Time: Wed Dec 03 13:03:41 1997 To: From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: Hitchens On Impeachment -- 03-02-97 (fwd) Cc: Bcc: sls References: <snip> > > 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 >SUNDAY FOCUS / NEWSDAY >03-02-97 > >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 >inquiries." > >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 >answers." > >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. > > ~~~~~ > > >Billy > >Anthology >http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/essays.html >Anthology >http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/essays.html > <snip>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail