>>I sincerely wish that you and the others who refer to "Clinton supporters" and "Clintonistas" would name some names.
Why name names? They are most conspicuous by their absence. Why wake the brain dead? Best to let yellow dogs lie (and they do it sooo well!).
>>I know I have never been a Clinton supporter or Clintonista and, quite frankly, I do not recall any regular poster to this forum who is or was one.
Who accused you of such calumny? Since you are still here and posting you must agree that I included you out.
>>Some of you seem to be saying that a poster must be either for or against Clinton. By insisting on only these two labels for us, you are choosing to ignore that what some of us are supporting is due process under the law and the US Constitution.
Many of us dislike it when elected and appointed officials play fast and loose with the law for personal political gain. As well, we have an intense dislike for government by media.
Speaking only for myself, I didn't like it when the target was President Nixon, and I don't like it now.
There is no threat to "due process" by those seeking the truth from the Clintons, in fact everyone knows that the Clintons are using the means of the law, i.e., legal procedure, to try to delay and defeat the ends of justice. They won't.
This administration is guilty of something far worse than McCarthyism, they are guilty of Clintonism, defined as wrongly accusing others of bad acts that only they, the accusers, are actually guilty of. The Clintonistas leak and then point and cry "leaker'. They obstruct the inquiry at every turn and point and accuse others of delay. For that and myriad other reasons they are known to be devoid of all honor, integrity and ethics. (And recently they accused Bush of their China policy).
As for trial by media, Clinton is getting far more benefit of the doubt than Nixon ever did. The media relished bringing down Nixon, but must be pushed, kicking and screaming, into reporting the truth on Clinton. Remember, Clinton claimed they would be the most ethical Administration in history!!! You'd think the media would beat him over the head with that alone. But they won't and don't.
Nixon is known as the president who covered up a crime he didn't commit. The Clintons shall be known as the co-presidents who covered up crimes they did commit.
Today's lead editorial from the New York Times lifts the see-thru veil of Clintonian method of obstruction by legal process:
June 2, 1998
A White House Legal Dodge
The latest maneuvering by the White House to avoid accelerated
Supreme Court review of its flimsy privilege claims should not
deter the justices from grabbing the case. This is an instance where the
Court, in its constitutional role, should see the need to intervene in the
interest of orderly government and the rule of law. The nation needs a
definitive resolution of the issues that have been raised by the White
House to impede the investigation by independent counsel Kenneth
Starr.
In an effort to delay the Supreme Court from entering the fray and to
avoid being linked in history with Richard Nixon's Watergate strategy,
President Clinton has dropped his reliance on claims of executive
privilege to protect two aides from testifying about issues being probed
by Mr. Starr. But he will continue to impede Mr. Starr's investigation
into his relationship with Monica Lewinsky by pursuing attorney-client
privilege as a reason to challenge, through normal judicial review, some
of Mr. Starr's efforts to question Bruce Lindsey, a deputy White House
counsel.
In papers filed with the Supreme Court yesterday, White House lawyers
argued that Mr. Clinton's use of the attorney-client privilege raised no
pressing constitutional issues and therefore did not require the
extraordinary step of expedited review. But a President's refusal to
cooperate with a prosecutor's reasonable requests for information in a
legitimate criminal inquiry is itself a matter of constitutional importance,
regardless of the excuses used to justify the stonewalling.
Moreover, Mr. Clinton's remaining claim of attorney-client privilege is
really little more than another executive privilege claim in disguise, given
that the lawyer he is trying to shield is foremost a political and policy
adviser. Federal District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson
acknowledged as much when she rejected Mr. Clinton's attorney-client
privilege claim regarding Mr. Lindsey, applying essentially the same
reasoning that she did in turning down the claims of executive privilege.
Although Judge Johnson reached the right conclusions, the Supreme
Court could usefully resolve differences between her reasoning and that
used by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals a year ago in rebuffing a
similar White House claim that Hillary Clinton's conversations with
government lawyers about personal Whitewater matters fell under the
attorney-client privilege.
By taking the case quickly, the Court could cut through the barrage of
privilege claims that have dragged out the investigation and thus clogged
the functioning of the Government. Mr. Starr's brief asking for expedited
Supreme Court review called the case "of high moment," and
underscored the nation's interest in having it resolved quickly. Despite
the clever White House legal tactics, it still is.
nytimes.com
With its carefully-calibrated legal response Monday, the White House
continued a strategy it has pursued throughout the serpentine
Whitewater investigation: Challenge Kenneth Starr, the independent
counsel directing the inquiry, at every turn and delay the completion of
the investigation in hopes the public will lose interest over time.
This approach avoids a high-profile confrontation before the Supreme
Court, with all the obvious reminders of the battle that finally doomed
the presidency of Richard Nixon. It gives the appearance of cooperation
and compromise while slowing Starr's inquiry and moving the case off
the front pages.
If Starr is stymied in the courts, this reasoning goes, he will be forced to
play out his hand in his report to the House of Representatives, a
political forum where Clinton has numerous allies and where talk of
impeachment over what the public sees as largely personal matters
sends shivers down even Republican spines.
But Charles F.C. Ruff, the White House counsel, said at a briefing for
reporters that Monday's legal filing was about constitutional imperatives
and presidential prerogatives -- and nothing more.
"There will undoubtedly be folks out there and in this room who suggest
that this is part of a great scheme to delay," Ruff said. "That's just
nonsense."
nytimes.com
Another Clintonism from one of the masters. |
