTY

Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)  IS GUILTY

Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota)  IS GUILTY

*Jim Jeffords (R-Vermont)  IS GUILTY

Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)  IS GUILTY

* Term expires after Year 2000 election

IF CHARGES WERE TRUE, ONLY A VERDICT OF GUILTY WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY ACCURATE

The Constitution makes clear in Article I, Section 2, that "the House of Representatives...shall have the sole Power of Impeachment". Article I, Section 3 stipulates that "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments". Each of the Senators listed above is guilty of disregarding their oath of office (Article VI): "The Senators and Representatives...shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution...."

The phoniest of all arguments against conviction of President Clinton was the assertion that the charges against him did not rise to the level of impeachment. That was an absurd assertion. The House of Representatives had already determined that the charges rose to the level of impeachment.

The only obligation of the Senate was to determine whether the charges were true or false. If true, a verdict of guilty was mandated. If false, a vote to acquit was in order. Particularly worthy of condemnation are those Senators who acknowledged that the charges brought by the House were true, but were unprepared to vote for conviction.

SPEAKER HASTERT AND LEADER LOTT HANDED CLINTON HIS VICTORY

And, of course, there were culprits among the "convict" voters who made President Clinton's acquittal possible. Republican leader Trent Lott acquiesced in House Speaker Denny Hastert's invitation for President Clinton to deliver his State of the Union address in person in the midst of the trial, thus making it appear to be nothing out of the ordinary.

REPUBLICANS ARE "BIPARTISAN", DEMOCRATS ARE "PARTISAN"

Lott also — in collaboration with Establishment liberal Republican Slade Gorton of Washington State — put aside his Constitutional obligations in order to pose and preen for the television cameras as a bipartisan collaborator with Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle.

SENATE DEMOCRATS PLAY TO WIN, SENATE REPUBLICANS PLAY

With the help of Senator Gorton, Lott managed to set in motion a process which denied the House managers the opportunity to fully make their case with as many live witnesses as they deemed necessary. As the result of Lott's mincing misorchestration of his historic duty, those courageous members of the U.S. House of Representatives who voted to impeach will pay a higher political price in the Year 2000 than would have otherwise been the case.

LOTT IS A CHEERLEADER FOR THE SENATE CLUB

The amiable Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Lott, is a charming and affable television performer, even as he was an enthusiastic cheerleader in his student days at "Ole Miss". As an adult, he seems better suited to fill the chair of David Letterman or Jay Leno rather than to stand in the shoes of the political giants who, years ago, had positions of great responsibility in the U.S. Senate.

THE THREE BIGGEST HYPOCRITES: BYRD, LIEBERMAN, AND MOYNIHAN

Special awards for hypocrisy should also go to those Democratic Senators — foremost among them Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, and Robert Byrd of West Virginia — who postured themselves as principled critics of Clinton's criminal conduct, but who ultimately rolled over to assuage his apologists in the media and the popular culture.

Your support is appreciated!


Excerpted from Howard Phillips Issues and Strategy Bulletin of January 15, 1999

JUSTICE FOR CLINTON MEANS CONVICTION, REMOVAL, INDICTMENT, CONVICTION, AND IMPRISONMENT, AT LEAST

Andrew C. McCarthy, a Connecticut attorney who formerly served as chief trial counsel in the Manhattan U.S. Attorney's Office and who was the lead prosecutor in one of the World Trade Center bombing cases, observed in The Wall Street Journal (12/28/98, p. A15) that "Over the past few weeks a boundless number of made-for-media pro-Clinton lawyers, all brandished by their TV hosts as ‘former prosecutors,’ have harangued viewers with the latest theme in their campaign to stave off the president's removal from office: the asserted need for ‘proportionality.’ As they see it, proportionality is the concept that the punishment prescribed by law should be ignored because it seems too severe under the circumstances. Specifically, Mr. Clinton's defenders argue that it would be disproportionate to remove him ‘merely’ because he subverted the judicial proceedings he is sworn to preserve, protect and defend....

"[N]o responsible federal prosecutor would refrain from bringing felony charges in the president's case. Moreover, to the extent it might honestly be said that removal would not be a ‘proportional’ punishment, that is true only insofar as it might be deemed inadequate. For the president, removal would simply deprive him of a trust he has profoundly betrayed. Any other citizen (and certainly any other public official) in the U.S. would go to jail for what the president has done...."

OF THOSE TO WHOM MUCH IS GIVEN MUCH IS REQUIRED

"The idea of proportionality also comes with an important caveat: Law-enforcement officials who break the law must be subject to harsher punishment than ordinary citizens. The reasons are obvious. Such positions are public trusts, invested in those who take solemn oaths. When the trustee acts criminally, he does more than merely break the law; he also betrays the trust. A punishment that reflects only the lawbreaking is not proportionate to the harm that is done. Proportionality demands that the trustee be held to a stricter standard.

"None of this is new. In fact, it is so firmly established that when the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines went into effect in 1987 — creating a formula based on criminal history and various material aspects of the defendant's conduct in an effort to bring uniformity to federal sentencing — the Sentencing Commission enacted an ‘enhancement’ called ‘Abuse of Position of Trust.’"

POLITICIZATION OF JUSTICE IS CONSEQUENCE OF AN UNCONVICTED CLINTON

"So how does proportionality apply to Mr. Clinton's situation? Unlike most defendants, who may cost the government a few thousand dollars, the president's obdurate lying and stonewalling have cost us several million dollars. He has torn asunder the sexual harassment laws. He has made it exponentially more difficult for the government to justify prosecuting those who lie under oath. And his behavior raises the specter of a compliant Justice Department redefining the legal definition of perjury to suit the administration's interests."

BILLY BOY SHOULD SPEND FIVE YEARS IN THE SLAMMER

"Taken together, Mr. Clinton's actions could easily justify several charges aggregating to well over 15 years of potential jail time. But let's confine the accusation to a single count of grand-jury perjury, an offense carrying a statutory maximum of five years' imprisonment. The guidelines that control federal sentencing initially compute this at ‘level 12,’ which translates to a jail sentence of 10 to 16 months for a first offender.

"The guidelines, however, also tell us to add three levels if the perjury resulted in a ‘substantial interference with the administration of justice’ and two levels if the defendant abused his position of trust. This moves us up on the sentencing grid to ‘level 17,’ which calls for a prison term of between 24 to 30 months. And mind you, for the sake of proportionality our prosecutor has ignored other possible guideline enhancements (such as obstruction of justice and an ‘aggravating role’ in the offense) that could drive the sentence much closer to the five-year maximum."

"PROPORTIONALITY" REQURIES CONVICTION AND REMOVAL

"Mr. Clinton would almost surely be headed to jail were it not for that small matter of being president. Would it really be ‘disproportionate’ to remove him from office? Common sense says the White House should not impede the way to the jail house, especially when the crimes are an assault on the very justice system the president has sworn to protect."

SHALL THE FELON-IN-CHIEF REMAIN IN CONTROL OF JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS?

"How in good conscience does the Senate allow such a person to fill vacancies on the federal bench? In the Justice Department? At the federal law-enforcement agencies?...

"Proportionality, however, is not a persuasive contention for Mr. Clinton's apologists, for it is the very soul of proportionality to withdraw a benefit whose conferral now brings only discredit to government and its laws."


Excerpted from Howard Phillips Issues and Strategy Bulletin of December 31, 1998

CLINTON IS NOT OUR WORST PRESIDENT — BUT MAY BE THE WORST MAN EVER TO OCCUPY THE OFFICE

Those who argue for a censure of Bill Clinton, the very same people who gathered at the White House to hail him following Mr. Clinton's having been impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, exhibited no sense of irony as Mr. Clinton and his colleagues denounced the impeachment, treating it as if it were an unworthy trifle, and failed to show any humility, remorse, or contrition.

Bill Clinton has repented of nothing except the fact that he was caught — in connection with a tiny sliver of a fraction of his misdeeds. Bill Clinton is not a sufficiently significant historic figure to be characterized as the worst President in the history of our country — several others have a higher claim to that title, including, in this century, Lyndon Johnson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson — but Mr. Clinton is, without doubt, the worst man ever to have served as President.

CLINTON'S SUPPORTERS EXHIBIT LITTLE REGARD FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT

As Wes Pruden observed in The Washington Times (12/22/98, p. A4), "If he were a mayor, an alderman, or maybe the commissioner of municipal sewers he might not be qualified for further service", but, in the eyes of his partisans, "he's certainly fit to be President of the United States."

AS DESPICABLE AS THEY CONCEDE HIM TO BE, THEY SAY CLINTON'S "RIGHT TO RULE" MAY NOT BE QUESTIONED

"The Democrats vie with each other to say the sharpest things about the president's private conduct, describing a man they wouldn't trust to drive their wives and daughters to church, and then hurry off to the Capitol steps to join in a pep rally for the man they almost universally privately agree is a liar, a cheat, a lecher and a bum."

THE COWARD- IN- CHIEF RISKS THE LIVES OF OTHERS TO SAVE HIS SKIN

"For his part, the president calls off the bombers over Iraq, and his lieutenants at the Pentagon concede, obliquely, that very little damage was done, probably because very little damage was intended. The lives of American fliers were put in harm's way, and for squalid reason. We're all assured that Saddam Hussein is an evil man, and we have no quarrel with the people of Iraq, so we assure Saddam that we have no intention of killing him, and instead kill the peasants that we say we have no quarrel with."

THE HYPOCRITE- IN- CHIEF MOCKS "RELIGION AND FAMILY VALUES"

"The president marches off to church, carrying his medium-size Bible and comes out to meet the photographers clutching the hand of his daughter, whom he has no shame to use as a prop. Faith and family get equal billing in this Sunday morning exercise in betrayal. Such shameless use of religious symbols would get the ACLU on a Republican's case, but the liberals defend it because they think the president doesn't really mean it. This time he has left his yellow tie at home, needing to signal nothing to Monica Lewinsky, and wears something in mauve, perhaps to signal his thanks to Barney Frank."

BOB DOLE PANDERS IN BEHALF OF HIS DEMOCRATIC LAW FIRM — WHICH PAYS HIM WELL

Meanwhile, Bob Dole, whose lucrative law practice in which he is a partner of former Senate Democratic leader George Mitchell and former Clinton Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen, procures handsome fees by virtue of its close relationships with the White House, continues to pander in Mr. Clinton's behalf, arguing for a solution short of Constitutional removal. Indeed, at one point it was rumored that former Senators Mitchell and Dole would be "tag team" lawyers leading Mr. Clinton's defense in the U.S. Senate.


Excerpted from Howard Phillips Issues and Strategy Bulletin of December 15, 1998

DID GINGRICH EXIT PAVE THE WAY FOR CLINTON IMPEACHMENT?

In his December 11 column for WorldNetDaily, Llewellyn H. Rockwell observed that the "Republicans in Congress are not themselves. In drafting articles of impeachment, they seem to be eschewing media intimidation, phony polls, and establishment consternation, to actually do the right thing. Let's enjoy it while it lasts, which it probably won't.

"The sudden switch, after four years of betraying the voters who put them there, cries out for explanation. It so happens that one is ready at hand: Newt Gingrich no longer controls the House. Hence, he can no longer keep a lid on the passions of many younger legislators who think the Constitution should not be entirely ignored in the process of government.

"What a relief it must be to be free of Gingrich's iron hand. For principled Republicans, it's been four years of captivity...."

FROM NAFTA TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER

"Instead of destroying bureaucracies, Newt spoke of the presidency-enhancing line-item veto. Instead of abolishing departments, he spoke of reforming them. Instead of slashing taxes, he spoke of fixing flaws in the tax code....

"The public soon discovered that congressional duplicity and profligacy knew no party bounds. In the last days of the 103rd Congress, Newt plotted the passage of NAFTA...."

DECISION-MAKING WAS CONCENTRATED IN THE SPEAKER'S OFFICE

"Newt saw his first job as reining in the freshmen radicals, who were begging to vote on tax cuts. He told them they would get their chance just as soon [as] the much-ballyhooed Contract passed. To do so, he manufactured a series of votes to centralize all power in the hands of the Speaker."

MORE GUN CONTROL, HIGHER TAXES AND SPENDING

"Newt and his cronies now claimed that taxes couldn't be cut because the deficit had to be reduced. Large tax cuts were off the agenda and haven't been on it, in any serious way, ever since.

"The rest of Newt's speakership has been characterized by one betrayal after another. The list includes the approval of the World Trade Organization, the welfare-reform fraud, the agriculture-reform fraud, the hike in the minimum wage, the increase in spending, the imposition of trade sanctions, the refusal to cut any important bureaucracy, the junking of the 10th Amendment, the failure to repeal Clinton's gun controls, the jingoism backing Clinton's foreign bombings and embargoes, the non-investigation of federal police brutality, the funding of the IMF, and much, much more."

FREE AT LAST?

"As for the recent electoral failure, recall that the GOP, under Newt's leadership, passed the largest and, quite possibly, the most egregious budget deal in U.S. history, two weeks before the election. It was that final act of betrayal, more than any other, that caused voters to flee this perfidious party.

"As Speaker, Newt was worse than ineffective. He dumped the opportunity to restore freedom as the watchword of American politics. That's why he was ousted as Speaker. As Gingrich himself said, in bitter phone calls the day before he hit the road, the firebrands were fed up with him.

"With Newt out of the way, the dam broke and waves of pent-up bitterness came crashing down. In a matter of weeks, the GOP had taken impeachment from political death to a living and glorious reality."


Excerpted from Howard Phillips Issues and Strategy Bulletin of October 15, 1998

CONGRATULATIONS – YOU DID IT!

On Thursday, October 8, the U.S. House of Representatives, by a margin of 258 to 176, adopted the following resolution initiating an inquiry of impeachment with respect to President William J. Clinton:

"Resolved. That the Committee on the Judiciary, acting as a whole or by any subcommittee thereof appointed by the chairman for the purposes hereof and in accordance with the rules of the committee, is authorized and directed to investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States of America.

"The committee shall report to the House of Representatives such resolutions, articles of impeachment, or other recommendations as it deems proper.

"For the purpose of making such investigation, the committee is authorized to require:

" By subpoena or otherwise – the attendance and testimony of any person (including [a] taking of a deposition by counsel for the committee); and the production of such things; and

" By interrogatory; the furnishing of such information; as it deems necessary to such investigation.

"Such authority of the committee may be exercised, by the chairman and the ranking minority member acting jointly, or, if either declines to act, by the other acting alone, except that in the event either so declines, either shall have the right to refer to the committee for decision the question whether such authority shall be so exercised and the committee shall be convened promptly to render that decision; or by the committee acting as a whole or by subcommittee.

"Subpoenas and interrogatories so authorized may be issued over the signature of the chairman, or ranking minority member, or any member designated by either of them, and may be served by any person designated by the chairman, or ranking minority member, or any member designated by either of them.

"The chairman, or ranking minority member, or any member designated by either of them (or, with respect to any deposition, answer to interrogatory, or affidavit, any person authorized by law to administer oaths) may administer oaths to any witness.

"For the purposes of this section, ‘things’ includes, without limitation, books, records, correspondence, logs, journals, memorandums, papers, documents, writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, reproductions, recordings, tapes, transcripts, printouts, data compilations from which information can be obtained (translated if necessary, through detection devices into reasonably usable form), tangible objects, and other things of any kind."

Since February 8, 1994, The Conservative Caucus and various allied organizations have been working toward that objective, as we launched the Campaign for a Congressional Impeachment Inquiry.

I said this at the kick-off news conference: "Only in the context of a congressional inquiry can we find out whether the impeachment of Bill Clinton and criminal prosecution of Hillary Rodham Clinton are legally warranted. Mounting evidence compels Congress to open an inquiry to find out if, indeed, such proceedings should go forward.

"In 1974 it was the House Judiciary Committee – on whose staff both Hillary Rodham and current White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum served – which was called upon to investigate the comparatively minor issues incident to the cover-up of a botched burglary at the Watergate Hotel. Hillary Rodham had no objections at that time to full public disclosure. You can be sure that if Ronald Reagan, George Bush or Dan Quayle were involved in matters so questionable as those in which the Clintons are involved, there would not even be a debate over whether a congressional inquiry should go forward. The Judiciary Committee would already be holding hearings."

Others who had the courage and the foresight to join with me on that or on subsequent occasions included: Floyd Brown, President of Citizens United; Ted Adams, former National Chairman of the U.S. Taxpayers Party; David Denholm, President of Public Service Research Council; Peter Flaherty, President of National Legal and Policy Center; Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America; Notre Dame Law Professor Charles Rice; Randall Terry, Operation Rescue Founder; Clymer Wright of Citizens for Term Limits; Rev. Patrick Mahoney, President, Christian Defense Coalition; Amy Moritz, President, National Center for Public Policy Research; John Snyder, Public Affairs Director for Citizens Committee for Right to Keep & Bear Arms; Gary Aldrich, Founder of The Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty; Michael Farris, President of Home School Legal Defense Association; Steve Fitschen, President of National Legal Foundation; Don Hodel, President of Christian Coalition; Reed Irvine, Chairman of Accuracy in Media; Larry Klayman, President of Judicial Watch; Beverly LaHaye, President of Concerned Women for America; Mark Levin, President of Landmark Legal Foundation; Marlin Maddoux, President of USA Radio Network; Jim Martin, Chairman of 60-Plus Association; Pat Matrisciana, President of Citizens for Honest Government; Al Matt, Editor of The Wanderer; Chuck Missler, Executive Director, Koininia House; Phyllis Schlafly, President of Eagle Forum; Herb Titus, President of Forecast Foundation; Richard Viguerie, Chairman of American Target Advertising; John Wheeler, Editor of Citizens' Intelligence Digest.

BOB BARR PROVIDED HEROIC, PERSISTENT LEADERSHIP LONG BEFORE THE POLITICAL RISKS HAD ENDED

Of course, great credit goes to Congressman Bob Barr (R-GA) with whom we had been working closely for many months, who, on November 5, 1997, introduced House Resolution 304 – the first formal request in Congress for an impeachment inquiry.

WAS KEN STARR OUTSMARTED BY MONICA?

From NewsMax Exclusive "Don't Be Fooled!", Christopher Ruddy (9/22/98) reports: "Starr gave Lewinsky transactional immunity. In return, she testified more than once that Clinton never told her to lie about their relationship, under oath or otherwise. She also testified for Starr that Vernon Jordan never told her to lie, nor did anyone else."

LEWINSKY COVERED FOR CLINTON AND JORDAN AGAINST OBSTRUCTION, CONSPIRACY, AND SUBORNATION CHARGES

"In one melodramatic moment at the end of her grand jury testimony, as tears dripped from her cheeks, she said, ‘I would just like to say that no one ever asked me to lie and I was never promised a job for my silence. ...And I hate Linda Tripp.’...."

DOES STARR REALLY THINK MONICA WROTE THE "TALKING POINTS"?

"Starr's own spokesman said that the three page ‘talking points’ document Lewinsky gave to Tripp were the basis of the whole Starr investigation. Since it clearly instructs Tripp how to lie and dissemble in her deposition for the Jones case, it is pure obstruction of justice.

"Lewinsky told Starr and the grand jury that she alone wrote this document. If there were any foreign ideas contained in it, she claimed they probably came from discussions she had with Linda Tripp. Apparently, Starr and the grand jury bought this cock-and-bull story too."

LARRY KLAYMAN QUESTIONS STARR'S CREDIBILITY

"The talking points document, which Lewinsky entitled ‘points to make in affadavit’ [sic], is now available for the world to see (check it out at

www.newsmax.com). Judicial Watch chairman Larry Klayman reviewed the document and said no way was this written by a 24-year-old phone sex expert. He said the language was not only lawyerly, but included points that would be made by someone schooled in sexual harassment law. Klayman added that Starr's acceptance of Lewinsky's claims is another sign he had no intent to properly handle the case...."

MONICA HAS BEEN TRAINED BY EXPERTS TO BE A WORLD CLASS LIAR

"During her grand jury testimony, Monica admitted to prosecutors she encouraged Tripp to lie in her Jones deposition because ‘people don't go to jail for perjury in a civil case.’

"When Starr's prosecutor asked Monica, the young legal scholar, were she learned this esoteric information, she responded with a ‘hmmm.’ Asked again, the transcript indicates she responded ‘Uhhhh.’ Finally a juror helped her out by suggesting her own attorney told her this. Lewinsky grabbed it and indicated that was correct, her attorney had told her this.

"It is evident Lewinsky was coached by a source close to the President about her own statement, and what to tell Tripp. I doubt Lewinsky's own attorney explained to her why it's ok to lie under oath in a civil case. Doing so could lead to his disbarment...."

MONICA GOT A BETTER DEAL WITHOUT A BETTER PR(OFFER)

"Starr didn't accept Lewsinky's [sic] February proffer, delaying the case for almost eight months. Compare the key points Lewinsky made in her proffer with what she later told the grand jury. I did. The comparison shows Lewinsky told Starr and the grand jury the same story that she had offered to him in the proffer eight months earlier."

REPUBLICANS CAVE ON KEY ISSUES TO KEEP IMPEACHMENT ISSUE ALIVE UNTIL NOVEMBER

According to The New York Times (10/7/98, p. A18), "Republicans want to keep the spotlight on the impeachment investigation of President Clinton and are therefore eager to brush away any matters that might interfere. They indicated today that they intended to change their positions on matters ranging from less money for the International Monetary Fund to a weakened Federal Election Commission to a denial of political amnesty for 40,000 Haitians."

THE DEVIL MADE THEM DO IT

"The signals distressed House conservatives, who said their leaders were sacrificing principles to milk all political advantage from the spectacle of impeaching the President....Conservatives are also convinced that spending $18 billion on the International Monetary Fund is a waste of money, but Democrats are adamant that the money be provided.

"‘We aren't going to leave here without it,’ said Representative David R. Obey of Wisconsin, the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee."


Excerpted from Howard Phillips Issues and Strategy Bulletin of June 15, 1998

REPUBLICANS MAY LOSE CONTROL OF CONGRESS IF THEY FAIL TO ACT ON IMPEACHMENT

Once again the Republicans are playing into Bill Clinton's hands, delaying action on impeachment on the basis of concerns that they might jeopardize their November 11 prospects if they appear to be "hasty".

GOP'S REFUSAL TO ACT AIDS DEMOCRATS POLITICALLY AND CLINTON PERSONALLY

As Gerald Seib observes in The Wall Street Journal (6/3/98, p. A20), Bill Clinton is very comfortable with that strategy, which coincides with his own: "[T]o the extent that delaying tactics by the Clinton team now force Mr. Starr to offer Congress an incomplete report this summer, or no report at all, the president's situation will be enhanced."

CLINTON DELAYS TO SURVIVE

"Of course, there's another reason – a big one – for Mr. Clinton to slow down the investigatory train. What if the fall election shifts control of the House from Republicans to Democrats? If that happens, kiss those impeachment scenarios goodbye. The two main House investigating committees, Judiciary and Government Oversight, would no longer be run by staunch conservatives Henry Hyde and Dan Burton, but rather by liberal Democratic stalwarts John Conyers and Henry Waxman. The house speaker wouldn't be Newt Gingrich, but Richard Gephardt. And a Speaker Gephardt might be less likely to run for president against Vice President Al Gore – an added bonus for Team Clinton."

GINGRICH MAY BE HOISTED ON THE PETARD OF HIS OWN REFUSAL TO BEGIN IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS

"To take control of the House, Democrats would have to pick up 11 seats, which isn't much by historical standards. ‘You don't need a wave,’ says veteran Democratic strategist Thomas O'Donnell. ‘A tiny ripple will do.’"


Excerpted from Howard Phillips Issues and Strategy Bulletin of April 30, 1998

DOES KEN STARR HAVE A CHINA CONFLICT THAT LIMITS HIS INTEREST IN PURSUING TREASON OR BRIBERY CHARGES AGAINST CLINTON?

Joe Farah, in his important column, between the lines (April 27, 1998), offers an alternative perspective concerning why the treason and bribery issues have not been effectively raised against President Clinton and Vice President Gore.

Farah writes that, while Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr "is being denounced by Clinton administration officials as a ‘right-wing extremist,’ he is, in fact, part of the same insider political establishment that backs Bill Clinton's selling of this country down the [Yangtze] River."

RED CHINA'S CITIC IS STARR'S CLIENT

"As Strategic Investment reported last year, one of Starr's largest law clients is the China International Trust and Investment Corp., or CITIC, a ministry-level corporation owned by the Chinese government and reporting directly to the State Council of the People's Republic of China. The chairman of CITIC is Wang Jun, who also heads Poly Group Corp., the major arms trading section of the People's Liberation Army. Poly Group was the company caught trying [to] smuggle 2,000 automatic weapons into the United States aboard a China Overseas Shipping Co., or COSCO, vessel last year.

"This is a conflict far more glaring in its appearance than Starr's connections with American tobacco companies and General Motors. For it is Clinton's relationship with China that is more disturbing and more threatening to the vital national security interests of this country than his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

"It's an open secret now that millions of dollars flowed illegally into the Clinton-Gore campaign and into the coffers of the Democratic National Committee from Chinese and other mysterious Asian sources during the 1996 election campaign. Two years later, we can now ask what those dollars may have purchased. The answer...to that question is apparently anything China wanted."

WHY NO PROSECUTIONS AGAINST COMMUNIST GUN SMUGGLING?

"For instance, was anyone prosecuted for the attempt to import those automatic weapons into the United States so they could be sold to L.A. street gangs? No. Why not? This administration is hell-bent on denying law-abiding Americans with even semi-automatic weapons. You would think Clinton and company would be outraged that a foreign company would try to smuggle these actual ‘assault weapons’ into the states. Why wasn't there a peep of protest from the White House? Why didn't the federal government make an example of the Poly Group and their collaborators in COSCO?..."

MFN AND MILITARY TECHNOLOGY BENEFIT PEOPLE'S LIBERATION ARMY

"Remember, this was the administration which came to power criticizing President Bush's all-too-cozy relationship with China. Yet, it quickly adopted Bush's policy of granting ‘Most Favored Nation’ status to the brutes in Beijing. Then there was the decision by the Department of Commerce to reclassify formerly restricted military technology for supercomputers, radiation-resistant computer chips, satellite geo-positioners, submarine and stealth technology, high-tech missile engine tools and more. U.S. companies have been selling all of these items to the Chinese ever since."

RED CHINA HAS HIRED REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS

"The China scandal, of course, is one that threatens to cut in bipartisan fashion. Senior politicians from both major political parties serve as unregistered lobbyists for the Chinese government. They include Alexander Haig, Henry Kissinger, Mickey [Kantor] and Robert Strauss. In addition, some of the nation's largest banks, multinational corporations and financial institutions are promoting even cozier ties with Beijing as a recipe for economic growth over the next decade – human rights, freedom and national security be damned."

DOES "RIGHT-WING CONSPIRACY" THREATEN "COMMUNIST CONSPIRACY"?

"So when the left-wing conspiracy theorists ask you why a ‘right-wing Republican’ like Kenneth Starr would hesitate to go for the jugular in his investigation of the president, now you have some answers."


Excerpted from Howard Phillips Issues and Strategy Bulletin of April 15, 1998

TREASON -- CLINTON'S TECH TRANSFERS TO RED CHINA REQUIRE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY

The New York Times (4/4/98, p. A1) reports that "A Federal grand jury is investigating whether two American companies illegally gave China space expertise that significantly advanced Beijing's ballistic missile program, according to Administration officials."

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE BY THE CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OPPOSED BY JUSTICE DEPT.

"But the officials said the criminal inquiry was dealt a serious blow two months ago when President Clinton quietly approved the export to China of similar technology by one of the companies under investigation.

"The decision was opposed by Justice Department officials, who argued that it would be much more difficult to prosecute the companies if the Government gave its blessing to the deal, the officials said.

"Under investigation, the officials said, are Loral Space and Communications of Manhattan and Hughes Electronics, a Los Angeles-based division of the General Motors Corporation. The companies denied wrongdoing, but declined to discuss the investigation."

$3.5 MILLION IN BIPARTISAN POLICY BRIBES

The Times observed (4/13/98, pp. A1, A8), that since "1991, the aerospace industry has divided its political contributions equally between Democrats and Republicans. In the same period, however, Loral and Hughes tilted toward the Democratic Party, giving $2.5 million to Democratic candidates and causes and $1 million to the Republicans...."

BUSH AND CLINTON EACH SIGNED TECHNOLOGY WAIVERS FOR RED CHINA

"The criminal investigation of Hughes and Loral has its roots in 1989, when sanctions were imposed...requiring a Presidential waiver for satellite launchings. Eleven such waivers have been granted by President Clinton and his predecessor, George Bush...."

NAFTA SUPPORT USED TO LEVERAGE NATIONAL SECURITY WAIVER

C. Michael Armstrong (now head of AT&T and former chief executive of Hughes Electronics, a subsidiary of General Motors Corporation) "wasted no time in getting the President's attention. He wrote two blunt letters in September and October 1993 that reminded Mr. Clinton of his support for several Presidential policy initiatives like the North American Free Trade Agreement, officials said...."

PAINTING THE ROSES RED

"Soon after the letters, Mr. Clinton assured Mr. Armstrong in an open meeting that he was trying to resolve the tussle between the State Department, which licensed military exports and wanted to keep authority over satellites, and the Commerce Department, which licensed all other exports and was on the side of the satellite industry.

"‘I'm trying to get on top of this to decide what to do,’ Mr. Clinton told Mr. Armstrong....In early January 1994, the President sent another positive signal....Three satellites were labeled as civilian, including one slightly modified Hughes satellite....In December 1994, the President selected Mr. Armstrong to head his Export Council....in 1995, Mr. Armstrong sent another letter to Mr. Clinton, signed by [Bernard] Schwartz [Chairman and Chief Executive of Loral], arguing that the Commerce Department should become the primary licensing authority for satellite exports...."

DEAL-DOERS PREFERRED DOING BUSINESS WITH COMMERCE DEPARTMENT

"But the satellite makers wanted a broader decision that made the Commerce Department the primary licensing authority for virtually all satellites. The Commerce Department weighs the economic consequences when it considers an export license. The State Department looks at security concerns."

RON BROWN WAS LOOKING AFTER BUSINESS FOR "FRIENDS OF BILL"

"Loral has numerous business deals with China and close ties to the White House...Schwartz was the largest personal contributor to the Democratic National Committee last year...."

"In 1994...Schwartz went to China with Commerce Secretary Ron Brown. Mr. Brown helped Loral close a mobile telephone satellite network deal in Beijing.

"A few weeks later, the President's top political aide, Harold Ickes, wrote a memo to Mr. Clinton in which he said Mr. Schwartz ‘is prepared to do anything he can for the Administration.’...

"[I]n March 1996, Mr. Clinton shifted major licensing responsibilities for almost all satellites to the Commerce Department."

CLINTON TRADES POSITION AND POLICY FOR CASH

"The Federal inquiry stems from a 1996 incident in which a Chinese rocket carrying aloft a satellite built by Loral exploded shortly after liftoff. The two companies took part in an independent review of the failure, and reported to the Chinese on what went wrong."

RED CHINA GIVEN TOP SECRET MISSILE DATA

"On Feb. 15, 1996, a Chinese rocket carrying a $200 million Loral satellite crashed 22 seconds after liftoff at the Xichang Satellite Launching Center in... southern China....an outside review commission, headed by Loral, was assembled to help the Chinese study the accident. It included two scientists from Hughes....

"[T]he [commission's] report, which was promptly shared with the Chinese, discussed other sensitive aspects of the rocket's guidance and control systems, which is an area of weakness in China's missile programs...."

PENTAGON DECLARES U.S. SECURITY UNDERMINED

"One year later, the Pentagon completed its damage assessment of the incident. It concluded, officials said, that ‘United States national security has been harmed.’"

"Those exchanges, officials believe, may have gone beyond the sharing of information that the companies had been permitted, giving the Chinese crucial assistance in improving the guidance systems of their rockets. The technology needed to put a commercial satellite in orbit is similar to that which guides a long-range nuclear missile to its target."

CLINTON PERSONALLY AUTHORIZED ILLEGAL DATA TRANSFER BY HIS DONOR

"In February, with the investigation of this incident well under way, Mr. Clinton gave Loral permission to launch another satellite on a Chinese rocket and provide the Chinese with the same expertise that is at issue in the criminal case, officials said....

"Few nations can deliver intercontinental ballistic missiles. China has lagged because, among other reasons, it lacks the guidance technology, also used for satellites, that allows multiple warheads to be sent from a single missile."

IN WHOSE NATIONAL INTEREST?

"President Clinton signed the waiver to allow the Loral satellite launching on Feb. 18. The waiver states that the deal is ‘in the national interest.’....

"But law-enforcement officials argued against the waiver, saying the approval jeopardized their investigation because it sanctioned the export of essentially the same guidance expertise involved in the possibly illegal transfer two years ago. Administration officials say...."

ONLY CONGRESS CAN IMPEACH CLINTON FOR THIS TREASONOUS HIGH CRIME

"Whatever the evidence, criminal charges may never be brought because Mr. Clinton approved the export to China by Loral of similar satellite guidance information two months ago. He acted despite the strong opposition of the Justice Department, whose officials argued that the approval would seriously undercut any criminal case." (Source: The New York Times, 4/4/98, pp. A1, A3 and The New York Times, 4/13/98, pp. A1, A8)

 

CHAIRMAN HYDE EARNS MEDIA PRAISE FOR PLAYING DR. JEKYLL

The New York Times (4/11/98, p. A7) celebrates the role of Henry Hyde as Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee with responsibility for any impeachment matters which may come before the House.

As reported by Lizette Alvarez, "There is no doubt that Mr. Hyde, a former Navy man who grew up poor in Chicago, is a committed Republican partisan with a strong moral streak....He is still best known for his 1976 "Hyde Amendment", which restricts the use of Federal money for abortions....

"Yet, Mr. Hyde, a child of the Depression, manages to blend principle with pragmatism....if he disagrees with his colleagues on an issue...Mr. Hyde has no qualms about parting company with his party colleagues."

IF YOU HAVE A REPUTATION AS AN EARLY RISER, YOU CAN SLEEP UNTIL NOON

"Neither is he reluctant to help tug the party back toward the center, even on abortion. Last year, when the Republican National Committee was pondering whether to cut off financial help to candidates who support abortion rights, Mr. Hyde was summoned to California to urge prudence and common sense...."

TIME FOR A REFERENCE CHECK?

"Democrats respect that independence, to the point of actually coming to his defense....Representative Barney Frank, the Massachusetts liberal and second-ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, agreed. The chairman, he said, is ‘willing to listen.’...‘A partisan Republican he is, but Henry is also a statesman,’ said Kate Michaelman, the head of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League...."

 

CLINTON'S "LEGAL STRATEGY" IS IMPEACHABLE

John C. Stevens of Muscatine, Iowa points out in a Letter to the Editor of The Wall Street Journal (3/2/98, p. A19) that "The delegates who drafted our Constitution in 1787 did not pluck the words ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ out of thin air....In 1787 ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ had a very well-known and a very well understood meaning....

"The first Congress, in October 1774, in declaring the rights of the colonies, stated ‘that the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England....that they are entitled to the benefit of such of the English statutes, as existed at the time of their colonization, and which they have by experience respectively found to be applicable to their several local and other circumstances’ (Journal of Congress, October 1774, p. 29)."

BLACKSTONE DOCUMENTED OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AS A "HIGH" MISDEMEANOR

"It is unrealistic to suggest that having fought a war to obtain the rights of Englishmen, the drafters of our Constitution would toss them aside and write words into the Constitution that had no meaning and that none of them understood. Following the Declaration of Independence, ‘Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England’ was the primary source of legal knowledge and the recognized authority on English law in the 13 colonies....

"In ‘Chapter the Ninth,’ Blackstone describes ‘contempts or high misdemeanors’ as offenses committed against the King and the king's government, which necessarily included the ‘king's courts of justice.’ From even a cursory reading of ‘Chapter the Ninth,’ it is indisputable that obstruction of justice is a ‘high misdemeanor.’...

"‘Lastly, to endeavor to dissuade a witness from giving evidence; to disclose an examination before the privy council; or, to advise a prisoner to stand mute; (all of which are impediments of justice), are high misprisons, and contempts of the king's court....’ If President Clinton encouraged Monica Lewinsky, or any other person, to give false testimony, he is guilty of obstruction of justice and has committed an impeachable offense."


Excerpted from Howard Phillips Issues and Strategy Bulletin of March 15, 1998

LOTT IS WRONG. CENSURE NO SUBSTITUTE FOR IMPEACHMENT

Congressman Bob Barr (R-Ga.) has correctly and effectively critiqued (3/7/98) Senator Trent Lott's suggestion that instead of removing Bill Clinton from office he should merely be censured:

"‘Impeachment is the only proper forum for the consideration of credible evidence that President Clinton has abused his office.

"‘"Censure" would be no substitute for impeachment. It would actually be much worse than doing nothing at all because it sends a clear message that serious abuses of power have taken place, but that no penalty will result. "Censuring" the president – which is tantamount to a tap on the wrists – would send a message to the American people that, while the president has abused his office, congress is not willing to hold him accountable for it.’"

CLINTON HOPES B'RER LOTT WILL THROW HIM INTO THAT BRIAR PATCH

"‘Applying "censure" to such a serious matter as abusing the most powerful office in our political system and possibly endangering our national security trivializes the idea that elected officials are accountable for their actions. Clinton would laugh all the way to the end of his second term in office.

"‘This suggestion also plays into the hands of the president's Democrat defenders in congress who are constantly trying to trivialize allegations of abuse of power, such as taking money from the Communist Chinese.’"


Excerpted from Howard Phillips Issues and Strategy Bulletin of  February 28, 1998

JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED: AMERICA CAN NO LONGER WAIT FOR GINGRICH, HYDE, AND STARR

Bruce Fein has pointed out (Washington Times, 1/27/98, Commentary) that "Now is no time for impeachment tardiness. President William Jefferson Clinton has been incriminated by credible witnesses of perjury and obstruction of justice, crimes that subvert keystones of the rule of law."

GRAND JURY LACKS THE AUTHORITY ASSIGNED TO CONGRESS

"Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Henry Hyde, Illinois Republican, should immediately commence an impeachment investigation definitively to resolve the accusations with reasonable dispatch, not await the lead-footed and hypertechnical criminal investigation of Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth Starr. The political fate of the incumbent president is, by impeachment rules, constitutionally entrusted to the people through their popularly elected representatives in the House and Senate. A handful of citizens sitting as grand and petit jurors in a criminal prosecution captained by Mr. Starr would be no substitute. Compare the two would-be proceedings."

TV IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS WOULD INFORM AND MOBILIZE PUBLIC OPINION

"The Constitution prescribes impeachment by majority vote of the House, and both the debate on the floor and the Judiciary Committee inquiry into President Clinton's alleged tampering with justice would be televised to the American people. Television would facilitate insuring that the impeachment vote would be accepted as fair and reasonable by the citizenry, not a partisan vendetta to circumvent the outcome of the 1996 presidential elections."

LAWYERS DELAYING TACTICS CAN BE OVERRIDDEN IN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY

"Impeachment proceedings, moreover, can conclude with reasonable dispatch. The accusations are clear and uncomplicated. The relevant witnesses and documents are limited. The rules of evidence are non-technical, and the role of lawyers can be confined without cutting short constitutional mandates of procedural fairness. A House impeachment vote within 100 days might be expected...."

"REASONABLE DOUBT" NOT REQUIRED FOR CONVICTION ON IMPEACHMENT CHARGE

"If the House votes articles of impeachment, the proceedings would move to the Senate for a trial presided over by the chief justice of the United States, William H. Rehnquist. The trial would be televised as in the House proceedings. Conviction would require a two-thirds majority, a safeguard against partisan oppression because Democrats hold substantially more than one-third of Senate seats. Proof of wrongdoing beyond a reasonable doubt would not be required because removal from the Oval Office does not constitute criminal punishment, but a vindication of political rectitude and honesty, the coin of the realm."

2000 WILL COME AND GO IF COURTS, RATHER THAN CONGRESS, DECIDE CLINTON FATE

"A Senate trial would be mercury-footed in comparison to its criminal counterpart. (The full House and Senate impeachment proceedings eventuating in the acquittal of then President Andrew Johnson consumed but 94 days). Technical rules of evidence, such as the exclusion of hearsay, would not obtain. Mr. Clinton would not enjoy an inflexible right to cross-examine every witness."

IF CLINTON IS IMPEACHED AND CONVICTED, HE HAS NO APPEAL

"There would be no endless years of appeals from a Senate verdict; a conclusive Senate vote could uncurtain with 90 days or less.

"Resolving President Clinton's political future with both alacrity and scrupulous fairness is urgent. The nation and the mass media are virtually transfixed on the momentous issue."


"SILENCE OF THE LAMBS": IS "DIRTY LINEN" THE REASON FOR REPUBLICAN RETICENCE?

Excerpted from Howard Phillips Issues and Strategy Bulletin of  February 15, 1998

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: "[T]here's a different long-term strategy which I think would be far more explosive. White House allies are already starting to whisper about what I'll call the Ellen Roemech (ph) strategy....

"She was a girlfriend of John F. Kennedy, who also happened to be an East German spy. And Robert Kennedy was charged with getting her out of the country and also getting John Edgar Hoover to go to the Congress and say, don't you investigate this, because if you do, we're going to open up everybody's closets.

"And I think that in the long run, they have a deterrent strategy...."

SAM DONALDSON: "Are you suggesting for a moment that what [they're] beginning to say is that if you investigate this too much, we'll put all your dirty linen right on the table? Every member of the Senate? Every member of the press corps?"

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: "Absolutely. The President said he would never resign, and I think some around him are willing to take everybody down with him." (Source: Transcript of ABC's This Week with Sam & Cokie, February 8, 1998)

 

GOP WANTS TO KEEP CLINTON IN OFFICE

Richard Berke reports (New York Times, 2/8/98, p. 24) that "as the White House scandal approaches its third week, most prominent Republicans are abiding a deliberate political calculus: Make sure Mr. Clinton stays put – but keep him wounded.

"‘We need to be positive, patriotic and patient,’ Speaker Newt Gingrich declared this week at a closed-door meeting of House Republicans...."

TOO CLEVER BY HALF?

"If Mr. Clinton stays in office but remains beleaguered, he will be all the more vulnerable a target as Republicans campaign against Democrats in the November midterm elections. And some Republicans go as far as to admit that they do not want Mr. Clinton forced out of office, because that would give his replacement, Vice President Al Gore, a leg up in the Presidential race in 2000.

"‘From a strictly cynical political standpoint, we don't want this to be too fast,’ said Rich Galen, a Republican strategist who is close to Mr. Gingrich. ‘There's no hurry here.’...."

 

BOB BARR: "PRINCIPLE BEFORE POLITICS"

"‘I do not believe in death by a thousand cuts,’ said Representative Bob Barr, a Georgia Republican who is the most outspoken advocate of having the House consider impeaching Mr. Clinton. ‘The Presidency in our country is too important for that.’

"Asked about the go-slow approach of Mr. Gingrich and others in the leadership, Mr. Barr said, ‘They're putting politics above principle, and I don't choose to do that.’"

GOP "SPEAKS NO EVIL"

"Stuart Stevens, a Republican media consultant here and in New York, said:

The danger for the Republican Party is that it is being made irrelevant by its silence. It has been a consistent failure of Republicans to find a way to talk about this very troubling side of Clinton in a way that people find relevant and compelling. The big issue here is integrity.’"

 

GINGRICH CONTINUES TO PROTECT CLINTON

And The Washington Post (2/10/98, p. E6) points out that, concerning Congressman Bob Barr's House Resolution 304 calling for an inquiry of impeachment against President Bill Clinton, "the Republican powers that be so far have shown no stomach for Barr's crusade, never mind that last week House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and several committee chairmen discussed contingency plans in case an impeachment inquiry becomes inevitable....

"For now, though, Gingrich has been keeping the resolution bottled up in the Rules Committee, while Gingrich's lieutenants have been exhorting Republicans to keep their lips zipped on the latest White House scandal...."

House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Tex.) says "‘I don't think we have the kind of evidentiary basis to be talking about impeachment at this time....’

"Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, chairman of the Republican Conference, recently instructed a group of House press secretaries to steer clear of the perilous ‘I-word.’ When Barr introduced his resolution Nov. 5, he was joined by 17 co-sponsors; in the past three months he's picked up only three more."

GOP CONGRESSMEN PRESSURED AGAINST SUPPORTING BARR

"‘For months I urged the leaders of my party to take action. To finally say enough is enough. But my cries fell on deaf ears,’ Barr said in a speech two weeks ago to the Conservative Political Action Conference. In private, according to a witness, he was more pointed: ‘If Newt wasn't sitting so hard on this we'd have 200 co-sponsors – not 20!’...‘The leadership basically controls what moves forward and what does not,’ Barr says...."

ALEXANDER HAMILTON AND HILLARY RODHAM AGREE

"Barr says he started researching the history of impeachment, from the 18th century writings of Alexander Hamilton – ‘he said it was "a political tool for a political offense,"’ Barr says – to a thick document titled ‘Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment,’ produced in February 1974 by the House impeachment inquiry staff. Among the authors: a young Yale Law School graduate named Hillary Rodham.

"‘In our system of government, the only vehicle we have to remove somebody from office if they abuse their office is impeachment,’ Barr maintains."

 

IMPEACHMENT IS THE FOUNDERS' POLITICAL TOOL TO REMOVE INCUMBENTS--- WITH OR WITHOUT CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT

Steven Labaton reports (New York Times, 2/10/98, p. A17) that over "the last 200 years, scholars and lawmakers have offered a variety of differing interpretations of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors.’ In 1970, Gerald R. Ford, then a member of Congress, said that ‘an impeachable offense is basically whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers’ it to be. At the time Mr. Ford was trying unsuccessfully to remove Associate Justice William O. Douglas from the Supreme Court."

SERIOUS POLITICAL OFFENSES ARE ENOUGH

"Two leading constitutional scholars, William Van Alstyne of Duke Law School and Gerald Gunther of Stanford Law School, said in interviews today that the phrase ‘high crimes and misdemeanors,’ which was taken by the framers of the Constitution from English common law, refers to offenses that are not technically crimes but rather political offenses..[sic] They said that a showing of criminality was not necessarily grounds for impeachment. Moreover, they said, an impeachable offense need not be a crime."

REPREHENSIBLE CONDUCT IS IMPEACHABLE

"‘The impeachment clause refers to reprehensible conduct as reasonable people see it that is linked to the office,’ Mr. Van Alstyne said. ‘Reprehensible in the sense that it betrays the office.’

"Mr. Gunther said that a serious abuse of office would constitute grounds for impeachment, even if not criminal."


Excerpted from Howard Phillips Issues and Strategy Bulletin of January 31, 1998

GINGRICH AND THE GOP ARE GUARDIANS OF THE CLINTON PRESIDENCY

House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) and the rest of the Republican leadership have made a calculated decision to do nothing which would hasten the departure of Bill Clinton from the Presidency.

Prominent members of Congress predisposed to assist Congressman Bob Barr (R-Ga.) in support of his proposed Inquiry of Impeachment have been discouraged from rendering that assistance by pressure from the House GOP leadership. Now is the time for all of us to rally around Congressman Barr and House Resolution 304.

SELFISH ENDS DON'T JUSTIFY IGNOBLE MEANS

The loyal "opposition" is loyal only to its perverted notions of personal political advantage: moral principle and national interest be damned.

As with their decision to embrace subsidies to GOP defenders of partial-birth abortion, the Republicans are assuming that anything which makes more likely, in their view, the political success of the Republican Party is, therefore, the right thing to do.

U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY IS UNDERMINED AS AMERICA'S LEADERSHIP ELITES EARN SCORN AND RIDICULE FOR MORAL PARALYSIS

But the reality is that every additional day of Clinton in office not only undermines America's standing and reputation in the eyes of the world, but also gravely threatens our national security.

More than 23 years ago, on July 31, 1974, I held a press conference announcing the formation of "Conservatives for the Removal of the President". I had, with difficulty, but based on troubling evidence, concluded, along with Senator Jesse Helms, Congressman John Ashbrook, and others, that Richard Nixon had reached the point where he might compromise America's vital interests in order to secure a little bit more time in office. It was very painful and politically costly for me to publicly urge that the President resign, not because of his alleged Watergate-related improprieties, but, rather, because of decisions being made in his name to curry favor with our nation's enemies, domestic and foreign. I wish the facts would have permitted another course. But they did not and we did our duty. Nine days later, President Nixon resigned.

Today our nation's enemies are emboldened by the moral corruption and, especially, the moral cowardice of the Washington Establishment. Power is very often the illusion of power. When weakness is discerned, enemies are emboldened, whether they are economic adversaries, military foes, or calculating terrorists.

IMPEACHMENT IS THE CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDY

George Will has observed (Washington Post, 1/27/98, p. A17) that Bill Clinton's "presidency is beyond resuscitation. He can compound his disgrace by clinging to office, heedless of damage done to the national interest abroad or the tone of civic life...the Constitution has always contained a provision for the removal of morally incapacitated presidents. Its impeachment provision supplies a remedy for certain kinds of political problems, such as chronic lying to the nation about chronic behavior deeply offensive to it.

"The apparent Republican consensus, perhaps principled but certainly convenient, is that the independent counsel's investigation should be completed before any impeachment process begins. This subordinates broad concerns about the nation's civic health and security to considerations of prosecutorial tidiness. It misses the point, which is not to punish Clinton but to end the punishment of the nation....

"Disgrace will drench Republicans who, relishing the prospect of wielding Congress against a neutered president, become complicitous in Clinton's clinging to power. America cannot count on the continuation of the holiday from history that blind good luck has given the country during the tenure of this inadequate president. And in fact, the holiday is over....

"[T]he U.S. commander in chief is preoccupied, responding to revulsion about his sexual incontinence with sophomoric sophistries that reduce him to a tawdry joke ineligible for the minimal respect requisite for command."

ANTI-CLINTON GOP CONGRESSMEN CHASTISED AS "WACKOS"

The Hill, reports on the front page of its January 28 edition that "[s]ince Lewinsky's allegations of adultery and perjury came to light last week, Republicans have assiduously avoided attacking a beleaguered president. ‘It's bad politics to be seen as piling on,’ said Peter King (R-N.Y.)....’

"Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) emphasized these points in a meeting of the House Republican Conference Tuesday afternoon, as Congress prepared to hear Clinton's State of the Union speech. According to King, the mood in the meeting was ‘somber’ and no one objected to Gingrich's suggestion that Republicans were politically and morally bound to be on their best behavior during the speech.

"‘Newt basically told us to applaud when he comes in and when he leaves,’ King said. ‘No faces; no carrying on. No one grumbled...none of the wackos were yelling stuff out.’ Gingrich stressed that Republicans ought not be baited or provoked into making the White House's woes a partisan matter....

"[M]any said their base voters – considered even more important in an off-year election – are appalled by the charges and expect Republican members to stand up for the values the GOP wishes to represent.

"‘I'm concerned about the silence,’ said one Republican, not yet ready to break it publicly. ‘A lot of people want some more outrage out of our side....’"

GINGRICH SHOULD GO, IF CLINTON REMAINS

Perhaps Newt Gingrich feels that, if he permits the launching of impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton, his own moral and ethical inadequacies will be more closely scrutinized than he would prefer. If his fear transcends his sense of duty, he must either resign as Speaker or be kicked out by those Republicans who put their country ahead of their party.

IT'S TIME TO CONTACT OUR CONGRESSMEN

It's time for those of us who love our country and know that Bill Clinton must be removed as quickly as possible to let Republican members of Congress know what we believe and on what we insist.

And, if Clinton is allowed to remain much longer, the American people must be made to understand that it is Newt Gingrich who is his partner in crime.

 

DEMOCRAT BYRD AGREES "UNETHICAL ACTIVITY" IS AN APPROPRIATE REASON TO IMPEACH

"In his ‘History of the U.S. Senate,’ Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) noted that early American states ‘found impeachment and trial to be a practical means of dealing with mismanagement of public funds, fiscal misconduct, nonfeasance, malfeasance, misfeasance, abuse of the public trust and other forms of unethical activity engaged in by officeholders.’" The Hill, 1/28/98, p. 24


NOW IS THE TIME FOR ALL GOOD MEN (AND WOMEN) TO COME TO THE AID OF THEIR COUNTRY

Excerpted from Howard Phillips Issues and Strategy Bulletin of November 15, 1997

One issue unites conservatives, Christians, and Constitutionalists: a recognition that Bill Clinton is one of the most corrupt Presidents in American history, if not the most corrupt. LBJ runs him a close race.

Ever since the 1992 campaign, conservatives have bemoaned and bewailed the outrageous misfeasance, malfeasance, and nonfeasance of the President and his associates---everything from Travelgate, to Filegate, to Whitewater, to Vince Foster, to the collection of hush money for Webb Hubbell, to possible bribery involving foreign contributions to various Clinton-related organizations and the possibility of treason arising from the making of national security-related policy decisions favorable to Communist China in consequence of significant financial assistance generated by Red China to various causes benefiting President Clinton.

On February 8, 1994, I called a press conference at which The Conservative Caucus launched the Coalition for a Congressional Impeachment Inquiry.

BOB BARR HAS SHOWN THE COURAGE TO LEAD

Since then, tens of thousands of petitions have been collected and dozens of grass-roots conservative leaders have made known their support for this initiative. But it was only on November 5, 1997 that the first member of Congress was willing to put his career on the line by filing an official "inquiry of impeachment" resolution.

Congressman Bob Barr (R-Ga.), with whom I have worked closely and met regularly since late spring, (joined by 17 of his colleagues) has taken the historic first step of filing H. Res. 304, calling upon the House of Representatives to undertake an inquiry of impeachment.

WILL WE DEMONSTRATE OUR APPRECIATION BY FOLLOWING HIS LEAD?

The resolution was immediately referred to the Committee on Rules chaired by conservative GOP Congressman Gerry Solomon (N.Y.). When Congress returns in January, Chairman Solomon will look around, check with the House leadership, and determine whether there is in fact any significant popular support sufficient to politically justify moving forward with the inquiry.

IF YOU BELIEVE IMPEACHMENT IS WARRANTED, DO SOMETHING NOW

If the Rules Committee votes in favor of the Barr resolution, the matter will be brought to the floor of the House of Representatives. If the House votes for the resolution, the matter will be referred to the Judiciary Committee, and if the Judiciary Committee, after having conducted an inquiry of impeachment, determines to vote out articles of impeachment, the entire House will have to decide whether to support them.

If the House does support even one article of impeachment against Bill Clinton, the matter will be referred to the U.S. Senate for trial. A two-thirds "aye" verdict of those present and voting will be required for conviction.

REMOVAL IS THE REMEDY

Impeachment need not relate to criminal conduct. If, upon impeachment charges having been brought, Mr. Clinton is convicted in the Senate, the penalty will be removal from office. No criminal penalties necessarily result, nor are any required in order to determine that conviction on the impeachment charges is warranted.

Materials enclosed with this newsletter make clear that an inquiry of impeachment is the Constitutionally appropriate procedure to deal with the possibility of treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors by the President of the United States.

The Thompson and Burton Committee investigations cannot, in and of themselves, produce impeachment and removal from office. Neither can any inquiry by an independent counsel, per se, lead to removal. Indeed, the independent counsel procedure is, at best, extra-Constitutional. 

NINE WEEKS

The timing of Bob Barr's resolution is important. The Congressman has given us several weeks between the time of the Congressional recess and its return on January 27 to show our stuff.

YOUR FINANCIAL SUPPORT IS URGENTLY NEEDED

Currently, The Conservative Caucus, which is serving as the secretariat of the Coalition for a Congressional Impeachment Inquiry is "running on empty" financially. TCC has spent many thousands of dollars more on this project than has thus far been taken in.

If sufficient funds become available, I believe we could help Congressman Barr achieve a much greater impact in the media and generate significant support in a variety of ways.

WE WILL EITHER "PUT UP" OR BE "SHUT UP"

Congressman Barr feels it is essential that we have 100 co-sponsors in order to get the resolution to be taken seriously by the House Republican leadership. We have about nine weeks to build momentum. But we cannot do it without more help.

If we fail to show adequate support, the likelihood is that consideration of impeachment will end---not just for this session of Congress, but for the balance of President Clinton's term. It's sad that the outcome may not be determined on the merits, but it's true.

If you agree with me that it is time to act, please do something today. Here are some specific suggestions:

RECRUIT CONGRESSIONAL CO-SPONSORS

  1. Do everything you can to persuade the member of the U.S. House of Representatives from your Congressional District to become a co-sponsor of H.Res. 304.

  2. If you have any influence with other members of Congress, encourage them to do likewise.

  3. Make known your support for H. Res. 304, the Barr resolution, to House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga. (2428 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515, 202-225-4501, fax 202-225-4656), House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Tex. (301 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515, 202-225-7772), House Rules Committee Chairman Gerald Solomon, R-N.Y. (2206 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515, 202-225-5614, fax 202-225-6234), and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, R-Ill. (2110 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515, 202-225-4561, fax 202-225-1166). Send each of them a personal letter and call them as well.

  4. Send a letter to Congressman Bob Barr (U.S. House of Representatives, 1130 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515) letting him know how much you appreciate his courage and leadership on this issue.

  5. Send your maximum contribution to The Conservative Caucus to support the Coalition for a Congressional Impeachment Inquiry. Those who contribute $500 or more will be listed as official members of the coalition. Contributions to "TCC" are not tax deductible. The address is: TCC Impeachment Inquiry, 450 Maple Avenue East, Vienna, Virginia 22180.


THE CONSTITUTION MANDATES IMPEACHMENT ACTION BY THE HOUSE
NOT BUCK-PASSING TO POLITICALLY UNACOUNTABLE INDEPENDENT COUNSELS

Excerpted from Howard Phillips Issues and Strategy Bulletin of April 15, 1997

Ralph de Toledano writes in The Washington Times (3/9/97, p. B1) that "In the debate over Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, which provides for the impeachment of the president and the vice president, Alexander Hamilton called for this process in cases of ‘offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the (political) abuse or violation of the public trust’ – and certainly violation of federal law falls into that category.

"The House Judiciary Committee is duty-bound, as it was in the case of Richard Nixon and Watergate, to hold hearings in order to determine whether a recommendation for impeachment proceedings should be sent to the full House of Representatives. Though few realize this, impeachment is merely an indictment, such as a grand jury hands down. Once the House votes an impeachment, the Senate acts as a court, presided over by the chief justice of the United States, to determine guilt or innocence...."

GORE MAY BE MORE IMPEACHABLE THAN CLINTON

"Impeachment of Mr. Clinton will be difficult, since he very carefully refrained from direct involvement in the fund-raising solicitations at the White House. That he aided and abetted would be difficult to prove, unless some of his associates turned state's evidence. But Mr. Gore had admitted all the acts that would be considered in impeachment proceedings and trial by the Senate. His defense, that he had no knowledge of illegality and was advised to the contrary, has been blown out of the water by Abner Mikva's 1995 advisory memorandum.

"In his case, as in the similar allegations against Mr. Clinton, the matter is too serious to be left to the hands of an independent prosecutor....the president and the vice president are the two highest elected officials in the nation, and it is proper and preferable that they be cited by the nation's elected representatives in the House, and face conviction by a heavy preponderance of the evidence in the Senate.

"Though William Jefferson Clinton has trashed the dignity and the probity of his office, he is still president and deserves or merits the solemn procedures designed by the Founding Fathers – and so, too, does Albert Gore."

HENRY HYDE SHOULD DO HIS DUTY

 "Whether Chairman Henry Hyde of the House Judiciary Committee, which must move first, sees the issues clearly is the question. He will expose himself to the abuse of his Democratic colleagues as well as the attacks of the liberal media – and that is difficult to take. But hearings should be called immediately in the case of Mr. Gore, and his culpability threshed out before the public – and not in the secrecy of a grand jury room."


Excerpted from Howard Phillips Issues and Strategy Bulletin of June 15, 1997

PRELUDE TO IMPEACHMENT?

 House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, who has long been a reluctant dragon in initiating Constitutionally prescribed procedures to consider the possible impeachment of President William J. Clinton and Vice President Albert Gore, Jr., now seems to have taken a very significant step in that direction.

The Constitution (Article II, Section 4) prescribes impeachment for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

DID BILL CLINTON COMMIT TREASON?

It is, moreover, stipulated in Article I, Section 2 that the U.S. House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment". And it is the Judiciary Committee which is charged with responsibility for determining whether an impeachment inquiry shall be undertaken.

According to The Washington Times (5/28/97, p. A3), "Republican Rep. Henry J. Hyde, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said in a letter to Attorney General Janet Reno that President Clinton's export policy had benefited China's ‘military and intelligence services.’ The letter also was signed by fellow GOP Rep. Tillie K. Fowler, a member of the House National Security Committee.

"Mr. Hyde, of Illinois, and Mrs. Fowler, of Florida, asked that the Justice Department's task force investigate the sale of sophisticated machine tools, supercomputers, advanced warplane technology and telecommunications equipment to the communist nation."

IF CHINA IS A "MOST FAVORED NATION" IS IT TREASONOUS TO GIVE "AID AND COMFORT" TO BEIJING?

"‘The administration's pattern of decontrol and failure to enforce existing law with regard to both export procedures and punitive sanctions has substantially benefited the military goals of the [People's Republic of China] and presented serious new challenges to the security interests of the United States,’ they said...."

DO TECHNOLOGY TRANSFERS TO RED CHINA COMPROMISE U.S. SECURITY?

"In their May 22 letter, Mrs. Fowler and Mr. Hyde said several cases raised ‘serious questions’ on whether improper outside influence had been brought to bear on administration officials, including Mr. Clinton, and if that influence had resulted in decisions and policies on defense-related technologies incompatible with U.S. security interests.

"They cited several examples of what Mrs. Fowler and Mr. Hyde described as possible national security threats, including:

DEFENSE DEPARTMENT WAS OVERRULED, EXISTING LAW IGNORED

" The sale of a nearly complete missile and strategic-bomber factory to China despite opposition from the Defense Department, which said it would be diverted from civilian to military use.

"The letter said once the diversion was established, ‘political appointees’ at Commerce and the Defense departments ‘approved new licenses with different end-use conditions and destinations rather than expressing displeasure with the Chinese.’"

SUPERCOMPUTER SUPERIORITY GIVEN TO RED ARMY

" The sale of 46 supercomputers over the past 15 months, which Mrs. Fowler and Mr. Hyde said ‘may have given the PRC more supercomputer capacity than the entire Department of Defense.’"

 WHY DID CLINTON GIVE CHINESE REDS NUCLEAR/CHEMICAL ATTACK CAPABILITIES?

"The letter said the supercomputers could be used for the design of nuclear weapons, sophisticated weather forecasting, studies crucial for the efficient use of chemical and biological weapons, creating and breaking codes, miniaturizing nuclear weapons, and finding submarines.

RON BROWN'S COMMERCE DEPARTMENT TOOK JURISDICTION

" ‘Hot-section’ technology allowing fighter and bomber aircraft to fly thousands of hours longer than those produced by less sophisticated manufacturers. They said the exports occurred when the administration changed the jurisdiction over the technology from the State Department, ‘which has guarded it jealously,’ to the Commerce Department, which has sought to make it easier for foreign countries to buy U.S. products and technology."

SECURITY OF U.S. COMMUNICATIONS COMPROMISED

" Sophisticated telecommunications transferred to a U.S.-China joint venture, in which the Chinese partner was part of the Chinese military. The letter said the equipment included fiber-optic communications equipment used for high-speed, secure communications over long distances and advanced encryption software."


[_private/navbar.htm]

www.conservativeusa.org
Copyright 1999, 1998 & 1997 Policy Analysis, Inc.  All rights reserved.