NEALZ NUZE
The Neal Boortz Show -- News Talk 750 WSB -- Atlanta
Friday, July 17, 1998.
SO . WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT PERJURY HERE
Ours is a government of law. The law is the cornerstone of American government and the basis upon which our liberty is preserved and protected. Without that law you have no liberty. You have no right to your life. You have no right to keep any property you manage to accumulate. Our system dictates that each and every one of us is to abide by the law. Not just the poor, but the poor and the rich. Not just the voters, but the voters and the people they elect. All of us, no exceptions.
There are some pillars upon which our law rests. These pillars support our rule of law. They hold it firm and protect it from crumbling into dust. These are operative principles without which the rule of law would be absolutely impossible.
Two of the pillars upon which our rule of law rests are the requirements that you tell the truth when you have sworn an oath to do so, and that you do not attempt to coerce another into not telling the truth.
Justice cannot be present in a court of law if the truth is absent. Honest people seek justice. The dishonest flee from it.
The Justice Department recognizes the importance of the truth in legal proceedings. Lying under oath in a federal matter is considered to be a grave crime indeed. It calls for a mandatory prison sentence of from 12 to 18 months. It doesn't matter whether the lie was uttered in a civil or a criminal matter, the punishment is the same.
Try to keep this in mind when you hear the network nit-wits telling you that it is no real big deal if Clinton lied under oath about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
Know that one of the very pillars of our system of law -- our government of law --- is under attack.
BIG DAY FOR CLINTON AND STARR TODAY
Score another one for Kenneth Starr. Yesterday the full panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that there is no special privilege that can be used to prevent Secret Service Agents to testify before Kenneth Starr's grand jury. So, another Clinton stonewall attempt crumbles.
I believe the score is not Kenneth Starr 13, Clinton 1. Clinton's sole win is on the issue of whether or not Vincent Foster's attorney-client privilege survived his death.
The Clinton Administration is making a last-ditch effort to get Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist to block the subpoenas of Clinton's Secret Service agents.
Not a chance.
Aren't some of you wondering just what it is that Clinton is so afraid these agents are going to say? Are the rumors true? Was Clinton using Secret Service agents to procure women? The evidence is strong that he used Arkansas State Troopers that way. Why not the Secret Service?
Sooner or later Clinton will run out of ways to obstruct Starr's investigation.
If you want to read some fiery language from Judge Laurence H. Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Click here.
UNDERSTANDING ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE
There were news reports yesterday that Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr wanted to question Secret Service Agent Larry Cockell about any conversations he may have heard during a limo ride with Clinton and Clinton's attorney, Robert Bennett. Clinton apologists are claiming that this is an attempt to breach Clinton's attorney-client privilege.
The White House is wrong. It would not be a breach of attorney-client privilege to compel Cockell to testify as to what he overheard of a conversation between Clinton and his attorney.
Here's why.
Any conversation that a client has, in private, with his attorney is generally privileged. However, if a third party is present during that conversation the privilege is lost. Cockell was a third party. If he was present and overheard conversation between Clinton and Bennett, that conversation is not protected as to Cockell.
Just what was said in that limo? Is this why Clinton and his cronies are working so hard to keep his Secret Service guards from testifying?
THE READINESS OF OUR ARMED FORCES
Last night ABC news carried a disturbing story about the lack of readiness of the Air Force. It seems that we are having quite a bit of trouble keeping jet fighters in the air. There is also a problem in keeping qualified pilots, aircraft mechanics and computer experts.
The blame was placed on problems caused by the world-wide deployment of the Air Force on various peace-keeping missions. At no time did ABC mention the huge budget cuts that the military has suffered under the Draft-Dodger-in-Chief.
Try this -- can you identify whose standing army this is?
- 709,000 regular service soldiers;
- 293,000 reserve troops;
- Eight standing army divisions;
- 20 air force and navy air wings with 2,000 combat aircraft;
- 232 strategic bombers;
- 13 strategic ballistic missile submarines with 3,114 nuclear warheads on 232 missiles;
- 500 ICBMs with 1,950 warheads;
- Four aircraft carriers, and;
- 121 surface combat ships and submarines, plus all the support bases, shipyards and logistical assets needed to sustain such a naval force.
Is this country Russia? No, Red China ? Nope. Great Britain ? Hardly !
Give Up? These are the American military forces that have disappeared since the 1992 elections."
Why wasn't that included in the ABC report?
JUST BOOK THE PRESIDENT ON AIRTRAN
News now that the codes for electronic countermeasures used to protect U.S. military aircraft, and that would include Air Force One, have disappeared. Remember Loral Space & Communications, Ltd.? Yup, that's one of the companies that apparently helped Red China improve its capacity to launch nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles into the heartland of the US. Well, that's the company that seems to have lost these security codes.
It's a long story. Click here for the details from Insight Magazine.
EVEN MORE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE?
[From The Washington Times. Click here for the full story]
Rep. Gerald Solomon is the Chairman of the House Rules Committee. Yesterday Solomon wrote a letter to Kenneth Starr in which he outlined another possible area in which Bill Clinton and his political team may have conspired to obstruct justice. Solomon says that the actions of the Clinton team may even amount to "intimidation of a federal witness."
Here's how this came about.
Shortly after the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke New Yorker magazine published a story alleging that Linda Tripp had falsified information about her past arrest record on her application for a White Job.
There was, naturally, a great deal of curiosity as to just how that information came to be in the hands of the New Yorker reporter. The conventional wisdom was that the information had been released to the reporter by the Pentagon (where Tripp was then working) on specific instructions from the White House. This, in case you don't already know, is a violation of federal law.
Solomon wanted to investigate whether or not this Tripp leak violated Federal Law. He wrote a letter to Clinton asking whether or not anyone in the White House had pulled Tripp's file after the scandal broke. Solomon asked for a rapid response to his inquiry. Clinton never responded.
Months later Terry W. Good, the director of White House records management testified under oath that as soon as the Lewinsky scandal broke the White House counsel's office told him to "pull anything and everything that we might have in our files relating to Linda Tripp."
So .. Solomon asks Clinton in a formal letter if anyone at the White House pulled Linda Tripp's file after the Lewinsky matter hit the news. Clinton refuses to respond. Later, a White House employee admits under oath that they did just that.
Question: Do you now have a clearer understanding of just why the Clinton White House gathered 900 confidential files on Republicans?
THE DEMOCRATS WANT TO GET THEIR HANDS ON YOUR PENSION PLAN
Do you remember the 1996 Senatorial race in Georgia, the one between Democrat Max Cleland and Republican Guy Millner? I almost went ballistic when Cleland charged in one of his advertisements that the Republicans wanted to "raid your pension plans."
I pointed out on the air that it was the Democrats, not the Republicans, who had grand plans to get their hands on private pensions.
Unfortunately, Cleland won on the strength of this and other lies.
Don't let your guard down. The Democrats are still at it. They are just waiting to get the control of the congress back. When they do, your pension plan is in grave danger.
The Democratic attack on your pension will be on two fronts.
First, we'll have Economically Target Investments (ETIs). This is a plan whereby the government "suggest" that pension fund managers invest some of their pension funds in certain politically correct pet projects. This would include such things as mortgage loans to politically protected groups, loans to minority business enterprises, investments in low-income housing, etc. Studies have shown that these investments usually yield 1.5 to 2 points less than non-ETI investments. This can reduce the value of the average pension plan by 25 percent.
ETIs are a very popular idea with politicians. They get to take credit for money that pours into various social vote-getting schemes without raising taxes.
The second attack will be a "one-time" tax of 15% on the outstanding value of all pension plans. This is an idea that is very popular with Jesse (The "Sloganmaster") Jackson, and Clinton's assistant treasury secretary Alicia Munnell. Their spin is that the good economy has caused abnormal growth in these pension plans, and that it is necessary for the government to levy a one-time tax in the amount of 15% in order to provide some benefits to the "less fortunate."
Steve Allen has a great article on this issue in WorldNetDaily. Click here to read.
By the way, just what was the Republican proposal that Cleland said constituted a "raid" on your pensions? The law says that a pension plan has to have assets equal to 125% of the amount it would take to fully fund all outstanding pensions. Due to economic growth some pension plans had assets far above that level. The Republican plan was to allow the companies to borrow the excess pension funds . those in excess of the 125% requirement . and use the money for business expansion. That's a raid?
There's a congressional election coming up. If the Democrats get control, grab your pension and run!
boortz.com |
