Time: Wed Dec 03 13:13:10 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA02363
	for <pmitch@smtp-local.primenet.com>; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 13:11:58 -0700 (MST)
	by smtp03.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA28680;
	Wed, 3 Dec 1997 13:12:34 -0700 (MST)
 via SMTP by smtp03.primenet.com, id smtpd028632; Wed Dec  3 13:12:19 1997
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 13:03:41 -0800
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Hitchens On Impeachment -- 03-02-97 (fwd)

>	Hitchens is, perhaps, the most agreeable socialist I've ever
>read...mostly because of his style: I adore the way he writes.  His
>British manner of planar wit is naturally attractive to me, and his
>jaundiced take on events and themes makes me long to toss a pint with
>him over the play-by-play.  And, as with most *honest* lefties, he
>often maintains threads of truth as a natural result of the left's
>occupation of their half of the Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy.  When
>something is true, it's simply true, no matter who says it.  Hitchens
>won my admiration with his 1993 anthology "For The Sake Of Argument",
>which was likely the most stimulating thing I read that year.
>	All Clintophiles should read this article again.  Understand
>that Hitchens holds dearly the principles of "social justice", etc.,
>which many of you would espouse...if only you weren't so devoted to
>your FuhrerBunker outlook.  You have no ideological bone to pick with
>Hitchens.  The difference between you is that Hitchens knows an
>honest-to-god criminal when he sees one, and he has not relenquished
>the belief that the aims of the left can be reached without resort to
>the likes of Bill Clinton.
>	Read it again:
>				~~~~~
>by Christopher Hitchens
>I REMEMBER it so well: that bright January, 1993, day on the
>Washington Mall when the newly minted President Bill Clinton
>came before us and spoke with such feeling about his debt to
>those who "work hard, play by the rules and pay our way." At
>the time, standing in a crowd of optimists who hoped that a
>new day was dawning, I felt a powerful emotion. It was the
>urgent need to throw up. I had already done a few stories on
>Gov. Clinton's fund-raising habits, and it gashed me to see so
>many suckers lining up for another fleecing.
>The euphony of the phrasing obviously pleased the man
>reading it out from a TelePrompTer, because he recurred to it
>in many subsequent speeches. I don't think, however, that we
>will be exposed to the trope in this presidential term. It has
>become painfully evident that this chief executive's "way" is
>"paid" by those who get others to do the work, and by those
>who play by only one rule - namely the Golden Rule (whereby,
>if you recall, the one with the gold makes the rules).
>An old piece of Washington wisdom comes in handy here:
>"The scandal is not what's illegal. It's what's legal." Many
>talk-show experts and self-confessed lawyers are knitting
>their brows together as I write, cogitating the mysteries of
>propriety, legality and (of course) the perception of illegality.
>This is all creating a mystery where none exists. We know
>about the quids - the massive donations that were made by
>people who seemed so uncharacteristically discreet that they
>preferred to keep them secret. And we know about the quos -
>the tax-breaks or policy changes or political favors that were
>done for the donors. Do we really need a huge investigation to
>decide that the two things were somehow "connected"?
>Well, yes we do, if we allow our attention to be distracted and
>our common sense offended  by Sens. McCain and Feingold,
>respectively the Republican and Democratic ornaments of
>Arizona and Wisconsin. McCain certainly knows whereof he
>speaks: He was one of the five senators handpicked by
>Charles Keating of Lincoln Savings & Loan to represent his
>interests in the world's greatest deliberative body.
>Feingold obviously has an uneasy feeling that this is somehow
>a good moment for a display of "bipartisan" fellowship and
>sincerity. The proposal (also endorsed recently by Sens.
>Moynihan and Lott, among other legislators) is for a special
>counsel to investigate the whole fund-raising and campaign
>finance boondoggle.
>No good can come of it. No good is supposed to come of it.
>The task of a special counsel or special prosecutor, slowly
>evolved over the past two decades, is to take an urgent issue
>off the public chessboard, accumulate a mass of already
>available detail, wait until an impending political recess and
>then announce that, by the narrowest of margins, those
>involved have managed to stay on the windy side of the law.
>There is then a White House press conference where it is
>announced that "mistakes were made." A special counsel's
>office is the memory hole into which controversy is fed: It is a
>defusing box for hot subjects. And it has this especial beauty -
>that while the "investigation" is under way, no further
>questions can be asked in public. "It would be quite wrong to
>speculate about hypotheticals (sometimes rendered as "to
>get into specifics") while the special counsel is at work on his
>Can't you just hear them saying it? I have heard them, and
>their predecessors, say it, many, many times, while high
>crimes and misdemeanors go unpunished.
>But you ask, why is the administration resisting such an
>appointment if it's such a beauty for procrastinators? Good
>question. Janet Reno - whose tenure at the Justice
>Department is itself a scandal - has obviously been told to
>postpone the concession until the last possible moment. After
>all, the appointment of a counsel does involve the admission
>that something stinks, and the president has been reluctant to
>admit even that much.
>Indeed, the mounting evidence of malfeasance only calls forth
>unsuspected new depths in Clinton's own bottomless, amoral
>self-regard. He has, for example, dealt a multiple insult to the
>national intelligence as well as to the democratic process, by
>insinuating  that inquiries into his bagmanship were motivated
>by prejudice against Asians. More recently, he has tried to
>explain away the donors he squired in the Lincoln bedroom as
>mere "friends" - as though most of us, after all, have 900
>hyper-rich intimates whom we would invite for two years of
>paid sleep-overs. It also bears remembering that two of
>Clinton's coffee-klatch companions, Arthur Coia, president of
>the Laborers International Union, and stock promoter Eric
>Wynn, are reputed to have links to organized crime. Wynn has
>been convicted of securities fraud in a deal connected with
>the Bonanno crime family, while Coia narrowly averted a RICO
>takeover of his union by brokering a "voluntary" deal to purge
>it of organized-crime influence - through the good graces of
>Janet Reno's Justice Department.
>No, the fact is that the stench is so bad, and the illegality so
>plain, that there is near-panic in the higher echelons. We are
>quite probably talking about impeachable offenses,
>bodyguarded by other impeachable offenses such as perjury
>and obstruction of justice. The only defense available will be
>that "everybody does it," and this is no defense in law, even if
>it does illustrate the true meaning of the term "bipartisan."
>Many senior Republicans, you will notice, are applying a soft
>pedal, because they know instinctively that any rigorous
>inquiry would implicate all parties. This repays the favor done
>by the president for Newt Gingrich: In the week before his
>inauguration, he sympathized in public with the speaker's
>difficulties and called for a moratorium; post hoc quid pro quo
>in action.
>So, if I can make the supposition that you are outraged at the
>franchising of the Lincoln bedroom, and about the mortgaging
>of United States foreign policy and domestic markets to
>foreign despots and native-born grafters, may I suggest that
>you write to your senator and representative? And don't
>waste their time - and your own - by demanding a safety-valve
>investigation that will take forever to conclude that the
>problem is too widespread for "simple solutions" and "easy
>Demand a straight answer and a simple solution. Get them to
>look up the Constitution's tersely worded section on
>impeachment (Article II, Section 4). Look it up for yourself -
>with its stipulation of "bribery" as an impeachable offense,  it
>makes for a gripping read. Demand that the wrongdoers be
>prosecuted, without benefit of plea-bargain. Insist that the
>Supreme Court hear a test case, arguing that the current
>system of campaign finance meets the common-law
>definition of outright bribery. Bring such a case yourself, even
>if it's only against a paltry local pol. Get hold of the Common
>Cause briefing on politics and money, which will harrow up
>your soul, and leave copies lying about.
>Outside the Philadelphia meeting house where the
>Constitution was being debated in secret, old Benjamin
>Franklin was taken by the arm by an elderly lady of the town.
>What have you given us? she wanted to know. "A republic,"
>he answered, "if you can keep it." We might now say: a
>republic, if you can keep it from being broken up and sold off -
>or if the breaking-up and selling-off have not already occurred.
>				~~~~~

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