Time: Sun Nov 30 14:05:16 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA17845
	for <pmitch@smtp-local.primenet.com>; Sun, 30 Nov 1997 14:04:48 -0700 (MST)
	by smtp01.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA10025;
	Sun, 30 Nov 1997 07:15:22 -0700 (MST)
 via SMTP by smtp01.primenet.com, id smtpd009994; Sun Nov 30 07:15:10 1997
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 13:52:47 -0800
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]

> Little Told Tales from the Clinton Crypt --
> and why the press ignores them
>By Carl Limbacher
>    OYSTER  BAY--Remember  the  headlines  when  James   McDougal
>leveled  an  allegation  against  Bill  Clinton worthy of instant
>impeachment - and claimed to have smoking gun evidence to back it
>up?   No?   Okay, how about the story which reported that Richard
>Nixon had virtually been framed -  by  none  other  than  Hillary
>Rodham?   Doesn't  ring a bell either?  Well then, what about the
>bombshell report that had our president ready to  flood  American
>streets  with  illegal  guns - in direct contravention of his own
>assault weapons ban?  Am I getting warmer?
>    Surely, if  any  of  the  aforementioned  stories  were  even
>remotely  credible,  it  would  be  impossible  for even the most
>oblivious  American  to  have  missed  the  screaming  headlines.
>Unless, of course, that American was living in the America of the
>90's, i.e. Bill Clinton's America - where no such headlines would
>follow regardless of how true any of the above reports were.
>    For the record, these developments have each been reported by
>the mainstream press.  But instead of receiving the blazing front
>page coverage such news would deserve, these stories were  either
>buried  deep in the news section, or were relegated to the gossip
>page - or went completely unreported in east and west coast media
>    Last April 27, almost a year to the day after he visited  the
>White House to hear his old partner's Whitewater testimony, James
>McDougal told New York Daily News  reporter  Thomas  Galvin  that
>during  that visit, Clinton had promised him a Whitewater pardon.
>If true - and provable - this would be a recipe for  certain  and
>swift  impeachment.   But how would Galvin know if Arkansas' most
>famous tall tale teller was telling the truth this  time?   "I've
>got it on tape," McDougal told the reporter, who used this tidbit
>to open a story headlined: "McDougal: Fact or Fiction".
>    Galvin's point  was  that  McDougal,  ever  the  incorrigible
>raconteur, was impossible to believe - so outlandish were so many
>of his claims.  But wait.  What about the tape?   It  would  seem
>that  at  least  this  time  McDougal was ready to offer ironclad
>proof.  And if he wasn't - and instead was  merely  hallucinating
>for  the  sake  of his audience of the moment - that would be big
>news as well.  After all, how strong a Whitewater case could  Ken
>Starr  be  building  if  his  new  star witness was given to such
>imaginings as the mirage of a smoking gun audiotape featuring  an
>illegal  presidential  pardon?   Either  way,  Galvin had a major
>Whitewater exclusive.
>    Well - not quite.  First,  The  Daily  News  buried  Galvin's
>piece deep inside it's Sunday news section - so deep, in fact, as
>to escape the notice of  even  Whitewater  fanatics.   But  worse
>still,  nowhere in the story did Galvin recount McDougal's answer
>to what would be the next blatantly apparent next question -  "So
>where's  the  tape of Clinton offering you the pardon?"  A day or
>so later I found out the reason why.  Galvin had never asked that
>question.  In fact, in the seven subsequent months since McDougal
>dropped that bombshell, no reporter has asked him to produce  his
>smoking gun tape.
>    Why not?  I believe the answer to  that  question  transcends
>mere  media  bias.   After all, Clinton scandal-philes can hardly
>complain that the press hasn't  devoted  a  lot  of  ink  to  the
>various   allegations  swirling  around  what  Clinton  defenders
>rightly describe as the most investigated presidency in  American
>history.   But the media's interest does indeed seem to be guided
>by what it deems to  be  the  "safe"  Clinton  scandals,  i.e.  -
>allegations that, even if proven true, would not seriously damage
>the man in the Oval office.
>    Think of the tons of newsprint that has been consumed in  the
>debate  over  whether  this president or vice presidential cohort
>may have violated the Pendleton Act, which boils down to a charge
>the  either  or  both  used  the wrong phone to make fund-raising
>telephone  calls.   If  Bill  Clinton  confessed  to  that  crime
>tomorrow, who thinks that the American people would suddenly rise
>up and demand  that  Bob  Barr's  impeachment  inquiry  be  taken
>    On  Whitewater,  a  scandal  that  is  surely   nearing   its
>denouement,  the  media  is  only too happy to follow Ken Starr's
>lead.  They revel in the discovery of a 15 year old  check  in  a
>long  abandoned car trunk and ponder whether this would indeed be
>the smoking gun document that  proves  Clinton  perjured  himself
>when  he  swore  he never took out a loan from Madison Guarantee.
>But again - perhaps at one time presidential perjury  was  a  big
>deal  -  but  after five years of the Clinton presidency - no one
>should be surprised if this charge,  even  if  proven,  fails  to
>resonate  with  the  American  people.   If  this is what Starr's
>Whitewater investigation has come down to,  I  suspect  he  won't
>have  the  courage  to indict a sitting president on the basis of
>what was done in the distant Arkansas past.  At most, look for  a
>report  that  names  Clinton  as  an unindicted co-conspirator, a
>charge that carries with it no obligation of legal action.   Such
>a  report  can  easily  be  finessed  by  the  White House public
>relations machine.   Too little, too late to derail a presidency.
>    On the other hand, the press never dared to devote  too  much
>time  and  effort to the event that is Whitewater's ground zero -
>the death of the Clintons'  Whitewater lawyer, Vince Foster.   In
>stark  contrast  to the mind numbing financial details of ancient
>Arkansas bank fraud, here's a story that has all the elements  of
>a  Shakespearean drama.  Love, death, corruption and betrayal - a
>plot line easily followed and sure to engross.  A  story  fraught
>with  -  not  the  complicated white collar criminality of Castle
>Grande - but the possibility that the leader of  the  free  world
>may have been a party to a murder cover-up.
>    Any government involvement in such a nefarious obstruction of
>justice  would be hard to portray as distant and irrelevant - and
>would seriously impair the life  expectancy  of  any  president's
>administration.    That's   why,  I  believe,  we're  treated  to
>interview after interview with both McDougals, Arkansas' own Lucy
>and  Desi  Arnaz  gone  bad.   That  is,  unless  Desi blurts out
>something about the lethal evidence he has that  could  sink  the
>whole  long  running  series.  Then, suddenly, the press pretends
>not to notice.  And that is also why, more than a month after  it
>became a part of the official court sanctioned record on Foster's
>death, we haven't read a word about Pat  Knowlton's  appendix  to
>Starr's  Foster  report  in  the mainstream press.  To report the
>existence of the Knowlton Appendix is to call into  question  the
>integrity   of   Starr's  entire  Whitewater  investigation.  The
>Knowlton Appendix amply documents Ken Starr's  own  Vince  Foster
>scandal  and  as  such  it  is  radioactive.   Even  the  usually
>courageous Micah Morrison omitted any mention of it in his column
>on Starr's Foster report in last week's Wall Street Journal.
>    Call it the Foster Syndrome: the unnatural phenomenon whereby
>those  charged  with  investigating  this administration, and the
>journalists who cover their efforts, do their level best  not  to
>veer off into dangerous territory.  This abnormal behavior is, of
>course, not limited  to  the  death  of  Vince  Foster.   We  see
>evidence  of  it  in  coverage  of the penetration of the Clinton
>presidency by Chinese agents, dubbed by those unwilling to  sound
>the  alarm:  The  Campaign  Finance Scandal.  Revelations brought
>forth by even the Washington Post's vaunted Bob  Woodward,  about
>evidence  that  one  longtime  Clinton  fundraiser was "doing the
>bidding of Beijing" while another passed a classified document to
>the  Chinese, should have stopped official Washington dead in its
>tracks.  Instead, the  Woodward  story  was  regarded  as  merely
>further  evidence that Janet Reno needs to appoint an independent
>counsel, a conclusion that even most  liberal  editorial  writers
>had  reached months ago.  No - the logical reaction to this story
>would have been calls for the immediate removal of Ms. Reno - and
>Mr.  Freeh  for  good  measure  - along with the cessation of all
>Washington  business  as  usual  until  this  matter  was   fully
>explored.   But the Foster syndrome applies even here.  Any truly
>explosive Clinton scandal  must  be  -  if  not  ignored  -  then
>minimized  at  all  costs  -  if even at the risk of our national
>    The same goes for the stunning news exposed only last week in
>pages adjacent to this one, under the headline - "The Secret Hand
>of China".  Here we have a solid  report  about  the  lawfirm  of
>Perkins  Coie,  which  is  simultaneously  representing stateside
>business interests for the People's Republic of  China  while  it
>defends  a  significant  number of witnesses appearing before the
>Thompson  and  Burton  Committees.   Coming  off  Bob  Woodward's
>aforementioned report, which also noted that the Chinese Ministry
>of State Security had  boasted  about  "thwarting"  the  Thompson
>investigation;  this  news  should be setting off smoke alarms on
>the front page of every newspaper.  Yet, it's been a  week  since
>that  Washington  Weekly  report  and I haven't read another word
>about Perkins Coie.  The Foster Syndrome strikes again.
>    The other China-gate story  that  continues  to  haunt  yours
>truly  is  one  which  appeared on the front page of The Arkansas
>Democrat Gazette almost nine months ago.  They headlined it "Arms
>OK  preceded  U.S.   visit,"  but the story may as well have been
>titled "Clinton Administration Gives Chinese Gun  Smuggler  Green
>Light."   It  was the story of importation permits granted by our
>government for 100,000 Chinese assault  rifles  and  millions  of
>rounds   of  ammunition  to  the  arms  company  run  by  Chinese
>princeling, Wang Jun.  The permits,  which  would  have  been  in
>direct  contravention  of Clinton's own assault weapons ban, were
>granted on February 2, 1996, just four days before Wang met  with
>Clinton  inside  the  White House.  Wang Jun gained access to the
>White House via the contributions of  Clinton  bag  man,  Charlie
>    The  press,  and  the  Thompson  Committee,  has  steadfastly
>refused  to bring this eerie development to the American public's
>attention.  I personally spoke to Newt Gingrich about  it  during
>his  May appearance on the Larry King Show.  Though the story was
>by then two months old, Gingrich professed total ignorance of it.
>He  promised  to  look  into  it the very next business day.  And
>that's  the  last  I've  heard  of  any  Republican  efforts   to
>investigate  what  appears  to  be  a  massive Chinese attempt to
>subvert of our gun laws - with  the  complicity  of  an  American
>president.  The Foster syndrome?
>    Oh yes, what about that other  strange  report;  the  one  so
>bizarre  it  couldn't  be  true - suggesting that Hillary Clinton
>framed Richard Nixon.  Yes,  this  story  appeared  only  on  the
>gossip page (Rush & Molloy, The Daily News - Feb. 12, 1996).  And
>it was about the then unmarried Hillary Diane  Rodham's  work  on
>the  Watergate  committee.  According to this wacky tale, she and
>staffer John Labovitz were assigned to research the protocols for
>impeachment  drawn up by our founding fathers.  She couldn't find
>them, so the articles of impeachment for Richard Nixon were drawn
>up based on new research undertaken by - you guessed it - Hillary
>Rodham.  Just days after Nixon resigned,  Labovitz  came  to  his
>boss  heavy  with  guilty  conscience,  and confessed that he and
>Rodham had lied when they'd said they couldn't find the  original
>rules.  In short, it seemed Nixon was driven from office based on
>the bogus Constitutional research done by the future first lady.
>    Of course, if this story had any credibility, it should  have
>prompted  an eruption of curiosity.  Mrs. Clinton would have been
>besieged with media inquiries. Republicans would be demanding  to
>know  whether  Nixon's  downfall was a put up job engineered by a
>young Nixon hating lawyer fresh out  of  Yale  law  school.   But
>instead nobody noticed.
>    Yet, that's not because  this  "wacky  tale"  is  lacking  in
>credibility.   In  fact,  it  comes  from  (pardon the phrase) an
>unimpeachable source - none  other  than  Jerome  Zeifman,  chief
>counsel  to  the  House Judiciary Committee in 1974. Zeifman told
>the Daily News, "Suppose we were going to  have  a  world  series
>next week and suddenly one of the team managers says, "We want to
>change the rules to two strikes and you're out.  That's basically
>what Clinton and Labovitz did."
>    Zeifman based his recollections on the diary he kept  at  the
>time,  which  would  later become the basis for his book "Without
>Honor: The Impeachment of  President  Nixon  and  the  Crimes  of
>Camelot"   But  in  his  comments  to The Daily News Zeifman went
>further than ever before, virtually  accusing  Rodham-Clinton  of
>framing Richard Nixon.
>    Press reaction?  Zero, nada, bubkiss, zilch.  After 23  years
>of  cultivating  Watergate  as  "the  good scandal," they weren't
>going to spoil things by having it tarnish the  already  besieged
>Clintons.   Besides, the allegation is so outrageous, so bizarre,
>and so heinous - it couldn't possibly be true no matter what  the
>evidence suggests.
>   That's the Foster syndrome in a  nutshell.
>  Published in the Dec.  1, 1997 issue of The Washington Weekly
>  Copyright 1997 The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal.com)
>          Reposting permitted with this message intact

Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris      : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01
B.A.: Political Science, UCLA;   M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02
tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03
email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04
website: http://supremelaw.com       : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best 06
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone 07
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this 08
_____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall 10
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11
======================================================================== 12
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] 13


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail