-Caveat Lector- from: http://www.aci.net/kalliste/ <A HREF="http://www.aci.net/kalliste/">The Home Page of J. Orlin Grabbe</A> ----- Impeached POTUS Democrats Shuffle the Deckchairs, But Refuse to Jump Ship It doesn't count as sexual relations, unless it's with Hillary Clinton. by Mark Steyn THEY'RE rearranging the deckchairs on Bill Clinton's Love Boat: the Democrats in the Senate have begun moving around. Arizona's Blanche Lincoln sits where California's Barbara Boxer once sat; Senator Boxer sits where Minnesota's Paul Wellstone once sat; Senator Wellstone now sits in the enormous shadow of Ted Kennedy. During the House managers' presentations, Senator Kennedy couldn't stop coughing: with each long, low, throaty rumble, the vertical hold on his tie went haywire, his belly vibrated, the desk rattled, the chandeliers wobbled. He was like that volcano on Montserrat. But now the Clinton attorneys are doing their stuff, Mount Ted (that's a geographical metaphor, not the first rule of the Senate Intern Code) has subsided. It's safe for Mr Wellstone, recovering from back surgery, to return to the neighbourhood. But what does all this movement mean? "My guy is sick of reading about his body language," says one aide. "He didn't even know he had body language until this last week. There's people out there spinning entire articles out of Kennedy's cough." He has a point. To us cough-diviners, the deckchair shuffling is an inconvenience because we're all trying to spot 12 Democrats prepared to abandon ship. That's why Daniel Patrick Moynihan rubbing his spectacles seems more significant than Jesse Helms rubbing his. But by yesterday morning the consensus was that Democrat senators could pick their noses, scratch their crotches and lob their toupees at Clinton attorneys, and it wouldn't mean anything. The Democrat caucus has come together. The only defection presently mooted is that of West Virginia's glowering Robert Byrd, who's always described by fellow Democrats as "the Senate's widely respected elder statesman". Translated, this means: "Fuhgeddabout him; he's history." When impeachment moved to the Senate, we were solemnly told that these guys were the wise men of American politics: they wouldn't take kindly to a lot of legalistic hairsplitting that insulted their intelligence. But it's happened and they're loving it! Turns out it is all about sex: a year after his famous finger-wagging, Mr Clinton's definition of sexual relations remains the cornerstone of his, er, oral depositions. Intelligent people like David Kendall and Cheryl Mills are prepared to argue in public that the President has bravely confessed to a sexual affair, but still hasn't had sexual relations with that woman. If I follow the legal argument correctly, it doesn't count as sexual relations unless it's with Hillary Clinton. And, ipso facto, if you never have sexual relations, what are you doing in a sexual harassment suit? If oral sex is non-sexual, then clearly the President should have been sued for non-sexual harassment. No wonder this case is a travesty of a farrago, Your Honour. No wonder the Senators have stopped taking notes. For, in this case, words make no sense. Consulting my own notes, I find Clinton attorney Greg Craig's defiant evisceration of the perjury charge: the President "did not deny he had misled his aides; he said, in fact, he had misled his aides. So the President wasn't lying about telling the truth; he was telling the truth about lying. If, instead of telling the truth about not telling the truth, he'd lied about lying, then he wouldn't have been telling the truth." But, just as he'd got that cleared up, Greg complicated things: "He never said that he told them only true things." So the President hadn't lied when he said he'd told the truth because, although he lied, he hadn't exclusively lied, so therefore he was telling the truth about telling the truth, although he'd also have been telling the truth if he'd said he'd lied, and, although he'd have been lying if he said he hadn't lied, he'd have been lying if he said he hadn't told the truth. Out on the floor, Senate Majority Whip Don Nickles dozes off. A faraway look comes into Strom Thurmond's eyes, as if fondly recalling Miss South Carolina of 1908. But the Dems are lapping it up. For a week, they pretended to be grave: "I am undecided until I hear all the facts," intoned a Vermonter, Senator Patrick Leahy. But now they've figured they can skip the mock solemnity. Some are even giggling. The London Telegraph, Jan. 22, 1999 Impeached POTUS State of Shame It was the most shameless State of the Union speech any President has ever delivered. Entering the seventh year of a second term, Bill Clinton's audacity allowed him to pretend that he was on his Presidency's maiden voyage. He sailed a fully loaded tanker onto the floor of the House and dumped about 500,000 gallons of policy rhetoric onto an agog and at times embarrassed Congress. You had to see it to believe it, and we feel sorry for all those people who claimed to have fallen asleep before the President proposed saving the family farm. The speech was unhinged from any imaginable reality other than what the President has devised to serve his own needs. For sure the President's supporters will think these words much too harsh and partisan. But it was the President's own supporters on the floor of that Congress, not his critics, who were forced by Mr. Clinton's pounding, stump-speech cadences to leap endlessly to their feet not just for the highlights, but for each-and-every-new-proposal. Mr. Clinton made his own party members perform for him like acolytes at some late-night rally. But at least three Cabinet Secretaries are by now used to acting this way. In a way this speech may be viewed as consoling: This gluttonous agenda is what the country has avoided. Some measure of it might now be law had Mr. Clinton proposed it in his first year. Achieving any of it, though, would of course have required the President's daily energies and attention. So instead it arrives in the twilight of a second term. To what purpose? Multiple purposes. It was not meant so much as serious policy, but as a kind of therapy for the Presidential persona, making him feel good during his 77 minutes before the camera. The speech was intended as a fire bell, calling on every imaginable constituency in the Democratic village to rally toward the burning barn of his Presidency. Appealing to these the old-style Democrats whose votes he needs to stay in office, he proposed that the government buy up the stock market (Jesse Jackson's dream come true), federalizing even more education policy (the NEA's dream come true), a buck increase for the minimum wage (for John Sweeney), adding prescription drugs to Medicare (an idea too expensive even for LBJ), a redundant lawsuit on tobacco (more billions for the trial lawyers). To the party's Hillary wing, "We thank her for her courage and commitment"--a remarkable understatement. And that's just the large print. In one of the speech's most manic moments, the President proposed "rapid response teams to help towns where factories have closed." Finally, the speech was the political equivalent of a Y2K fix for the Democratic Party. At this late hour, Bill Clinton wants his legacy to be ensuring that the faithfully applauding Al Gore succeeds him and that the Democrats regain control of Congress. Rather than expect any of this stuff to be enacted, it is intended to help Mr. Gore sew up the party's left, and it is intended to force Republicans to oppose most everything so that the Congress is gridlocked. Running then against an uncaring, "do-nothing" Congress, the Democrats would hope to make Dick Gephardt Speaker in 2000. The speech, indisputably, was an act of utter political cynicism. This same President's earlier, very famous assertion that the "era of big government is over" was obviously a lie, just like "I did not have sex with that woman." He says whatever he has to say at any moment in his personal odyssey. To win re-election by a moderate electorate, he's a centrist Democrat; to win acquittal from liberal Senate Democrats, he's FDR cubed. It could all backfire. Driven to this display of big-government grandiosity by his desperate personal straits, Mr. Clinton has given the GOP a rare opportunity to find its voice against the welfare/entitlement state again. What we have seen these past months is that Democrats of every political stripe have been willing to lash themselves to Mr. Clinton's mast. They are now all on board for the course Mr. Clinton laid out Monday night to bring himself home safely. There is no reason now for Republicans to join the trip. Wall Street Journal, January 21, 1999 The Religion Business Pat Robertson Joins Board of Laura Ashley "very, very wealthy and successful" Laura Ashley, the international retailer of English country style from frocks to furniture, is seeking divine help for its earthly problems by appointing Pat Robertson, the American evangelist, as a non-executive director. Mr Robertson, prominent TV preacher and former Republican presidential candidate, owns 2m shares in the company. He will help in its effort to overcome years of seemingly intractable difficulties which a string of chief executives has failed to solve. Another chief executive was appointed yesterday, taking the total to eight since the group listed on the stock market in 1985. So is it turning to the power of prayer? A senior company official said: "If that's what it takes . . . and don't quote me on that." One analyst said: "It will certainly take a miracle to sort out Laura Ashley." The difficult task now falls to Kwan Cheong Ng, who is replacing Victoria Egan as chief executive. Mrs Egan, appointed in August is leaving the group for family reasons and will not receive compensation. Mr Ng, already a non-executive director of Laura Ashley, is managing director of Metrojaya, the retailing arm of Malayan United Industries, the group that last year paid £43.7m ($72m) for a 40 per cent stake in Laura Ashley. Jusco, a Japanese group, owns a further 9 per cent of the shares. Laura Ashley's story is one of the great disasters of British retailing. Founded by Laura Ashley in her kitchen, it soared to success. But Mrs Ashley died in an accident shortly before the company entered the stock market. International expansion throughout North America, Europe and Asia has meant that the group has as many stores overseas as it does in the UK. But these have brought numerous problems with stock and distribution. The group is expected to lose £18m before tax in its financial year which ends this month. The group's chairman is John Thornton, newly appointed co-chief operating officer of Goldman Sachs, the investment bank. Stephen Cox, company secretary, said Mr Thornton would continue to devote significant time to Laura Ashley. As for Dr Robertson, Mr Cox said: "He is a very, very wealthy and successful entrepreneur." The Financial Times, Jan. 22, 1999 Foreign Exchange Argentina Considers Dumping Own Currency in Favor of the Dollar Central bank doesn't trust itself Argentina's central bank has presented the government with a blueprint on how the country could surrender its currency in favour of switching to the US dollar.The radical step could prompt other Latin American countries to consider abolishing their own national currencies and entering a new dollar zone in a bid to restore stability to the region. President Carlos Menem ordered the report from Pedro Pou, central bank president, last week as the Brazilian devaluation crisis broke. Submission of the report came against a background of further currency turmoil in Latin America. The Brazilian Real had weakened a further 8 per cent against the US dollar by mid-afternoon, reviving fears of mounting inflation. Argentina already has a currency board which locks the peso to the dollar. A majority of bank deposits are in dollars, as are many long-term contracts such as mortgages. But a full-scale switch to the dollar would be politically sensitive. Because only the US Federal Reserve would have the power to print dollars, the US would have greater control over the Argentine economy. Some - but not all - senior economy ministry officials are promoting the idea enthusiastically and meetings have already taken place with US Treasury and Federal Reserve officials. Mr Pou told ministers the best option would not be to act unilaterally, but to dollarise under the terms of a binding accord, or "monetary association treaty", with the US. Other nations in the region would be free to negotiate signing the treaty. Private-sector groups in Mexico have recently advocated a stronger link to the dollar. Dollarisation would require detailed negotiation with the US, and would have to be approved by Argentina's congress. Officials said the idea had been under discussion for some time and was not a short-term response to the Brazilian crisis. However, the Brazilian devaluation and Mr Menem's frustration over the high interest rate premium Argentina has to pay due to investors' fears of devaluation appear to have given added impetus to the debate. For some time officials have been studying how to "deepen" convertibility, the currency board system which pegs the peso to the dollar at par, and enhance stability. Under the system, introduced in 1991, Argentina has brought its fiscal deficit under control and registers one of the world's lowest inflation rates. However, investor perceptions of a devaluation risk are reflected in higher interest rates. Officials argue surrendering the peso to eliminate those concerns would bring benefits similar to those achieved by the countries entering European monetary union. The US is ready to explore the issue further, according to an individual in Washington familiar with the discussions. Argentina can dollarise without US agreement, but economists say that co-operation with the US over a number of issues - particularly over the operation of the "lender of last resort" function in the event of a financial crisis - would improve its operations. Mr Pou yesterday termed such a negotiated option "dollarisation-plus". Other difficult issues would have to be thrashed out with the US, including the issue of seignorage - the interest earned by the central bank on the dollar reserves used to back the currency under convertibility. The Financial Times, Jan. 22, 1999 Money Laundering Raul Salinas Convicted of Murder $250 million, much in foreign bank accounts MEXICO CITY, Jan. 21 – Raul Salinas de Gortari, older brother of former president Carlos Salinas, was found guilty today of ordering the murder of a top politician four years ago, capping a long investigation and trial that rocked Mexico's political establishment and alternately titillated and disgusted its citizens. Salinas, 52, was sentenced to 50 years in prison with no possibility of parole. The verdict was a triumph for Attorney General Jorge Madrazo Cuellar and the administration of President Ernesto Zedillo, which made the arrest and trial of Raul Salinas a symbol of change and a test of legal reform in Mexico. Government officials say the case reflects a new willingness to hold even the most powerful people here accountable under the law. The verdict came as a surprise to some legal analysts and commentators, who considered the state's case against Salinas weak and circumstantial. The investigation was marred by numerous irregularities, including the dismissal and eventual arrest of a leading investigator who was accused of fabricating evidence against Salinas by planting a body on one of his properties and paying witnesses – including a reputed soothsayer – to lie about it. But Federal Judge Ricardo Ojeda Bohorquez said in written statement that it was clear Salinas was "the intellectual author" of the September 1994 killing of Jose Francisco Ruiz Massieu, the secretary general and second-ranking official in Mexico's ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party, known by its initials as the PRI. Ruiz Massieu also had once been married to Adriana Salinas, sister of Raul and Carlos Salinas. A judicial assistant, jostled by a frenetic crowd of journalists and camera crews, read the verdict and sentence late today at the judge's office near Almoloya Prison outside Mexico City, where Salinas has been incarcerated and where his trial and legal proceedings surrounding his case were conducted over more than two years. The announcement was carried live on Mexican radio and television. Salinas's attorney, Raul Gonzalez, said his client will appeal the sentence. "He is absolutely prepared to continue the fight; he not only is not guilty, but is innocent of all crimes," Gonzalez said. Since his arrest in February 1995, opinion polls have shown that most people believe Salinas was involved in the Ruiz Massieu killing and that his brother, Carlos, knew it. The former president, who has never been charged with any wrongdoing, went into self-imposed exile 12 days after his brother's arrest and now spends most of his time in Ireland, which has no extradition treaty with Mexico. Today, the two brothers are among the most vilified figures in Mexico. Arguably the most powerful official ever formally charged with wrongdoing in modern Mexico, Raul Salinas is still under investigation on a forgery charge – he allegedly used fake passports to travel overseas and deposit money in foreign bank accounts – and a charge of illicit enrichment, meaning investigators believe he has more money than can reasonably be explained by his $192,000-a-year salary as a top civil servant in Mexico's government food agency during his brother's presidency. Mexican investigators say they have traced about $250 million to Salinas in accounts here and overseas. Judges previously dismissed another illegal enrichment case against Salinas, along with charges of tax evasion and money laundering. He remains under investigation on another charge of laundering drug money, according to officials in the Mexican attorney general's office. Separately, Salinas has been the target of a drug-money laundering investigation involving authorities in at least 10 countries, including the United States. Three months ago, the Swiss attorney general seized $114 million that Salinas had deposited in secret Swiss bank accounts under false names, asserting the funds were payoffs from drug kingpins whom Salinas had protected during his brother's 1988-94 administration. The U.S. General Accounting office recently issued a report saying that Citibank in New York violated many of its own internal regulations in helping Salinas transfer millions of dollars from Mexico through New York to other foreign accounts. Jose Francisco Ruiz Massieu was shot and killed on Sept. 28, 1994, in front of a Mexico City hotel, where he had attended a meeting of PRI officials. The gunman, Daniel Aguilar Trevino, was arrested moments later. Subsequently, others involved in an apparent conspiracy to kill Ruiz Massieu told investigators that Raul Salinas was the mastermind of the assassination. The chief prosecutor in the case, Deputy Attorney General Jose Luis Ramos Rivera, declared during the trial that Salinas had Ruiz Massieu killed because he represented a threat to the Salinas family's political power and because of bad blood stemming from Ruiz Massieu's divorce from Salinas's sister. In a 16-page explanation in support of his verdict, Judge Ojeda said that the prosecution did not "solidly prove the motives of the accused for ordering the homicide." Nevertheless, he said he gave credence to the motives based on the divorce as well as previous run-ins between Salinas and Ruiz Massieu when the president's brother was head of the federal food agency and Ruiz Massieu was governor of the state of Guerrero from 1987-93. The killing was one of three sensational assassinations in Mexico in the mid-1990s. The killings – along with an armed rebel uprising in the southern state of Chiapas and a botched currency devaluation that weakened the economy – rocked Mexico and caused worried foreign investors to question the political, economic and social stability of America's southern neighbor and second biggest trading partner. Despite the state's victory today, the investigation and trial have left a number of questions unresolved. Principal among those is whether Mario Ruiz Massieu, brother of the murder victim, helped cover up Raul Salinas's role in the slaying. Late in his term as president, Carlos Salinas appointed Mario Ruis Massieu as a special prosecutor to investigate the assassination. A few months later, he resigned that post, saying his investigation was being blocked by ruling party power brokers. Subsequently, however, Mexican investigators declared they uncovered evidence that Ruiz Massieu had altered witnesses' statements to delete numerous references to Raul Salinas's role in the slaying. He has denied the accusation. Ruis Massieu was arrested in Newark in March 1994 and has been held under house arrest there despite Mexico's repeated efforts in U.S. courts to have him returned to Mexico City for trial. In 1997, a federal judge and jury in Houston confiscated $9 million from a Texas bank account of Ruiz Massieu, concluding the funds were proceeds of the illicit drug trade. Another mystery is the whereabouts of former PRI federal legislator Munoz Rocha, who allegedly helped Raul Salinas plan and carry out the killing. Prosecutors say claim they have linked Rocha to Salinas and the slaying through phone records, credit card receipts and an $80,000 payment made to him by Raul Salinas. Rocha has not been seen since the assassination, and many officials here believe he is dead. The Washington Post, Jan. 22, 1999 ----- Aloha, He'Ping, Om, Shalom, Salaam. Em Hotep, Peace Be, Omnia Bona Bonis, All My Relations. Adieu, Adios, Aloha. Amen. Roads End Kris DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections 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, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== 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
