far right has hijacked the Republican Party and
poses the greatest danger to our nation in decades.
Desperate to further their own agenda, the far
right abuses power and does not play by the rules
or follow the U.S. Constitution. They decide what
they want to do and then pursue a win-at-any-cost
strategy to achieve it.
nation has suffered a number of reversals, both
foreign and domestic, while incurring a deficit
that endangers our future. The distinguishing
feature from earlier Republican administrations
is the dominance of the far right in this one.
article is about the damage done to our country
during the far right's rise to power in the 90's.
Their win-at-any cost strategy included (1) abusing
congressional power, (2) engineering a series
of distracting but fruitless investigations throughout
the president's term in office, (3) misusing our
judicial system against the president and (4)
violating both fed-eral law and the U.S. Constitution
in an effort to impeach him. These actions betrayed
our democracy, weakened our presidency and diverted
the nation from confronting the certainty of more
far right refuses to accept our election results
much campaigning and political infighting, we
elect a president every four years. Then, traditionally,
the country pulls together and supports the elected
president. Threats to our country unify us even
more. That tradition was broken in the 90's when
President Clinton came into office.
the opposition party had owned the White House
for 12 years and was outraged at the loss of the
presidency. Clinton was seen as a usurper, his
victory had to be illegitimate and he had to be
driven from the White House. He had to be brought
down. As a result, in the aftermath of Clinton's
election, far-right members of the private sector,
church organizations, and the political establishment
collectively mounted covert and other efforts
to wreck the President's Administration and remove
him from office. Some of the players were:
Investment banker Peter Smith and Richard Mellon
Scaife, both of whom paid huge sums to finance
any possible scandal no matter how far fetched.
Scaife also spent about $300 million trying
to "steer this country to his brand of hard-core
conservatism." He financed a right-wing magazine,
American Spectator, whose role was to trash
the President without too much regard for the
facts, and drive him from office.
Richard Porter, Kenneth Starr's law partner
and member of the first Bush Administration
and Theodore Olson, mem-ber of both Bush Administrations.
They were actively involved behind the political
scenes, playing important roles in various assaults
on the President. Olson participated in several
Scaife-funded activities and was intent on undermining
the Clinton presidency without disclosing his
Jerry Farwell and Pat Robertson who represented
the opposition from the religious right. Farwell's
organization, for example, promoted video tapes
accusing the President of drug-dealing and murder
of the White House aid, Vince Foster, among
A group of Arkansans, who stood ready and willing
to feed the far-right net-work. They included
political opponents incensed over Clinton's
success, as well as people willing to do almost
anything for money. The "Arkansas Project,"
sponsored by Scaife, was a four-year, $2.4 million
attempt to gather information "leading to political
ruin of the President."
Newt Gingrich, who became the new right-wing
Speaker of the House in 1994. Gingrich called
the Clinton Administration "the enemy of normal
Americans" and said in a private meeting he
would use "subpoena power" to wage war against
the White House. He envisioned as many as 20
congressional investigations being conducted
simulta-neously. Smith and Scaife were both
major contributors to Gingrich's campaigns and
causes. Soon Gingrich would try to use a government
shutdown (blackmail) to force an unacceptable
budget on the President -- a violation of the
Tom DeLay, then the far right House Majority
Whip. Following the third terrorist attack on
the United States, he diverted the nation from
preparing for future ones by using extraordinary
measures to force an impeachment of the president.
He did so against the will of most Americans
and, as will be seen, by defying the U.S. Constitution
and standards laid down by our founding fathers.
above facts, and those which follow, are just
a small part of far-right activities documented
by highly reputable journalists and five recently
published books..."The Hunting of the President,"
" A Vast Conspiracy," "Blinded by the Right,"
"The Breach: Inside the Impeachment and Trial
of William Jefferson Clinton" and "The Clinton
to misuse our Federal judicial System Against
Paula Jones incident first surfaced in an American
Spectator article by David Brock. He later expressed
regret for having written it and confessed to
using innuendo and unverified charges to spice
up his material. He received $5000 from Peter
Smith to begin researching the article. Brock
found out later that Smith had paid another $30,000
to sources of the article (known in the trade
as "cash for trash").
Porter (Starr's partner) formed a group of lawyers
to support and advise Paula Jones. Rather than
sue Spectator magazine, her advisors decided to
forward their own agenda by working covertly to
manipulate the courts in a sexual harassment suit
against the President. Referred to as the "elves,"
they kept their participation a secret from their
own law firms.
taking over the job of Independent Counsel, Starr
himself offered to work free for Jones. He also
had six telephone conversations with Jones' lawyers,
in which he offered his opinion that presidents
were not immune from civil suits. He stated publicly
several times that the suit should proceed without
donated $50,000 to help Jones sue the President.
A member of Gingrich's House staff would be her
chief fund raiser. People close to the case suspected
that anything that happened between the two principals
was consensual, but they pursued it to humiliate
the President and hasten his destruction. The
plan was to set a perjury trap when the case came
to court by interrogating the President about
his past relationships. This plot to undermine
the presidency was pursued for years without any
knowledge of the White House intern, Monica Lewinsky.
secretly install Starr as Independent counsel
Republican demands for inquiry into a failed Arkansas
Whitewater land deal (which took place in the
8o's), Attorney General Reno appointed a special
counsel (Fiske) to investigate it, as well as
the President and First Lady's involvement.
In the next several months Fiske moved fast, initiating
several local prosecutions in Arkansas. Unexpectedly,
a three-judge panel replaced him with Starr. They
did so after far-right Senators (Helms and Faircloth)
secretly put pressure on the panel.
switching of a sitting independent counsel
was improper because Fiske was aggressively pursuing
the Whitewater case and had impeccable credentials
and reputation for fairness. On the other hand,
Starr had no investigative experience and opposed
Clinton on every major issue of the day. Starr
was the "designated point man in a strategy...to
destabilize the Clinton presidency."
of White House travel office firings and possible
misuse of FBI files were added to Starr's domain.
Including Vince Foster's suicide, Starr now had
four investigations of the President. He spent
several years and vast resources investigating
these matters to no end and abruptly resigned
from his job. Under great pressure Starr reversed
himself, as will be explained.
his reversal, Starr went beyond his authorized
scope to make numerous inquiries into Clinton's
private sex life while Governor of Arkansas (a
fifth investigation). Eventually, Starr would
spend about $70 million trying to bring down the
Clinton presidency. Other Independent Councils
spent another $40 million investigating members
of his Administration. In the end, not one top
official was convicted of a public crime.
It's your money.
returns to job In face of Far-right/media Outrage
that any case against the Clintons was over, Starr's
best people began leaving his employ. Those who
stayed on were "the unemployable and the obsessed."
Suddenly, Starr announced plans to accept a teaching
position at Pepperdine University in California
(arranged earlier by Scaife), without closing
any of his investigations.
far right and the media were stunned. The Washington
press corps had succumbed to allegations of Clinton's
wrongdoing, but Starr couldn't prove them. Outraged,
William Safire of the New York Times described
Starr as "a man with a warped sense of duty" who
"had brought shame on the legal profession by
walking out on his client -- the people of the
the far-right had published a futuristic book,
"The Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton."
It imagined Clinton's payment of hush money during
the Whitewater investigation and his later impeachment.
The book had an anonymous author (widely rumored
to be Ted Olson) and included a forward from a
congressional right-winger (Rep. Barr) saying,
"... required reading for every citizen of this
far right continued to hope that Starr would inflict
a mortal wound on the President. This was the
theme of Ted Olson's anonymous satire in Spectator
magazine. Bombarded by protests and attacks on
his reputation, Starr decided to stay on.
Court blunders and Allows jones plot to proceed
the Supreme Court allowed the Jones sexual harassment
suit to go forward during the President's term
in office on the grounds that it would not
be a distraction. The Dean of American Journalism,
David Broder, explained the Court's decision this
of the great blunders of American history ...
one of the dumbest decisions in the long history
of the Court ... when they decided that a President
should have no immunity against civil suits while
serving in office, they may have broken their
own record for ignoring reality."
our Constitution, once a president assumes office
he owes the public his full time and attention.
Civil suits can tie-up a president's hand during
his entire term in office, especially controversial
ones. During an NBC interview, Jones acknowledged
the disruption her suit would create and said
she was willing to wait until the President's
term was over. However, the Supreme Court placed
her case above the public good --- not only poor
judgment on their part but also a departure from
later, Jones publicly admitted (on Larry King
Show) to being used by people with a political
handed, starr Blackmails his way into the Jones
were desperate times for Starr and his men. They
had drilled dry holes concerning the Clintons
for several years and their supporters were unhappy.
Starr's people had given up on charging the President
with any wrongdoing but they were in no rush to
close the cases or tell the Washington press corp.
a new cast of characters surfaced -- "The Rat-woman"
Tripp and "The Bag Lady Sleaze" Goldberg (so named
in the book, "American Rhapsody") plus a reporter
from Newsweek, Michael Isikoff. Tripp knew of
Lewinsky's relationship with the President and
illegally wiretapped her friend. Starr had
no authority to intervene, but he moved fast.
He went to the Justice Department and begged for
more authority on the grounds of a link between
the Lewinsky matter and his Whitewater land investigation.
The presumed link in the two cases was the President's
friend, Vernon Jordan.
to Starr's people, Jordan had given job assistance
to Lewinsky in exchange for false testimony she
would give for the President. Starr's people then
pressured Attorney General Reno into a snap, overnight
decision, by telling her that soon Newsweek would
be reporting a sensational sex story and cover-up,26
-- including any refusal by Reno to let the Independent
Counsel investigate it. In making their case,
Starr's office misled Reno twice and omitted three
conflicts of interest.
misleads the justice department
Newsweek's top echelon actually had
decided not to publish the sexual affair.
It was Reno's overnight approval that
eventually tipped the scales.
Starr's people omitted the important
fact that Vernon Jordan's job assistance
to Lewinsky started well before she
had any inkling of receiving a Jones
subpoena. Getting Jordan's help was
not even the President's idea; it was
Linda Tripp's. There never was any overlap
with the Whitewater land deal.
to disclose conflicts of interest
Starr did not disclose his previous
involvements in the Jones case. He had
a number of consultations with her lawyers,
had advocated her case in public and
had offered to work free for her.
Starr's office said they had no contacts
with the Jones team. Actually, they
had already invaded the Jones case and
were in collusion with Jones' advisors,
the ones Porter had assembled without
their firms' knowledge to covertly assist
Starr did not disclose that his law
partner (Porter) was conspiring behind
the scenes to undermine the presidency,
as well as to further the Jones plot
(see pp. 2-3).
getting their new authority, Starr's people
implored Newsweek to hold up publication until
the President had answered the Jones deposition
-- the long-awaited ambush was set.
succumbs to starr's misinformation and improperly
Independent Counsel statute was clear. Attorney
General Reno had to make a preliminary review
herself and find "credible evidence" before the
statute could be triggered. Had she done so, she
would have found (1) the suspicions about Vernon
Jordan were untrue, (2) there were no grounds
for expanding Starr's authority and (3) several
conflicts undermined Starr's capacity to do an
independent and impartial review.
problem with Reno's overnight decision is that
the Inde-pendent Counsel statute did not operate
on suspicions or hearsay, but on evidence determined
to be credible by Justice Department officials
themselves. Further, Starr had an axe to grind
and was not the right person for the job. Reno
pulled the trigger too fast, too soon, based on
a false premise.
her ill-advised decision triggered a situation
impossible to control -- the assignment of a sex
scandal to a biased team of investig-tors with
an unlimited budget, who were intent on finally
getting the President.
few weeks after Starr got his (6th) investigation,
the presiding judge dismissed the Jones lawsuit
and concluded that the Lewinsky matter was not
material. So, now we have Starr abandoning several
unfinished investigations to chase obstruction
in a sexual harassment case - and there was no
genuine case to obstruct.
violates his own Statute to advocate impeachment
Bob Woodward of the Washington Post reported,
Starr's decision to send a massive narrative of
the Clinton-Lewinsky sexual relationship to Congress
was "pathetic and unwise." To the dismay of
many, House far-right leaders made the report
immediately available to everyone (including children),
in all its excruciating detail, via the Internet.
history and charter of the Office of Independent
Counsel is clear; he is a prosecutor and fact-giver,
not an impeachment advocate for a particular political
party in power. Because of this major departure,
Starr's well-known ethics adviser from the Watergate
era, Sam Dash, immediately resigned. Dash said
that by acting as the House's "prose-cuting counsel
for impeachment," Starr had violated the statute
requiring him to present evidence but not conclusions.
late summer '98, just as the Starr report
was being released, our country suffered
its third terrorist attack -- the bombing
of two US embassies, killing over 200
people and injuring about 5000. Bin Laden
also declared war on the United States,
saying "to kill the Americans - civilians
or military -- is an individual duty for
every Muslim." Later, the USS Cole
would be involved in a fourth attack.
thought to be dead on arrival
over two thirds of the America people favored
Clinton remaining in office and made their views
known by rendering a huge setback to Republicans
in midterm elections. At this juncture, impeachment
was for all practical purposes dead. Impeachment
would not have proceeded further had it not been
for the actions of one person, the far-right House
Whip, Tom DeLay.
leaders railroad Impeachment during a lame duck
decades earlier, impeachment proceedings led to
President Nixon's resignation for abuses of power
and misconduct in office. Success depended on
three things: (1) factually-based hearings with
witnesses, (2) bipartisan cooperation and (3)
statesmanship. All three of these were conspicuously
missing in the House actions being taken during
the impeachment of President Clinton.
Hyde of the Judiciary Committee had promised the
American people a fair hearing on the Starr report.
Meanwhile, the Republican setback in mid-term
elections reduced their majority in the next
Congress to almost nothing. Instead of a deliberative,
bipartisan approach, far-right House leaders moved
with all the speed of "The Roadrunner." The "lame
duck" House called no witnesses, conducted partisan
hearings and had only party-line votes. The
President's lawyers had to testify without knowledge
of what the charges would be.
waiting for cessation of military operations over
Iraq (for UN violations), right-wing leaders drove
two impeachment articles through a final House
vote in December, just days before the people's
newly-elected Congress would convene. At the last
minute Speaker Livingston reversed himself saying,
"Stop this ... This is crazy ... We're going
to have a censure vote." But others prevailed
on him to go ahead.
House action was a rush to judgment never before
witnessed on a matter of such profound importance.
A few moderate Republicans refused to go along.
Several others immediately regretted their
vote and said so publicly ... but it was too late.
mission: force the President to resign
leaders would not permit a vote on censure ...
the one option favored by most Americans and many
in Congress itself. Powerful Majority Whip Tom
DeLay orchestrated events from behind the scenes.
He crushed all attempts to consider censure the
moment they arose. As a result, moderate congressmen
on both sides had no middle ground to vote their
realized the Se-ate would not convict. His real
mission was to drive Clinton from office... first
impeach, and then force him to resign. He ordered
his staff to "dedicate yourselves to it or leave"
(his employ) ... "to work day and night." He took
this step in August '98, before receipt of Starr's
DeLay took control and left nothing to chance.
For example, he set up a special "evidence room"
where he and his deputies would send unde-cided
House members. This room included allegations
which not even Starr saw fit to publish, much
of it uncorroborated and undocumented. Using
his powerful Whip position, DeLay applied intense
pressure on House members who were wavering or
on the fence by:
loss of chairmanship.
Threatening to arrange a strong challenge
in their next congressional race.
to enlist help of fund raisers and party officials
Threatening to expose them to their constituents,
if they visited the "evidence room" and still
office told one Republican congressman, who opposed
impeachment, that "the next two years would be
the longest of his life". Later, Bob Woodward
would report that Chairman Hyde was willing to
entertain censure had his leadership been willing.
up in arms...petitions congress
of the public was alarmed by what was going on
in Congress, but were unable to stop it. As just
one example, a young couple in California set
up an organization on the Internet called Censure
and MoveOn (www.moveon.org). Eventually, about
40 MoveOn volunteers went to Washington, at their
own expense, to deliver more than 300,000 anti-impeachment
petitions to House members from their constituents.
In addition, they delivered, in the presence of
the media, a full set of the petitions to the
House Speaker's office. These petitions urged
the House to censure the President and move on
with the country's business. They were signed
by Democrats, Republicans and Independents alike.
people also sent 250,000 phone calls and a million
e-mails to Congress. Millions of other people
expressed opposition...eventually; lines of communication
to Washington broke down.
leaders defied the U.S. Constitution and our founding
President Ford said an impeachable offense "is
what-ever a majority of the House of Representatives
considers it to be at a given moment in history."
But, the history of impeachment shows that surely
he must have been jesting.
impeachment of a president is a modern day, civilized
alternative to assassination of a king. To avoid
Britain's partisan misuse of impeachment and because
our constitutional framers distrusted legislatures,
they limited its use to grave breaches of official
duties, specifically treason and bribery. When
our framers added "other high crimes and misdemeanors,"
the term "other" obviously meant something on
a similar plane with treason and bribery. The
term "high misdemeanors" actually refers to serious
offenses against the state, as in 18th century
England, not minor or trivial offenses as we interpret
misdemeanors today. As one framer said, we are
talking about "great and dangerous offenses."
House Judiciary Committee was supposed to obtain
expert testimony on standards for impeachment.
After the public's unfavorable reaction to impeachment
during mid-term elections Š the idea of establishing
such standards vanished.
hundred historians and 430 law professors warned
the House against impeachment. The law professors
said members of Congress would violate their constitutional
responsibilities if they sought to remove the
president for reasons that fell short of constitutional
standards. Many scholars agreed with George Mason's
statement that impeachment must be for a great
crime or an attempt to subvert the Constitution.
Another founding father, James Madison, opposed
a low standard because it would create a weak
presidency serving at the pleasure of Congress.
The framers of our Constitution obviously wanted
the highest possible bar for removal of a president.
Hamilton warned "the greatest danger (is) that
the decision (to impeach) will be regulated more
by the comparative strength of the parties, than
by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt."
As a House member confirmed, the strength of the
parties did, in fact, regulate the outcome: 
"When radical Republicans hijacked the Constitution
and misused impeachment for partisan purposes,
I worked on the House Judiciary Committee in an
effort to stop them. We lost all the votes along
party lines ... While we couldn't dissuade Republicans
in the House of Representatives, the over-whelming
voice of Americans helped the United States Senate
to end this madness.--Zoe
Lofgren, member House of Representative
sense tells us that our founding fathers put impeachment
in the Constitution to deal with serious breaches
of official duties and great crimes against society.
If impeachment, instead, concerned such things
as covering up a personal mistake, some of our
founding fathers themselves would have been vulnerable
and some fine national leaders of yesterday would
have been lost. The impeachment remedy was intended
to preserve constitutional government by removing
from office an official who subverts it, not someone
who covers up a private matter.
general public had expressed its displeasure with
what was going on in the House by voting a major
Republican set-back and by voicing overwhelming
objections to Congress. The public knew this was
a private offense, not a public one against the
state. It also knew there had to be a higher standard
for removing a twice-elected President. The people
who elected and reelected Clinton saw him as "a
flawed but highly capable and essentially decent
man." No evidence has ever emerged to connect
Clinton's personal life with his performance as
same far right religious leaders, who had worked
to undermine Clinton's presidency, said later
that America "deserved" the 9-11 disaster
because of our cultural problems. Did far-right
leaders in the House make a personal (rather than
constitutional) judgment that Clinton "deserved"
impeachment, too? Like terrorists, does the far
right believe they have a divine right to destroy
those who do not share their beliefs? Was that
really at the heart of Clinton's impeachment and
efforts to wreck his administration?
Recurrence, holding those Responsible personally
misuse of our judicial system to plot a presidential
downfall was unacceptable and should have been
stopped by the Supreme Court. Kenneth Starr had
no authority to invade the President's private
life. Even though misled by Starr, the Attorney
General was in position to stop his intrusion
had she followed her own statutory review requirements
and judicial ethics on conflicts of interest.
The country would have been far better off if
Starr had closed his several fruitless investigations
and gone home.
Starr became a puppet of far-right House leaders
and violated his own statute to advocate impeachment,
DeLay's abuse of power forced it through the House.
The impeachment had nothing to do with presidential
performance and defied both our Constitution and
founding fathers. Rather than wasting time with
impeachment, Congress should have focused on the
nation's preparedness for global terrorism, especially
since several attacks had already been made on
the United States and one day Congress itself
would become a target.
subversive politics distracted and weakened our
presidency, and jeopardized our national security,
future congresses, the public and the 9-11 Commission
should consider the following matters:
The most precious thing we have in our democracy
is the right to choose our local and national
leaders, including the President of the United
States. When people try to undermine the results
of that process, what consequences should they
face? Should there be a deterrent to this sort
of subversive behavior such as a ban from further
Should a higher bar and time limits be set on
congressionally-initiated investigations of
a president? How can we condone clouding the
presidency with a series of politically-motivated
investigations and then allowing them to remain
open throughout the president's term in office...without
clearing him until it was too late to do any
What should be done about people who manipulate
and misuse our judicial process to gain political
advantage at the expense of our national welfare?
Should Congress's Committee on Ethics investigate
members of Congress who violate our separation
of powers by doing such things as secretly arranging
to replace a sitting judiciary appointment with
someone sharing their own views?
Should we bar from further government service
officials who, with conflicts of interest, both
misinform and apply undue pressure to force
a federal investigation?
What should be done to prevent members of Congress
from using impeachment as a tool to drive a
President from office? Are better congressional
safeguards needed such as the standards set
forth by our founders?
Clinton's personal behavior did leave a stain
on his presidency, far-right leaders left a larger
stain on the House of Representatives by abusing
their powers, violating our Constitution and diverting
the nation from the threat of global terrorism.
The only sure way to prevent such abuses in the
future is to have an informed public and hold
those responsible personally accountable. Unless
the far right is held accountable for trying to
nullify two presidential elections, our system
of government will continue to be subjected to
win-at-any-cost methods and could suffer even
private citizens, we don't have to accept what
happened; we can change things for the future.
We can hold members of Congress accountable and
improve the quality of its leadership. Public
attention is essential for this to happen. Here's
how you can help:
Three House leaders responsible for abuses of
power and constitutional violations either have
been replaced (Gingrich), resigned (Livingston)
or retired (Armey). A fourth (DeLay) is now Majority
Leader. DeLay would not permit the country to
move on with a censure action and instead, forced
an unconstitutional action opposed by most Americans.
A fifth (Hyde) did not fulfill his promise to
the American people to hold fair and impartial
hearings. They are both unfit for leadership positions
in Congress. Public pressure should be brought
to strip Delay of his leadership role and Hyde
of his chairmanship.
Others also tried to subvert our democracy and
followed unethical procedures, such as Starr and
his deputies. Insist that they be banned from
further government service.
New campaign finance laws and the internet give
the average citizen more influence in selecting
their representatives. Support any viable candidate,
regardless of political party, who will improve
the quality of our national leadership. As just
one example, through the powerful medium of the
Internet (Moveon.com), millions of Americans can
contribute small amounts of money and time to
the candidates of their choosing.
This article highlighted how the far right employed
subversive efforts to destroy a duly-elected president
and diverted the nation from the menace of international
terrorism. Send it to your friends and the media
and put it on the Internet for others to read
and talk about.
following could happen to any future president,
man or woman:
dare you bring a case so weak, so slight, so personal,
so dirty, so intrusive, so rotten, so ugly, so
without constitutional merit and so removed from
any question of abuse of power? How dare you tie
up Congress, the nation, the presidency and the
govern-ment in a matter that involved only a man's
personal life? How dare you invade my home, my
marriage -- expose matters that should be between
husband and wife -- who are you people, and what
gave you the right to do this to us?"
--Richard Cohen, Washington Post, describing imaginary
script for Hillary Clinton to speak in well of
Senate during the trial.
1. Blinded by the Right, pp. 79-81.
2. The Hunting of the President, pp. 104-5, 356.
3. Shadow-5 Presidents and legacy of Watergate,
4. The Hunting of the President, p. 111.
5. Ibid, p. 174.
6. A Vast Conspiracy, pp. 81-2.
7. The Clinton Wars, pp, 537-8.
8. Blinded by the Right, p. 143.
9. Anti-Clinton Lawyers Kept Jones' Case Alive,
10. Blinded by the Right, pp. 179-83.
11. Ibid, pp. 184-5.
12. Ibid, pp. 190-1.
13. Rulebook? What Rulebook?, Alan Ehrenhalt,
14. Blinded by the Right, p. 188.
15. A Vast Conspiracy, p. 93.
16. Blinded by the Right, p. 310.
17. The Clinton Wars, p.791.
18. A Vast Conspiracy, p. 188-9.
19. Ibid, p. 94.
20. Blinded by the Right, p. 301.
21. The Hunting of the President, p. 259.
22. David Broder, Wash Post, 3/31/98.
23. The Hunting of the President, pp. 259-64.
24. Brill's Content, p. 127.
25. Reno has bungled the Lewinsky case, Boston
26. Brill's Content, p.127.
27. Ibid, p. 128.
28. The Hunting of the President, pp. 356-7.
29. Ibid, p. 127.
30. Ibid, p. 356-7.
31. Ibid, p. 356-7. Blinded by the Right, p. 317.
32. A Vast Conspiracy, p. 202.
33. Reno has bungled the Lewinsky case, Boston
34. Dash 11/20/98 letter to Starr.
35. Shadow-5 Presidents and legacy of Watergate,
36. U.S. never had firm grasp on terrorism, NY
All are losers in 9-11 blame game, Palm Beach
37. The Clinton Wars, pp. 484, 587-8.
38. E-mail from Zoe Lofgren, member Congress,
to MoveOn, 2/12/99.
39. The Breach: Inside the Impeachment and Trial
of William Jefferson Clinton, p. 204.
40. Ibid, p. 16.
41. Ibid, pp. 252, 263.
42. Ibid, pp. 43-4.
43. Ibid, pp. 16, 138, 231-2.
44. The Clinton Wars, pp. 537-9.
45. Shadow-5 Presidents and legacy of Watergate,
46. Grass-Roots Organizing Effort Gets a Big Boost
From Internet, LA Times, 1/13/99.
47. Censure and MoveOn press release, 12/15/98.
48. MoveOn Website.
49. A Vast Conspiracy, p. 334.
50. Ibid, p. 333.
51. The Clinton Wars, pp. 537-9.
52. Criminal? Possibly, Impeachable? No, Herman
Schwartz, L. A. Times.
53. Letter from Zoe Lofgren to MoveOn, 2/10/99.
54. Criminal? Possibly, Impeachable? No, Herman
Schwartz, L.A. Times.
55. Get personal, Mrs. Clinton, Wash Post.
56. The Hunting of the President, pp. 370-1.
Examples OF ARTICLES researched:
Anti-Clinton Lawyers Kept Jones Case Alive,
by Don Van Natta and Jill Abramson, NY Times.
Pressgate, by Steven Brill, Brill's Content.
Rulebook? What Rulebook?, by Alan Ehrenhalt,
NY Times contributor.
With Its Cloudy Decisions Supreme Court Ignores
Reality, by David Broder, Washington Post.
Reno Has Bungled The Lewinsky Case, by Thomas
Oliphant, Bos-ton Globe.
Criminal? Possibly. Impeachable? No, by Herman
Schwartz, L. A. Times.
It's Time to Say Get on with It, by E. J. Dionne,
In Defense of the Little White Lie, by Marianne
Means, Hearst Newpapers.
Five Presidents and the Legacy of Watergate,
by Bob Woodward, Simon and Schuster, 1999.
The Breach: Inside the Impeachment and Trial
of William Jefferson Clinton, by Peter Baker
of the Washington Post, Simon and Schuster,
The Hunting Of The President: The Ten-Year Campaign
to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton, by Joe
Conason and Gene Lyons, St Martin's Press, 2000.
A Vast Conspiracy, by Jeffery Toobin, Touchstone,
Blinded By the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative,
by David Brock, Crown Publishers, 2002.
The Clinton Wars, by Sidney Blumenthal, Farrar,
Strauss and Giroux, 2003.
Posted: May 12, 2004