WJPBR Email News List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Peace at any cost is a Prelude to War! CONGRESS ACTION: August 20, 2000 ================= ACCOUNTABLE IN A COURT OF LAW: The democrat establishment is up in arms. "Not Another Grand Jury", whined the Washington Post. That pretty well summed up the reaction of virtually every democrat and left-wing media mouthpiece to the news that Independent Counsel Robert Ray had impaneled a new grand jury, to hear evidence and decide whether to indict Bill Clinton for perjury after he leaves office. And of course, the all-too-predictable accusations of "leak" were hurled against the Office of the Independent Counsel by democrats, outraged that such a "leak" (as opposed to a "news scoop", since the possible target of the indictment was Bill the Beloved) would come on the very day that Al Gore was scheduled to give his acceptance speech at the Democratic Party Convention. Partisan politics rearing its ugly head again, cleverly timed to steal Gore's thunder, and those nasty republicans just can't let bygones be bygones. ".the American people have put this behind them, and they must be wondering why the independent counsel can't do the same", piously intoned a White House spokesman. Not so fast. On the very day that democrats were falling all over themselves to condemn those mean and nasty republicans, the judge overseeing the Independent Counsel's grand jury admitted that he was the source of the "leak". That would be the democrat judge, appointed in 1979 to the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals by democrat President Jimmy Carter and confirmed by the democrat Senate majority, and elevated to the Senior Judge of the Circuit by democrat President Bill Clinton in 1994. But did these facts cause the attack-dog democrats to change their tune and apologize to Independent Counsel Ray for their false accusations? Of course not. Democrats never let mere facts get in the way of a rousing partisan attack. The Washington Post, to its credit, did acknowledge in its editorial commentary on the day of the "leak", that "the story.did not appear to come from Mr. Ray's office." And the Post went on, the next day, to point out that "White House officials were unwilling to acknowledge yesterday that they had rushed to judgment about the source of the grand jury information." Yet those White House officials still complained that "the timing of the leak reeks to high heaven." Sen. John Breaux (D-LA) called the timing of the so-called leak, "the most political act that I think I have seen in my lifetime." As opposed, one might assume, to the actual indictment of Casper Weinberger by Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh a mere four days before the 1992 election, on a charge that Walsh had to know would be thrown out of court, as it subsequently was. After the election. The defeated former Texas governor, democrat Ann Richards, couldn't help using the "leak" to attack the man who had defeated her, current Texas Governor George Bush, saying: "I'm going to tell you that the Bush people are really good. .They leak that stuff like crazy and then stand back and say, 'Oh, my, my,' how badly they feel about that, that should never have happened. And you will never find their fingerprints on it." As though a state governor could have anything whatsoever to do with the actions of a federally appointed judicial officer, even if the "leak" had come from the Office of the Independent Counsel. Which it hadn't. But typical democrat hypocrisy aside, there remains the question about the propriety of the Independent Counsel considering such an indictment at all. As the Washington Post opined, such an indictment ".would signal a lack of judgment." But would it? If considering such an indictment indicates a lack of judgment, it is a lack of judgment shared by a whole host of democrats who were staunch defenders of Bill Clinton during the impeachment drama. To wit: Representative Steny Hoyer (D-MD): ".it is clear that upon leaving office, the President could be held accountable in a court of law if charges were to be brought against him alleging the wrongdoing of which the Committee on the Judiciary Republicans have accused him of today." (Congressional Record Page: H11789; December 18, 1998) Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA): "Let me suggest that if the President has committed a crime, let him be tried in a court of law." (Congressional Record Page: H 11828; December 18, 1998) Representative John Dingell (D-MI): "Impeachment is not a bar to subsequent criminal process, including indictment, trial, conviction, and punishment. While the President, under the Constitution, cannot be tried or indicted while in office, he may be subject and is subject to full process of the law upon leaving his office." (Congressional Record Page: H11791; December 18, 1998) Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY): "Perjury is a serious crime -- and, if provable, should be prosecuted in a court of law. . Is the President above the law? Certainly not. He is subject to the criminal law -- to indictment and prosecution when he leaves office like any other citizen, whether or not he is impeached." (Congressional Record Page: H11786; December 18, 1998) Representative Robert Menendez (D-NJ): "A censure.would not absolve the President of any future indictment and prosecution of alleged perjury. (Congressional Record Page: H11779; December 18, 1998) Representative David Obey (D-WI): "Under our system, the proper institution to punish the President if he violated the law is the court system, a legal institution, not the Congress, a political institution." (Congressional Record Page: H 11813; December 18, 1998) Representative Louise Slaughter (D-NY): "The President.is accused of lying about, and attempting to prevent the revelation of, his consensual activities with a White House intern. Were they wrong? Undeniably. Can they be punished through the legal system? Absolutely. " (Congressional Record Page: H 11817; December 18, 1998) Representative Albert Wynn (D-MD): "If, in fact, they want to make the argument that this is about the rule of law, then the President is not above the rule of law, the President can be prosecuted. Do not believe the President can escape prosecution for these offenses in a court of law. The President can be prosecuted after he leaves office." (Congressional Record Page: H 11828; December 18, 1998) Representative Lane Evans (D-IL): "Let me be clear, a decision by the House not to impeach will not exonerate the President. He will remain subject to indictment and prosecution for his conduct in the court of law when he leaves office." (Congressional Record Page: H 11843; December 18, 1998) Representative Peter DeFazio (D-OR): "Mr. Speaker, Member after Member has risen on the other side and said the President should not be above the law. He is not. Ken Starr is free to prosecute the President, indict him, perhaps while in office, but definitely after. The President should not be above the law for purposes of criminal prosecution. Mr. Starr is free to attempt to indict the President for criminal wrongdoing -- if not while the President sits in office he could certainly be prosecuted in 2 years after leaving office." (Congressional Record Page: H 11860; December 18, 1998) Representative James Maloney (D-CT): "Not only did the President engage in morally inappropriate conduct, he also lied to the American people and perjured himself before a grand jury. He must be held morally accountable by Congress on behalf of the American people, and legally accountable in full for his perjury by the courts after he leaves office, just like any other American would be held accountable for perjury." (Congressional Record Page: H 12014; December 19, 1998) Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA): "Punishment for alleged criminal law violations is not up to the United States Congress. That's up to the criminal justice system. After his term is up, less than two years from now, he is like any other American. He would have any other defenses that any other American has. That's the proper forum for that." Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT): "Whether any of his conduct constitutes a criminal offense such as perjury or obstruction of justice is not for me to decide. That, appropriately, should and must be left to the criminal justice system, which will uphold the rule of law in President Clinton's case as it would for any other American." Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA): "Rejecting these articles of impeachment does not place this President above the law. As the Constitution clearly says, he remains subject to the laws of the land just like any other citizen of the United States." Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ): "The legal system, our civilian criminal laws provide the proper venue for a President who has failed in his private character... And in this case, the legal system can and will continue to, address the President's personal transgressions." Senator John Breaux (D-LA): "For wrongful acts that are not connected with the official capacity and duties of the President of the United States, there are other ways to handle it. There is the judicial system. There is the court system. There are the U.S. attorneys out there waiting. There may even be the Office of Independent Counsel, which will still be there after all of this is finished." Senator Richard Bryan (D-NV): "For those who believe that the President is guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice-criminal offenses-there is a forum available for that determination." There were many more such comments, from many more democrats, on the floor of the House and the floor of the Senate, in press releases and in media interviews. Independent Counsel Ray let it be publicly known from the day he took over his post from Independent Counsel Starr, that the possibility of an indictment had not been foreclosed. And many democrats also acknowledged that impeachment had no effect on any future legal actions. In the words of Jerrold Nadler, indictment and prosecution remained viable options ".whether or not he is impeached." These are words that many a democrat, in the best traditions of the Congress, would no doubt like to "revise and extend" -- that is, wipe from the public record and from the minds of the American public. But words mean things, and to further quote Congressman Nadler, "Perjury is a serious crime." FOR MORE INFORMATION. ======================== Congressional Record: http://lcweb.loc.gov/global/legislative/congrec.html http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces150.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mr. Kim Weissman [EMAIL PROTECTED] *COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for nonprofit research and educational purposes only.[Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ] Want to be on our lists? Write at [EMAIL PROTECTED] for a menu of our lists! ****************************************************************************** ******************* A vote for Bush or Gore is a vote to continue Clinton policies! A vote for Buchanan is a vote to continue America! Therefore a vote for Gore or Bush is a wasted vote for America! Don't waste your vote! Vote for Patrick Buchanan! Today, candor compels us to admit that our vaunted two-party system is a snare and a delusion, a fraud upon the nation. Our two parties have become nothing but two wings of the same bird of prey... Patrick Buchanan <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
