The far right has hijacked the Republican Party and poses the greatest danger to our nation in decades. Desperate to further their own agenda, the far right abuses power and does not play by the rules or follow the U.S. Constitution. They decide what they want to do and then pursue a win-at-any-cost strategy to achieve it.
To illustrate, this article will describe clandestine efforts by the far right to remove a twice-elected president — efforts which undermined our democracy and increased our vulnerability to terrorist attacks:
– The far-right engi-neered a series of useless investigations that disrupted the Presidency and wasted well over 100 million taxpayer dollars.
– When these investigations failed to disclose anything, the far right misused our judicial system to ambush the president for a personal indiscretion.
– Obsessed with his removal, the far right violated federal law in overzealous efforts to make a case for impeachment.
– Finally, the far right ignored the will of the vast majority and forced on the nation an unconstitutional impeachment, blackmailing other members of Congress to get the necessary votes.
Ultimately, these efforts failed but they distracted the nation from far more important national security matters and laid the ground work for a far-right takeover of the government in 2000. It all started with —
The far right refuses to accept our election results
After much campaigning and political infighting, we elect a president every four years. Then, traditionally, the country pulls together and supports the elected president. Threats to our country unify us even more. That tradition was broken in the 90’s.
Previously, the opposition party had owned the White House for 12 years and was outraged at the loss of the presidency. Clinton was seen as a usurper, his victory had to be illegiti-mate and he had to be driven from the White House. He had to be brought down. As a result, in the aftermath of Clinton’s election, far-right members of the pri-vate sector, church organizations, and the political establishment collec-tively mounted covert and other efforts to wreck the Presi-dent’s Administra-tion and remove him from office. Some of the play-ers were:
– Investment banker Peter Smith and Richard Mellon Scaife, both of whom paid huge sums to finance any possible scandal no matter how far fetched. Scaife also spent about $300 million trying to “steer this country to his brand of hard-core conservatism.” He financed a right-wing maga-zine, American Spectator, whose role was to trash the President without too much regard for the facts, and drive him from office. [1]
– Richard Porter, Kenneth Starr’s law partner and member of the first Bush Administra-tion and Theodore Olson, mem-ber of both Bush Administrations. They were actively involved behind the political scenes, playing important roles in vari-ous assaults on the President. Olson participated in several Scaife-funded activities and was intent on undermining the Clinton presidency without disclosing his own involvement. [2]
– Jerry Farwell and Pat Robertson who represented theopposition from the religious right. Farwell’s organization, for example, promoted video tapes accusing the President of drug-dealing and murder of the White House aid, Vince Foster, among other things.
– A group of Arkansans, who stood ready and willing to feed the far-right net-work. They included political opponents incensed over Clinton’s success, as well as people willing to do almost anything for money.
The “Arkansas Project,” sponsored by Scaife, was a four-year, $2.4 million attempt to gather information "leading to political ruin of the President." [4]
– Newt Gingrich, who became the new right-wing Speaker of the House in 1994. Gingrich called the Clinton Admini-stration “the enemy of normal Americans” and said in a private meeting he would use “subpoena power” to wage war against the White House. He envisioned as many as 20 congressional investigations being conducted simulta-neously.[5] Smith and Scaife were both major contribu-tors to Gingrich’s campaigns and causes. Soon Gingrich would try to use a government shut-down (blackmail) to force an unacceptable budget on the President — a violation of the U.S. Constitution.[6]
– Tom DeLay, then the House Majority Whip. Following the third terrorist attack on the United States, he diverted the nation from confronting this menace by using extraordinary measures to force an unconstitutional impeachment of the president.[7]
The above facts, and those which follow, are just a small part of far-right activities documented by highly reputable journalists and five recently-published books -¦ “The Hunting of the President,” “A Vast Con-spiracy,” “Blinded by the Right,” “The Breach: Inside the Impeachment and Trial of William Jefferson Clinton” and “The Clinton Wars.”
Plot to misuse our federal judicial system against the President
The Paula Jones incident first surfaced in an American Spectator article by David Brock. He later expressed regret for having written it and confessed to using innu-endo and unverified charges to spice up his material. He received $5000 from Peter Smith to begin researching the article. Brock found out later that Smith had paid another $30,000 to sources of the article (known in the trade as “cash for trash”).[8]
Richard Porter (Starr’s law partner) formed a group of lawyers to support and advise Paula Jones.[9] Rather than sue Spectator magazine, her advisors decided to forward their own agenda by working covertly to manipulate the courts in a sexual harassment suit against the President. Referred to as the “elves,” they kept their participation a secret from their own law firms.[10]
Before taking over the job of Independent Counsel, Starr himself offered to work free for Jones. He also had six telephone conver-sa-tions with Jones’ lawyers, in which he offered his opin-ion that presidents were not immune from civil suits. He stated publicly several times that the suit should proceed without delay.[9]
Scaife donated $50,000 to help Jones sue the President. A member of Gingrich’s House staff would be her chief fund raiser. People close to the case suspected that anything that happened between the two prin-cipals was consensual, but they pursued it to humiliate the Presi-dent and hasten his destruction. The plan was to set a perjury trap when the case came to court by interrogating the President about past relation-ships. This plot to undermine the presidency was pursued for years without knowledge of the Lewinsky matter.[11]
Senators secretly arrange to install Starr as Independent Counsel
Following Republican demands for inquiry into a failed Arkansas White-water land deal (which took place in the 8o’s), Attorney General Reno appointed a special counsel (Fiske) to investigate it, as well as the President and First Lady’s involvement.[12] In the next several months Fiske moved fast, initiating several local prosecutions in Arkansas. Unex-pectedly, a three-judge panel replaced him with Starr. They did so after far-right Senators (Helms and Faircloth) secretly put pressure on the panel.[13]
The switching of a sitting independent counsel was improper because Fiske was aggressively pursuing the Whitewater case and had impec-cable credentials and reputation for fairness. On the other hand, Starr had no investigative experience and opposed Clinton on every major issue of the day. Starr was the “designated point man in a strategy -¦ to destabilize the Clinton presidency.”[14]
Investigations of White House travel office firings and possible misuse of FBI files were added to Starr’s domain.[15] Including Vince Foster’s sui-cide, Starr now had four investigations of the President. He spent several years and vast resources investigating these matters and abruptly resigned from his job. Under great pressure Starr reversed himself, as will be explained.
Following his reversal, Starr went beyond his authorized scope to make numerous inquiries into Clinton’s private sex life while Governor of Arkansas (a fifth investigation).[16] Eventually, Starr would spend about $70 million trying to bring down the Clinton presidency. Other Independent Councils spent another $40 million investigating members of his Administration. In the end, not one top official was convicted of a public crime.[17] It’s your money.
In face of far-right/media outrage, Starr returns to his job
Recognizing that any case against the Clintons was over, Starr’s best people began leaving his employ. Those who stayed on were “the unemployable and the obsessed.”[18] Suddenly, Starr announced plans to accept a teaching position at Pepper-dine University in California (arranged earlier by Scaife), without closing any of his investigations.
The far right and the media were stunned. The Washington press corps had succumbed to allegations of Clinton’s wrongdoing, but Starr couldn’t prove them. Outraged, William Safire of the New York Times described Starr as “a man with a warped sense of duty” who “had brought shame on the legal profes-sion by walking out on his client — the people of the United States.”[19]
Meanwhile, the far-right had published a fu-turistic book,”The Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton.” It imagined Clinton’s pay-ment of hush money during the Whitewater investi-gation and his later impeachment. The book had an anonymous author (widely rumored to be Ted Olson) and included a forward from a congressional right-winger (Rep. Barr) saying, “… required reading for every citi-zen of this country”.[20]
The far right continued to hope that Starr would inflict a mortal wound on the President. This was the theme of Ted Olson’s anonymous satire in Spectator magazine. Bombarded by protests and attacks on his reputation, Starr decided to stay on.[21]
High court blunders and allows Jones plot to proceed
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court allowed the Jones sexual harassment suit to go forward during the Presi-dent’s term in office on the grounds that it would not be a distraction. The Dean of American Journalism, David Broder, explained the Court’s decision this way:[22]
“One of the great blunders of American history … one of the dumbest decisions in the long history of the Court … when they decided that a President should have no immunity against civil suits while serving in office, they may have broken their own record for ignor-ing reality.”
Under our Constitution, once a president assumes office he owes the public his full time and attention. Civil suits can tie-up a president’s hand during his term in office, especially controversial ones. During an NBC interview, Jones acknowledged the disruption her suit could create and said she was willing to wait until the President’s term was over. However, the Supreme Court placed her case above the public good. This was poor judg-ment and a departure from the U.S. Constitution.
Years later, Jones would publicly admit (on the Larry King Show) to being used by people with a political agenda.
Empty handed, Starr blackmails his way into the Jones plot
These were desperate times for Starr and his men. They had drilled dry holes concerning the Clintons for several years and their sup-port-ers were unhappy. Starr’s people had given up on charging the President with any wrongdoing but they were in no rush to close the cases or tell the Washington press corp.[23]
Suddenly, a new cast of characters surfaced — “The Rat-woman” Tripp and “The Bag Lady Sleaze” Goldberg (so named in the book, “American Rhapsody”) plus a reporter from Newsweek, Michael Isikoff. Tripp had (illegally) wiretapped her friend, Monica Lewinsky, and knew of her relationship with the President — one that he might deny.[24] Starr had no authority to intervene, but he moved fast. He went to the Justice Department and begged for more authority on the grounds of a link between the Lewinsky matter and his Whitewater land investigation. The presumed link in the two cases was the President’s friend, Vernon Jordan.[25]
According to Starr’s people, Jordan had given job assistance to Lewinsky in exchange for false testimony she would give for the President. Starr’s people then pressured Attorney General Reno into a snap, overnight decision, by telling her that soon Newsweek would be reporting a sensational sex story and cover-up,[26] — including any refusal by Reno to let the Independent Coun-sel investigate it. In making their case, Starr’s office misled Reno twice and omitted three conflicts of interest.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Starr misleads the justice department
– Newsweek’s top echelon actually had decided not to publish the sexual affair. It was Reno’s overnight approval that eventually tipped the scales.[27]
– Starr’s people omitted the important fact that Vernon Jordan’s job assistance to Lewinsky started well before she had any inkling of receiving a Jones subpoena. Getting Jordan’s help was not even the President’s idea; it was Linda Tripp’s. There never was any overlap with the Whitewater land deal.[28]
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Starr kept secret his conflicts of interest
– Starr did not disclose his previous involvements in the Jones case. He had a number of consultations with her lawyers, had advocated her case in public and had offered to work free for her.[29]
– Starr’s office said they had no contacts with the Jones team. Actually, they had already invaded the Jones case and were in collusion with Jones’ advisors — the ones Porter had assembled, without their firms’ knowledge, to covertly assist her.[30]
– Starr did not disclose that his law partner (Porter) was conspiring behind the scenes to undermine the presidency, as well as to further the Jones plot (see pp. 2-3).[31]
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
After getting their new author-ity, Starr’s people implored Newsweek to hold up publication until the President had answered the Jones deposition — the long-awaited ambush was set.[32]
Justice succumbs to misinformation; improperly authorizes Starr’s investigation
The Independent Counsel statute was clear. Attorney General Reno had to make a pre-limi-nary review herself and find “credible evidence” before the stat-ute could be triggered. Had she done so, she would have found (1) the suspicions about Vernon Jordan were untrue, (2) there were no grounds for expanding Starr’s authority and (3) several conflicts undermined Starr’s capacity to do an independ-ent and impartial review.33
The problem with Reno’s overnight decision is that the Independent Coun-sel statute did not operate on suspicions or hearsay, but on evidence determined to be credible by Justice Department officials themselves. Further, Starr had an axe to grind and was not the right person for the job. Reno pulled the trigger too fast, too soon, based on a false premise.
Unfortunately, her ill-advised decision triggered a situation impossible to control — the assignment of a sex scandal to a biased team of investi-ga-tors with an unlimited budget, who were intent on finally getting the President.
A few weeks after Starr got his (6th) investigation, the presiding judge dismissed the Jones lawsuit and concluded that the Lewinsky matter was not material to that case. So, now we have Starr abandoning several unfinished investi-gations to chase obstruction in a sexual harassment case -” and there was no genuine case to obstruct.
Starr violates his own StatuteTo advocate impeachment
As Bob Woodward of the Washington Post reported, Starr’s decision to send a massive narrative of the Clinton-Lewinsky sexual relationship to Congress was “pathetic and unwise.”[35] To the dismay of many, House far-right leaders made the report immediately available to everyone (including children), in all its excruciat-ing detail, via the Inter-net.
The history and charter of the Office of Independent Counsel is clear; he is a prosecutor and fact-giver, not an impeachment advocate for a particular political party in power. Because of this major departure, Starr’s well-known ethics adviser from the Water-gate era, Sam Dash, imme-diately resigned. Dash said that by acting as the House’s “prosecuting counsel for impeachment,” Starr had violated the statute requiring him to present evidence but not conclusions.[34]
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
In late summer ’98, just as the Starr report was being released, our country suffered its third terrorist attack — the bombing of two US embas-sies, killing over 200 people and injuring about 5000. Bin Laden also declared war on the United States, saying “to kill the Americans -” civilians or military — is an individual duty for every Muslim.”[36] Later, the USS Cole would be involved in a fourth attack.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Impeachment thought to be dead on arrival
Well over two thirds of the America people favored Clinton remaining in office and made their views known by rendering a huge setback to Republicans in midterm elections. At this juncture, impeachment was for all practical purposes dead.[37] Impeachment would not have proceeded further had it not been for the actions of one person, the far-right House Whip at the time, Tom DeLay.
House leaders railroad Impeachment In a lame-duck session
Two decades earlier, impeachment proceedings led to President Nixon’s resigna-tion for abuses of power and misconduct in office. Success depended on three things: (1) factually-based hearings with witnesses, (2) biparti-san cooperation and (3) statesmanship. All three of these were conspicuously missing in the House actions taken during the impeachment of President Clinton.
Chairman Hyde of the Judiciary Commit-tee had promised the American people a fair hear-ing on the Starr report. Meanwhile, the Republican setback in mid-term elections reduced their majority in the next Congress to almost nothing. Instead of a deliberative, bipartisan approach, far-right House leaders moved with all the speed of “The Roadrunner.” The “lame duck” House called no witnesses, conducted partisan hearings and had party-line votes.[38] The President’s lawyers had to testify without knowledge of what the charges would be.[39]
Without waiting for cessation of military operations over Iraq (for UN violations), right-wing leaders drove two impeachment articles through a final House vote in Decem-ber, just days before the people’s newly-elected Congress would con-vene. At the last minute Speaker Livingston reversed himself saying, “Stop this … This is crazy … We’re going to have a censure vote.” But others prevailed on him to go ahead.[40]
The House action was a rush to judgment never before witnessed on a matter of such profound importance. A few moderate Republicans refused to go along. Several others immediately regretted their vote and said so publicly … but it was too late.[41]
House leader Delay’s mission: force the President to resign
House leaders would not permit a vote on censure … the one option favored by most Americans and many in Congress itself. Powerful Majority Whip Tom DeLay orches-trated events from behind the scenes. He crushed all attempts to consider censure the moment they arose. As a result, moderate congress-men on both sides had no middle ground to vote their con-sciences.
DeLay realized the Sen-ate would not convict. His real mission was to drive Clinton from office … first impeach, and then force him to resign. He ordered his staff to “dedicate yourselves to it or leave” (his employ) … “to work day and night.” He took this step in August ’98, before receipt of Starr’s report.[42]
Throughout, DeLay took absolute control and left nothing to chance. For example, he set up a special “evidence room” where he and his deputies would send unde-cided House members. This room included allegations which not even Starr saw fit to publish, much of it uncorroborated and undocumented.[43] Using his powerful Whip position, DeLay applied intense pressure on House members who were wavering or on the fence by:
– Threatening loss of chairmanship.
– Threatening to arrange a strong challenge in their next congressional race.
– Threatening to enlist help of fund raisers and party officials
– Threatening to expose them to their constituents, if they visited the “evidence room” and still cleared Clinton.[44]
DeLay’s office told one Republican congressman, who opposed impeachment, that "the next two years would be the longest of his life". Later, Bob Woodward would report that Chairman Hyde was willing to entertain censure had his leadership been willing.[45]
Public up in arms -¦ petitions congress
Much of the public was alarmed by what was going on in Congress, but were unable to stop it.
As just one example, a young couple in California set up an organization on the Internet called Censure and MoveOn (www.moveon.org).46 Eventu-ally, about 40 MoveOn volunteers went to Washington, at their own expense, to deliver more than 300,000 anti-impeachment petitions to House members from their constituents. In addition, MoveOn delivered a full set of the petitions to the House Speaker’s office. These peti-tions urged the House to censure the President and move on with the country’s business. They were signed by Democrats, Republicans and Independents alike.[47]
MoveOn people also sent 250,000 phone calls and a million e-mails to Congress. Millions of other people expressed opposition -¦ eventually; lines of communication to Washington broke down.[48]
House leaders defy U.S. Constitution and our founding fathers
Former President Ford said an impeachable offense “is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.” But, the history of impeachment shows that surely he must have been jesting.[49]
The impeachment of a president is a modern day, civilized alternative to assassi-nation of a king. To avoid Britain’s partisan misuse of impeachment and because our constitutional framers distrusted legislatures, they limited its use to grave breaches of official duties, specifically treason and bribery. When our framers added “other high crimes and misdemeanors,” the term “other” obviously meant something on a similar plane with treason and bribery. The term “high misdemeanors” actually refers to serious offenses against the state as in 18th century England, not minor or trivial offenses as we interpret misdemeanors today. As one framer said, we are talking about “great and dangerous offenses.”[50]
The House Judiciary Committee was supposed to obtain expert testimony on standards for impeachment. After the public’s unfavorable reaction to impeachment during mid-term elections -¦ the idea of establishing these standards vanished.
Four hundred historians and 430 law professors warned the House against impeachment. The law professors said members of Congress would violate their constitutional responsibilities if they sought to remove the president for reasons that fell short of constitutional standards. Many scholars agreed with George Mason’s statement that impeachment must be for a great crime or an attempt to subvert the Constitution. Another founding father, James Madison, opposed a low standard because it would create a weak presidency serving at the pleasure of Congress. The framers of our Constitution obviously wanted the highest possible bar for removal of a president.[51]
Alexander Hamilton warned “the greatest danger (is) that the decision (to impeach) will be regulated more by the comparative strength of the parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” As a House member confirmed, the strength of the parties did regulate the outcome:[52]
“When radical Republicans hijacked the Constitu-tion and misused impeachment for partisan pur-poses, I worked on the House Judici-ary Committee in an effort to stop them. We lost all the votes along party lines … While we couldn’t dissuade Republi-cans in the House of Representa-tives, the over-whelming voice of Ameri-cans helped the United States Senate to end this madness.[53]
— Zoe Lofgren, member
House of Representative
Common sense tells us that our founding fathers put impeachment in the Constitu-tion to deal with serious breaches of official duties and great crimes against society. If impeach-ment, instead, concerned such things as covering up a personal mistake, some of our founding fathers themselves would have been vulnerable and some fine national leaders of yesterday would have been lost. The impeachment remedy was intended to preserve constitutional government by removing from office an official who subverts it, not someone who covers up a private matter.[54]
The general public had expressed its displeasure with what was going on in the House by voting a major Republican set-back and by voicing overwhelming objections to Congress. The public knew this was a private offense, not a public one against the state. It also knew there had to be a higher standard for removing a twice-elected President.The people who elected and reelected Clinton saw him as “a flawed but highly capable and essentially decent man.” No evidence has ever emerged to connect Clinton’s personal life with his performance as President.55
The same far right religious leaders, who had worked to undermine Clinton’s presidency, said that Amer-ica “deserved” the 9-11 disaster because of our cultural prob-lems. Did far-right leaders in the House make a personal (rather than constitutional) judgment that Clinton “deserved” impeachment, too? Like terrorists, does the far right believe they have a divine right to destroy those who do not share their beliefs? Was that really at the heart of Clinton’s impeach-ment and efforts to wreck his administration?
Preventing Recurrence, holding Responsible persons accountable
The misuse of our judicial system to plot a presidential downfall was unacceptable and should have been stopped by the Supreme Court. Kenneth Starr had no authority to invade the President’s private life. Even though misled by Starr, the Attorney General would have been in position to stop his intrusion had she followed her own statutory review requirements and judicial ethics on conflicts of interest. The country would have been far better off if Starr had closed his several fruitless investigations and gone home.
After Starr became a puppet of far-right House leaders and violated his own statute to advocate impeachment, DeLay’s abuse of power forced it through the House. The impeachment had nothing to do with presidential performance and defied both our Constitution and founding fathers. Rather than wasting time with impeachment, Congress should have focused on the nation’s preparedness for global terrorism, especially since several attacks already had been made on the United States and one day Congress itself would become a target.
Because subversive politics distracted and weakened our presidency, and jeopardized our national security, the public and future congresses should consider the following matters:
– The most precious thing we have in our democracy is the right to choose our local and national leaders, including the President of the United States. When people try to undermine the results of that process, what consequences should they face? Should there be a deterrent to this sort of subversive behavior such as a prison term or ban from further government service?
– Should a higher bar and time limits be set on congressionally-initiated investigations of a president? How can we condone clouding the presi-dency with a series of politi-cally-motivated investi-gations and then allowing them to remain open throughout the president’s term in office -¦ without clearing him until it was too late to do any good?
– What should be done about people who manipulate and misuse our judicial process to gain political advan-tage at the expense of our national welfare?
– Should Congress’s Committee on Ethics investigate members of Congress who violate our separation of powers by doing such things as secretly arranging to replace a sitting judiciary appointment with some-one sharing their own views?
– Should we bar from further government service officials with conflicts of interest who misinform and apply undue pressure to force a federal investigation?
– What should be done to prevent members of Congress from using impeachment as a tool to drive a President from office? Are better congressional safeguards needed such as the standards actually intended by our founders?
While Clinton’s personal behavior did leave a stain on his presidency, far-right leaders left a larger stain on the House of Representatives by abusing their powers, violating our Constitution and diverting the nation from the threat of global terrorism. The only sure way to prevent such abuses in the future is to have an informed public and hold those responsible personally accountable. Unless the radical right is held accountable for trying to nullify two presidential elections, our system of government will continue to be subjected to “anything goes” methods and could suffer even greater consequences.
As private citizens, we don’t have to accept what happened; we can change things for the future. We can hold members of Congress accountable and improve the quality of its leadership. Public attention is essential for this to happen. Here’s how you can help:
1) Three House leaders responsible for abuses of power and constitutional violations have been replaced (Gingrich), resigned (Livingston) or retired (Armey). A fourth (DeLay) is now Majority Leader. He would not permit the country to move on with a censure action and instead, forced an illegitimate impeachment opposed by most Americans. Recently, his ethics have been questioned by a congressional investigating committee and others. A fifth (Hyde) did not fulfill his promise to the American people to hold fair and impartial hearings. They are both unfit for leadership positions in Congress. Public pressure should be brought to strip Delay of his leadership role and Hyde of his chairmanship.
2) Others also tried to subvert our democracy and followed unethical procedures, such as Starr and his deputies. Insist that they be banned from further government service.
3) New campaign finance laws and the internet give the average citizen more influence in selecting their representatives. Support any viable candidate who will improve the quality of our national leadership. As just one example, through the powerful medium of the Internet, millions of Americans can contribute small amounts of money and time to candidates of their choice.
4) This article highlighted how the far right subverted a duly-elected presi-dency and diverted the nation from confronting the menace of international terrorism. Send it to your friends and the media and put it on the Internet for others to read and talk about.
This could happen to any future president, man or woman:
“How dare you bring a case so weak, so slight, so personal, so dirty, so intrusive, so rotten, so ugly, so without constitutional merit and so removed from any question of abuse of power? How dare you tie up Congress, the nation, the presidency and the government in a matter that involved only a man’s personal life? How dare you invade my home, my marriage — expose matters that should be between husband and wife — who are you people, and what gave you the right to do this to us?”[56]
— Richard Cohen, Washington Post, describing imaginary script for Hillary Clinton to speak in well of Senate during the trial.
Footnotes:
[1]. Blinded by the Right, pp. 79-81.
[2]. The Hunting of the President, pp. 104-5, 356.
[3]. Shadow-5 Presidents and legacy of Watergate, p.516.
[4]. The Hunting of the President, p. 111.
[5]. Ibid, p. 174.
[6]. A Vast Conspiracy, pp. 81-2.
[7]. The Clinton Wars, pp, 537-8.
[8]. Blinded by the Right, p. 143.
[9]. Anti-Clinton Lawyers Kept Jones’ Case Alive, NYTimes, 1-24-99.
[10]. Blinded by the Right, pp. 179-83.
[11]. Ibid, pp. 184-5.
[12]. Ibid, pp. 190-1.
[13]. Rulebook? What Rulebook?, Alan Ehrenhalt, NYTimes.
[14]. Blinded by the Right, p. 188.
[15]. A Vast Conspiracy, p. 93.
[16]. Blinded by the Right, p. 310.
[17]. The Clinton Wars, p.791.
[18]. A Vast Conspiracy, p. 188-9.
[19]. Ibid, p. 94.
[20]. Blinded by the Right, p. 301.
[21]. The Hunting of the President, p. 259.
[22]. David Broder, Wash Post, 3-31-98.
[23]. The Hunting of the President, pp. 259-64.
[24]. Brill’s Content, p. 127.
[25]. Reno has bungled the Lewinsky case, Boston Globe, 6-30-98.
[26]. Brill’s Content, p.127.
[27]. Ibid, p. 128.
[28]. The Hunting of the President, pp. 356-7.
[29]. Ibid, p. 127.
[30]. Ibid, p. 356-7.
[31]. Ibid, p. 356-7. Blinded by the Right, p. 317.
[32]. A Vast Conspiracy, p. 202.
[33]. Reno has bungled the Lewinsky case, Boston Globe, 6-30-98.
[34]. Dash 11-20-98 letter to Starr.
[35]. Shadow-5 Presidents and legacy of Watergate, p.516.
[36]. U.S. never had firm grasp on terrorism, NYTimes.
[37]. The Clinton Wars, pp. 484, 587-8.
[38]. E-mail from Zoe Lofgren, member Congress, to MoveOn, 2-12- 99.
[39]. The Breach: Inside the Impeachment and Trial of William Jefferson Clinton, p. 204.
[40]. Ibid, p. 16.
[41]. Ibid, pp. 252, 263.
[42]. Ibid, pp. 43-4.
[43]. Ibid, pp. 16, 138, 231-2.
[44]. The Clinton Wars, pp. 537-9.
[45]. Shadow-5 Presidents and legacy of Watergate, pp. 484-89.
[46]. Grass-Roots Organizing Effort Gets a Big Boost From Internet, L. A. Times, 1-13-99.
[47]. Censure and MoveOn press release, 12-15-98.
[48]. MoveOn Website.
[49]. A Vast Conspiracy, p. 334.
[50]. Ibid, p. 333.
[51[. The Clinton Wars, pp. 537-9.
[52]. Criminal? Possibly, Impeachable? No, Herman Schwartz, L. A. Times.
[53]. Letter from Zoe Lofgren to MoveOn, 2-10-99.
[54]. Criminal? Possibly, Impeachable? No, Herman Schwartz, L.A. Times.
[55]. Get personal, Mrs. Clinton, Wash Post.
[56]. The Hunting of the President, pp. 370-1.
Sources:
Articles researched
– Anti-Clinton Lawyers Kept Jones Case Alive, by Don Van Natta and Jill Abramson, NY Times.
– Pressgate, by Steven Brill, Brill’s Content.
– Rulebook? What Rulebook?, by Alan Ehrenhalt, NY Times contributor.
– With Its Cloudy Decisions Supreme Court Ignores Reality, by David Broder, Washington Post.
– Reno Has Bungled The Lewinsky Case, by Thomas Oliphant, Bos-ton Globe.
– Criminal? Possibly. Impeachable? No, by Herman Schwartz, L. A. Times.
– It’s Time to Say Get on with It, by E. J. Dionne, Washington Post.
– In Defense of the Little White Lie, by Marianne Means, Hearst Newpapers.
Books researched:
– Shadow: Five Presidents and the Legacy of Watergate, by Bob Woodward, Simon and Schuster, 1999.
– The Breach: Inside the Impeachment and Trial of William Jefferson Clinton, by Peter Baker of the Washington Post, Simon and Schuster, 2000.
– The Hunting Of The President: The Ten-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton, by Joe Conason and Gene Lyons, St Martin’s Press, 2000.
– A Vast Conspiracy, by Jeffery Toobin, Touchstone, 2000.
– Blinded By the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative, by David Brock, Crown Publishers, 2002.
– The Clinton Wars, by Sidney Blumenthal, Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, 2003
