By Mary Mostert, Analyst, Original Sources (www.originalsources.com)
February 4, 1999
CNN, which has led the efforts in recent weeks to short-circuit the Senate Impeachment Trial, reports today that "Seeking an exit strategy for President Bill Clinton's impeachment trial, Senate Republicans have drafted two versions of a formal 'finding of fact' against the president, a measure Democrats complain is unconstitutional."
In a nutshell, the "findings of fact" are charges that the president is guilty, but that the Congress doesn't want to do anything about it. The "findings of fact" charge that Clinton engaged in a course of conduct designed to "alter, delay, impede, cover up and conceal" evidence and testimony in the sexual harassment lawsuit that Paula Jones filed against him.
"The document is subject to change," according to several officials," CNN noted, "who said Republicans hope to attract the support of at least a few Democrats. But Wednesday Democrats waged and all-out war against the so-called 'findings of fact.'
"It currently exists in two versions. One is a bare-bones recitation of the findings; the other employs identical language but refers to specific acts to buttress the claims.
The language in the current GOP draft says that Clinton swore to "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" when called to testify before Starr's grand jury last August 17. "Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided false and misleading testimony to the grand jury."
"It also says that with regard to the second article of impeachment, the Senate finds that Clinton "engaged in a course of conduct designed to alter, delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to a duly instituted federal civil rights action and a federal grand jury investigation." The longer version of the draft cites numerous acts by Clinton in support of the two findings. It says he provided false and misleading testimony about the nature and details of his relationship with Lewinsky, about prior "false and misleading testimony" in a deposition in the Jones lawsuit and about his efforts to "shape the testimony of" others.
"In support of the claim that he sought to conceal evidence, it lists several points, including that Clinton encouraged Lewinsky to submit a false affidavit and sought to conceal his gifts to her."
In the extraordinary rush to short-circuit the trial, without calling witnesses, the conventional wisdom of Washington concludes that "it will all be over by February 12."
We'll see. Considering how this trial has been thwarted at every turn, and clearly rushed to an end to end before any more scandal could erupt, such as the rape accusations that are on hold over at NBC, stopping the trial without real closure is apt to create an open sore on the body politic.
Why the "findings of fact? Senator Pete Dominici said, ""We believe that if we don't do this, we have provided history with a wrong interpretation of this case. If there are no findings the president's obviously going to win, then the conclusion could very well be that he did nothing wrong, nothing whatsoever wrong," Domenici said.
Democrat Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, in explaining his support of a 'finding of fact,' noted, "I believe that it is the way to bring this trial to an earlier ending on a less partisan note that makes clear that though the president will not be removed from office -- which it's clear that he will not -- that the Senate does not intend to exonerate him or vindicate his behavior."
Of course, other Democrats oppose the notion that there is anything wrong with Clinton's behavior. Not surprisingly, one of them is Sen. Ted. Kennedy, who never quite explained why it took him until the following day to contact the authorities when his "friend" Mary Jo Kopechne died at the bottom of a pond in his car, while he walked away from it. He called the finding of fact "a desperate attempt by the Republicans to save face. The Republican proposals of finding of facts are really not the findings of fact, they are findings of fiction."
Whatever the Senators do, the public is beginning to write their own "findings of fact" which the Senators may find will come back to haunt them in the coming year. Some of the "findings of fact" that are showing up in my e-mail seem to indicate that there is a very real mood change taking place and it is based on life experiences of the public itself. For example the following e-mail was sent to Washington State Senators Patty Murray and Slade Gorton:
Dear Senator:
Several years ago, I sat as a foreman on a jury in a criminal case. During deliberation, one of the jurors asked a question about evidence that might induce her to vote a particular way. As the foreman, I had been given specific instructions regarding persuading or allowing others to persuade fellow jurors. I answered this woman's question saying, "We are here to try the case on the evidence, not our feelings; to apply the law, not our prejudices."
You now sit in judgment. The consequences of your decision will have enormous repercussions, as the defendant in your case is the President. However, the decision you and your peers must make is EXACTLY the same as the one my peers and I had to make. You must try the case on the evidence, not your feelings; you must apply the law, not your prejudices.
Article II Section 4 of the Constitution reads:The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
THERE IS CAN BE NO COMPROMISE ON THIS. This is not a time for political expediency or partisanship. This is a time for applying the law that every other American must abide by. From what I have read, Mr. Clinton lied in a civil case and before a grand jury. Then Mr. Clinton used his position and influence to obstruct the process of justice. Mr. Clinton is guilty of both counts. Please do the right thing. Vote to convict and remove this untrustworthy man from the Presidency.
Wayne Magneson
Auburn WA
Wmagneson@ais-sim.com
If the President has concealed evidence, encouraged others to lie to a grand jury and hide evidence, as it seems he certainly has, is this really the kind of person the voters of America would want in charge of sending their sons and daughters to strange places to fight? If he can shake his finger at us and lie so convincingly about "having sex with that woman" do we really want to risk our personal well-being by believing he will tell the truth about other issues that come up? Are we already getting coordinated White House propaganda in the guise of "news?"
Some think so:
Dear Mary,
Your article about liberals using Fred as an example sure hit the nail on the head.
I think the Liberals are fast becoming the: Political Mafia. They are well organized, coordinated with their message, ruthless, destructive, self serving at the expense of others, to mention only a few. Not much difference from what I can see.
On EVERY talk show, ALL liberals ALWAYS spin the same story. I heard that they have a daily 11:00 AM conference call for - The spin for that day.....I also heard that Allen Dershowitz has been on that conference call but still gets introduced as Professor, instead of the Clinton spinster that he actually is.
They have been very successful in getting the so called Public on their side with their one liners like:
It's his personal life.
It's only Hillary's business.
It's the Right Wing conspiracy.On the other hand, we have the Republicans, who from what I have seen are more like statesmen and women, really looking at the facts and making a decision based on them. Unfortunately, they NEVER come to the same conclusion, so they are tearing each other apart politically. I am afraid that, once again, there will be Republicans, NOT Democrats who will cross the line on the Removal From Office vote. Very sad situation. One that makes it very hard to stay loyal to them.
Had this situation been reversed with a Republican in the White House and a Democrat Majority in the congress, he would have been gone a long time ago. Republicans in my opinion are the better people for the most part, with the better programs, but they DO NOT know how to be politicians and get their message across to the American People, like Ronald Reagan did, and need to learn how.
It is really sad that the greatest accomplishment that Clinton has had, was to get mixed up with an intern, lie about it to everyone, even under oath, attempt to obstruct justice, tamper with witnesses and deprive a citizen of her right to a fair trial. Before this happened his approval rating was in the 50s. Now it is almost 70. Sad day for America.
What might even be sadder, is the next two years, after Clinton has again gotten away with what most people can't get away with, and what he will do to this country in that time. Doesn't look good.
Ernie Smith
Zebulon NCDear Mary,
I think that Fred (see previous column:
Clinton's Politics of Verbal Terrorism Keeps the GOP Off Balance is probably mentally (as well as spiritually) ill. He believes he is representative of the mainstream but he is really an extreme radical. I think he is dangerous and unstable. I hope there are not many like him. Just as dangerous though are the well meaning people who probably are mainstream, who probably don't even consider themselves as liberals, but compassionate conservatives. Their hearts bleed for every perceived injustice and they are incapable of tough love. They are so dangerous because they can't see that they are allowing the country to be destroyed by those who can cloak their evil as good. Clinton, taken one sound-bite at a time, could seem like the president of the century for those who want an immediate, easy solution for all of our problems, but when you notice that he proposes on a daily basis to throw money at every fire and says it's for the children, for the ecology, for the elderly, for public safety, ad nauseum, you notice a pattern of the Arkansas politician who buys votes (or voter approval rating) with public works. He has taken this country so far down, I fear for its life. Mary, you are a precious treasure. Please keep on keeping us informed. I just wish that more were reading the truth but, it seems that most preaching goes to the choir.
Tom Fauquet
tfauquet@earthlink.net
Mary,
I am so glad to read your column (2/3/1999) today.
The New Left is like the old Communist. They work underground. They stir up hatred. They stir up emotion so that people neglect their logic and reason. They divide and conquer so that eventually the son is against the father and the daughter is against the mother. This is similar to conservative against conservative.
I know all this because I grew up in Taiwan. We are familiar how the Communists took over China, how they spread lies and hatred, how they justified massive killings, etc.
I am a born-again Christian. Please keep up the good work.
John Hwung
Dear Mary,
Thank you so much for your article on Fred and the disruption techniques of the liberals. It is still discouraging to know how effective their ways are, but it is encouraging to realize that they really are a small group of people.
I am a meteorologist and have been following the global warming story since the mid 80s. The science of global climate change continues to move towards the conclusion that mans effect on the climate is minimal and not dangerous. Yet the rhetoric of the environmental left is hotter than ever. I could not understand this. Aren't these rational people?
I now realize that disruption is the universal method for the left on any topic. The truth is unimportant, what we want is all important! Those who disagree must be destroyed.
Thank you again for revealing what we are up against!
Keep up the good fight!
Sincerely,
Jim Clarke
Chief Meteorologist
WBBH-TV
I am getting hundreds of e-mail with variations of these same themes. I think the American people are beginning to wake up and are realizing the nation is at great risk. Those politicians who are making decisions based on narrow, biased poll questions may find themselves in for a real surprise by the time the year 2000 elections roll around.
To comment: mmostert@originalsources.com