|
Hang bill clinton Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nydailynews/57291376.htmlhttp://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nydailynews/57291376.html
HANG CLINTON NOW, EVIDENCE CAN COME LATER
New York Daily News; New York, N.Y.; Nov 7, 1997; LARS-ERIK NELSON;
Copyright Daily News, L.P. Nov 7, 1997
WASHINGTON Rep. Bob Barr, a Georgia Republican, wants to impeach President Clinton. Barr has only one problem: He doesn't know exactly what the charge is.
He is convinced, he told a news conference Wednesday, that Clinton has engaged in a "systematic abuse of office." But he doesn't have evidence that the President committed the "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors" the Constitution cites as grounds for impeachment.
To remedy this lapse, Barr has formally filed an "Inquiry of Impeachment" in the House of Representatives.
This is not the same as a "Resolution of Impeachment," Barr quickly explained. A Resolution of Impeachment would require him to know what he is talking about. But an Inquiry of Impeachment launches an investigative process to determine whether the President may have done anything to warrant removal from office.
That is, first we throw this explosive, accusatory word "impeachment" into public discourse and then we try to discover whether there is any evidence to justify it.
In "Alice in Wonderland," the Red Queen said "Sentence first verdict afterwards." Barr takes this to a new level: "Accusation first investigation afterwards."
Barr says he has seen evidence of "very clear violations of United States criminal laws." When asked to cite examples of crimes that might warrant impeaching Clinton, he says the President may have wanted to use a computerized White House guestlist to locate potential campaign contributors and may have made fund-raising calls from the White House. No one in history has ever been prosecuted for either "crime."
Clinton has already been subjected to longer, more intense, more varied investigation than any President in history. House and Senate committees have pored over his Whitewater dealings back in Arkansas, his wife's investments, his campaign fund-raising practices, the inner workings of the Rose Law Firm, the firings in the travel office, the suicide of deputy counsel Vince Foster, the transplanted FBI files. He has been deposed, exposed, opposed and imposed upon. No investigation has found evidence that Clinton committed any crime. So now Barr wants to start all over. An Inquiry of Impeachment would send the House Judiciary Committee on a fishing expedition to try to determine whether to recommend that the House itself vote to impeach. The actual trial would take place in the Senate, with a two- thirds vote needed to convict and remove the President from office. In short, don't hold your breath.
So what's the point? "There's a lot of frustration among Republicans up on Capitol Hill," says GOP pollster Frank Luntz.
"They have convinced themselves this President is corrupt and they believe if he were a Republican, the Democrats and the press would be ripping him to shreds. But the public probably looks at this as political gamesmanship."
Luntz has just finished a successful stint as pollster for Mayor Giuliani, and he came back to Washington with advice for other Republicans: The key to electoral success lies in tackling the quality-of-life problems people really care about crime, drugs, underperforming schools.
"You can run a positive campaign and win," Luntz said. "What happened in New York is a seminal event. Republicans nationwide should listen."
But Barr sees his own path to political success in putting Clinton in jail. The only thing missing is evidence of a crime. Damn that wily Clinton!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.
|
|
