From: "Mike Ruppert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> David: Picture a game of chicken like in the old 50's movies. Two hot rods race toward each other at breakneck speed. The chicken is the one who swerves away first. I believe you are absolutely right. The Democrats gave the Republicans an out in Iran Contra when they had enough to put Reagan, Bush and all of CIA in jail. By not forcing the issue they became criminal co-conspirators. Now, the unspoken message is, and always has been, "Hey, we let you guys off for the drugs in Iran-Contra, Now you have to let Bill off for the fundraising, travelgate, the Chinese missile technology, Monica and everything else. Running in the background, the entire time of the impeachment process, has been the CIA drug investigation. The CIA which released the report is headed by Clinton appointees. So many people were amazed that CIA confessed to so much in Volume II. I was not. It is no coincidence that hearings on Volume Two are scheduled to run at the same time as the impeachment trial. The message is clear. Clinton, who was never the prime architect of evil in CIA drug-dealing, is saying that he'll scorch the earth. His biggest defender has been Maxine Waters, who is also the Congressional leader on CIA and drugs. This is not by accident. I believe there's more than one reason for this. I say again, that were I her I would have done exactly the same thing. I cannot get into her head. Nor can I speak for her. But my reasons for supporting Clinton (if I were her) would be the simple realization that it would be the only hope I had of getting the CIA-drug issue squarely on the table - whether Bill Clinton wanted it or not. If push comes to shove, he has an out. In my newsletter From The Wilderness (Dec., 1998) I just published a story which used as a source a totally credible former CIA pilot and lawyer who has already testified in a federal trial that CIA was flying drugs into Mena as far back as 1972-5 before Bill Clinton ever held office. (US v. Reagan, Tucson, 1997). [This was not Ronald Reagan]. There's plenty of evidence to back him up. I still like Maxine because she's a tough and shrewd player who, I believe, has the best interests of her people at heart. I also believe that African-Americans will save the soul of the nation. I have just received the endorsement of the Baptist Ministerial Conference of Southern California. That's 500 black churches. Like FDR I believe that nothing happens in politics by accident. All of these people know that I won't compromise on CIA and drugs for anything and my web page has been recently visited twice by the Executive Office of the President. That is why I have stayed fairly neutral on the impeachment circus. That is why we must do everything we can to focus attention on the Volume II hearings and why I need support. I don't like Bill Clinton at all but I recognize that he is a product of the system which created him and his roots go back to Bush, Harriman, Stephens, and others who've been around a lot longer. My biggest fear is George W. Bush who just got the endorsement of Jerry Falwell in 2000. Personally, I hope that both hot rods crash into each other head first. Then the people might have a chance of setting things right. However, I am also pushing hard for a mass demonstration of 10,000 people in the street at Florence and Normandie on April 29th, the 7th anniversary of the L.A. riot to prove that the people know enough not to let the bad guys make deals and get away with it. CIA and drugs is out of the can. We have to make sure that no one puts it back. Mike Ruppert www.copvcia.com -----Original Message----- From: David Goldman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 25, 1998 9:19 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [CIA-DRUGS] Is Censure Related to CIA Drugs information? From: David Goldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> So now we have the "elder statesman" coming out against impeachment before hearing the evidence. Does anyone have any guesses as to what Clinton has on the congressman and senators such as Moynihan, Hatch, etc. who oppose impeachment that may be related to the CIA drug issues relating to both parties? Moynihan talks about destabilizing the presidency, is he hinting at this? David Goldman > DRUDGE REPORT > THU DEC 24, 1998 21:22:41 UTC > > MOYNIHAN COMES OUT AGAINST REMOVING CLINTON FROM OFFICE > > Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York has determined that President > Clinton should be censured but not removed from office, warning that the > moves to oust Clinton might threaten to "very readily destabilize the > presidency." > > Moynihan makes the comments in an exclusive interview set for Friday's NEW > YORK TIMES. > > Moynihan, who was believed to be a potential swing pro-impeachment Democrat, > said he had consulted many of his colleagues and was "increasingly confident > that there was support among those in his party and Republicans to move > rapidly to cut short a prolonged impeachment trial." > > TIMES reporter Richard Berke snags the Christmas Eve interview with Moynihan > -- an interview that is dramatically different in tone from when the > Lewinsky story first broke. > > Earlier this year, Moynihan was completely outraged over the shock story of > the president and the intern. > > In an interview published on January 27th in the NEW YORK POST, the New York > Democrat was asked if Clinton could weather acknowledging an affair with > Lewinsky. > > "I should think not. If it's so, it represents a disorder," he said. > > "We are not talking of Czar Alexander. We have a system of government in > which persons move in and out of government... It's not a constitutional > crisis. The Constitution provides for this." > > Sen. Daniel Moynihan said Clinton couldn't survive the scandal if it turned > out that he did have sex with Lewinsky - whether or not he asked her to lie! > > > That was then. > > "We are an indispensable nation and we have to protect the presidency as an > institution," Moynihan now tells Friday's NEW YORK TIMES. > > "There has to be a commander in chief. You could very readily destabilize > the presidency, move to a randomness. That's an institution that has to be > stable, not in dispute. Absent that, do not doubt that you could degrade the > republic quickly." > > Did Moynihan hit the Egg Nog early? > > In the interview with the TIMES, Moynihan also invoked his concerns about > the Constitution when asked whether he would support levying a fine on > Clinton as part of any censure arrangement. > > "Bad, bad, bad!" he said of the idea. "Wrong, wrong wrong!" > > "I'm sure the people who are proposing it are doing so in perfectly good > faith. Impeachment is not about punishment. The Constitution is very clear." > > > But back on September 6, 1998 on ABC NEWS' THIS WEEK, Moynihan was hit with > a round of questioning by panelist George Will. > > WILL: Is perjury in a civil case by the chief executive officer of the > United States an impeachable offense? > > Sen. DANIEL MOYNIHAN: Yes. > > GEORGE WILL: Is perjury, therefore, I assume in a grand jury - before a > grand jury, would be an impeachable offense? > > Sen. DANIEL MOYNIHAN: Yes. > > --- > > As the year comes to a end, Moynihan now says that he is not sure that > perjury is an impeachable act. > > "The question is, 'Do these allegations rise to the level of high crimes and > misdemeanors?'" he asked in the TIMES interview. "And we will have to judge. > We will have to make up our minds. The list, high crimes and misdemeanors, > begins with treason, bribery." > > And Egg Nog for all. > > Developing... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe from this mailing list, or to change your subscription to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at http://www.onelist.com and select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe from this mailing list, or to change your subscription to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at http://www.onelist.com and select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left.
