How Clinton Makes Wright Decisions
by ZACK NGUYEN
April 9, 1998
Perhaps, in light of recent events, the Pledge of Allegiance should be amended from its present phrasing, "with liberty and justice for all" to the more accurate, "with liberty and justice for the wealthy, powerful, and politically prominent."
The wheels of justice have stripped a gear. Our country's system of checks and balances have failed again, proving only that Bill Clinton can get away with whatever he wants whenever he wants.
But then again, what does it matter? Paula Jones is just "trailer trash" after all. She did not attend an Ivy League college, does not live in a fashionable suburb, is not rich, is not politically connected. She is simply an average American with a grievance.
This grievance involves the President of the United States, and there is a wealth of background evidence indicating that the President is just the sort of person who is likely to drop his pants at any given moment and demand oral sex.
Why Judge Wright would throw out Paula Jones' case without a trial is mystifying. Judge Wright's decision is in almost direct contradiction to the one she issued in August of 1997, where she ruled against Bob Bennett's motion for dismissal of the case. In that August decision, Wright allowed Paula Jones's sexual harassment case to stand. The Associated Press reported that Judge Wright ruled that "Mrs. Jones had met legal requirements to bring a case claiming sexual harassment..."in ruling against dismissal.
According to Judge Wright, in August, Paula Jones had a case. In March she does not. What is going on here? Does Judge Wright think she is fooling anyone? (Well, perhaps the mainstream media.)
The State Trooper who pimped for Governor Clinton in the alleged incident has claimed that Ms. Jones was very anxious to attend to the Governor's every salacious desire, even going so far as to call his spiky gray hair "sexy." Whether Paula Jones was repulsed by Clinton's fumbling hands and lecherous suggestions or whether she was delighted with the Governor's suggestion to "kiss it" matters not in the least. Legally, of course, for her sexual harassment case, it is all that matters -- but morally, Bill Clinton is an alley cat and a degenerate no matter what Judge Susan Webber Wright has to say.
But what she had to say was laughable. Apparently Mrs. Jones' claims "fall far short of the rigorous standards for establishing a claim of outrage."
Fall far short of outrage? I suppose she is correct in one respect. Few feminists have come forward to express their outrage with this decision. Clarence Thomas, of course, made a dirty joke in the presence of Anita Hill -- and the feminist community was certainly "outraged." Senator Packwood hit on his female staff members and kissed several without written consent -- and the feminist community was "outraged." Now a poor, uneducated woman comes forward and the women that could lend her case the most credibility are silent.
And whom are they defending? Not just a "lovable rogue" with an eye for the ladies, or a delightful little scamp who's always in trouble, but perhaps something far more sinister. Consider the following passage from Roger Morris's 1996 book "Partners in Power:"
"A
young woman lawyer in Little Rock claimed that she was accosted by
Clinton while he was attorney general and that when she recoiled he
forced himself on her, biting and bruising her. Deeply affected by the
assault, the woman decided to keep it all quiet for the sake of her own
hard-won career and that of her husband. When the husband later saw
Clinton at the 1980 Democratic convention, he delivered a warning. 'If
you ever approach her,' he told the governor, 'I'll kill you.' Not even
seeing
fit to deny the incident, Bill Clinton sheepishly apologized and duly
promised never to bother her again."Roger Morris would definitely not qualify as a member of the "vast right-wing conspiracy." He is a political liberal, and makes that very clear throughout his excellent biographical work on the Clinton's. Until last week, allegations that Clinton was not just a sex addict but a violent sex offender were confined to the previous passage in Morris's book.
Last week NBC News announced that a woman deposed by Ken Starr as part of his witness tampering investigation had allegedly been raped by Governor Clinton. The woman officially denied the charge under oath, but four witnesses claimed that the same woman described the attack to them. One of the women questioned by NBC News was the nurse who supposedly treated the woman for cuts and bruises after the alleged attack.
These allegations, if true, are horrifying. Whether they are accurate has yet to be determined, and whether the mainstream media will follow up on this bit of investigative reporting has yet to be seen. Whether the President has affairs can be answered by unthinking Americans with a shrug of the shoulders and a "none of my business." But rape is certainly much more difficult to ignore (but look for Clinton partisans, utterly blinded by ideology and hatred, to ignore these stories or deny them as "delusional")
Another interesting point is that Judge Wright is guarded by four United States Marshals, and has been for several months. When asked if threats had been made against the life of the Judge, one court clerk responded that he was forbidden to discuss the "heightened security." This question of whether the Judge has received threats is legitimate. Linda Tripp is in hiding because of threats brought against her life. Many women who had sexual liaisons with Bill Clinton have had threats brought against them to attempt to pressure them into silence. Was Judge Wright coerced into her decision? When Arkansas Senator Pryor, against all ethical rules and procedures, met alone with Judge Wright to discuss the Whitewater case, what did they discuss?
It should also be noted that two people intimately connected with Whitewater have died within a few weeks of each other. Jim McDougal died of a heart attack after he was unable to provide a urine sample for a drug test (his medication prevented him from urinating regularly) and was placed in solitary confinement. Johnny Lawhon, who discovered a check made out to Bill Clinton from Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan in the trunk of his car after a tornado, died in a car wreck over a week ago.
Both of these deaths could be entirely innocent. But it does not take a rocket scientist (or a radical right-wing conspiracy theorist) to see that an awful lot of people connected with Bill Clinton have dropped dead. Vince Foster, Jerry Parks, Ron Brown, Barbara Wise... the list goes on. A body count as high as this one has to be a serious deterrent to any witnesses who are considering coming forward.
Now Ken Starr is all that is left. He is the last hope for justice. If Starr turns in a watered-down report to the House of Representatives, Clinton will serve out his term, Starr's reputation will be ruined, and anyone who dares speak out against Clinton's crimes has even less chance of being listened to or legitimized than they do now.
If Ken Starr is the only bet, then I would just as soon take my money elsewhere. As has been discussed in previous columns, he has gone out of his way to ignore a great many crimes more serious than this sex scandal. Fortunately for Ken Starr and for official Washington, having sex with an intern, lying about it under oath, and urging her to lie are not crimes that expose the corrupt center of American politics. They are "safe" scandals so to speak. The government could change hands in the instance of a Clinton conviction for perjury with little or no difficulty, since the scandal is concentrated only at the top. Questions concerning the death of Vince Foster or how 900 FBI files on Republicans wound up in the White House are much more far-reaching and indict our government rather than just our President. It is much easier for Starr to pursue Clinton's diddling of Monica Lewinsky -- it will rock fewer boats.
On Wednesday the Washington Post printed an article by Sue Schmidt in which she asserted that Starr will have his investigation wrapped up within seven weeks time, and will present impeachable evidence to the House. According to Schmidt, this impeachable evidence is almost entirely related to the Monica Lewinsky situation. The investigative tidbits Starr has given up on are:
*The search of deputy White House counsel Vince Foster's office after his death in July 1993 .
*The 1993 firings in the White House Travel Office.
*The mysterious discovery of Hillary Clinton's Rose Law Firm billing records in the White House family quarters.
*The 900 FBI files found in the White House.
If accurate, this is outrageous. The crimes listed above are far more serious, and have a much greater impact on the way our government conducts its business than whether Clinton lied about having sex with an intern. If Starr cannot find anyone guilty of swiping 900 FBI files on Republicans then he cannot possibly have tried very hard.
Obviously it would be much more attractive to watch Clinton fingered for one of the more serious crimes he has committed -- but then, beggars can't be choosers. Let us hope that Starr salvages his reputation and decides to present serious evidence concerning wrongdoing by the President. Americans concerned about Clinton's crimes will take any break they can get.
Send your comments
to Coffee Shop Times commentator Zack Nguyen.