By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Original Sources
July 20, `998
The United States is in the middle of a massive Constitutional Crisis today. After being blasted by the appeals court for, in effect, claiming a "privilege" for Secret Service agents surrounding the president, which all judges thus far say does not exist in the law, Janet Reno has taken the argument to the Supreme Court.
Commentators on TV last night were using the word "war" rather freely. There is now, we are told, a "war" going on between.....who? According to Judge Silberman, (see his statement published below) at issue is just WHO right now is representing the United States of America?
It seems that the Independent Counsel Law, which, you will remember, was hastily passed by Democratic Congress intent upon bringing down Richard Nixon, actually took Janet Reno out of the picture. The law mandates that the Department of Justice and the Attorney General "suspend all investigations and proceedings regarding" the subject matter of the Independent Counsel's investigation.
In the situation before the court, according to Judge Silberman, "the Attorney General is not permitted to 'represent' the United States (or the Treasury Department)."
It would appear that the Clintons and Reno thought they would be able to do to Kenneth Starr what they succeeded in doing in other cases - which were being investigated by Congress - whether they were Waco, Filegate, Travelgate, Campaign Finance, or the sex scandals...stonewall.
It appears that their stonewalling success may be rapidly coming to an end. What will happen if, as most believe, Chief Rehnquist also rejects Reno's cooked up notion of a special "privilege" for the Secret Service? A growing number of readers have written to say that they think he will simply ignore the Supreme Court. In fact, on CNBC last night one lawyer supporting Clinton said, "So, if the Supreme Court says he has to testify before the Grand Jury and he says to the Court, "You'll have to make me," what would happen? Who would make him go?"
It's happened before. In Andrew Jackson's Administration, the state of Georgia defied Federal law and treaties by extending its jurisdiction to over nine million acres of land occupied by Cherokee Indians. The Indians title to the land was guaranteed by treaty between them and the United States. As president of the United States, Jackson did nothing. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Georgia not just once - but twice. Still Jackson refused to compel the states to respect the property rights of the Indians.
Jackson said in response to the Supreme Court decision, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." (President Andrew Jackson re: Worcester v. Georgia)
The end result was a shameful chapter in American history that would be called a massacre if it happened today. The Cherokees were forced out of their homes and removed to Oklahoma. The forced removal, called to this day the "Trial of Tears" resulted in the death of almost half of the approximately 16,000 Cherokees.
Would Clinton defy the Supreme Court? It is interesting that so many people, including his supporters, seem to think that he might. And, in this information age, what would be the response of the American people if he did do what Andrew Jackson did? Freedom loving Americans who would in less than 25 years fight the bloodiest war in its history to date, the Civil War to preserve the Union, didn't turn a hair to stop the persecution of the Indians when Andrew Jackson ignored the Supreme Court.
The entire nation paid a horrible price for Andrew Jackson defying the rule of law. Bill Clinton has repeatedly defied the rule of law - beginning when he was a college student in recent years. As president, he and Hillary have simply not complied with subpoenas - saying they "couldn't find" Rose Law Firm billing records, for example. Hillary's Rose Law Firm billing records could not be found (they suddenly were "found" in a private room in the Clinton's private quarters.) ..after Webster Hubbell finding producing HIS records resulted in a prison sentence.
So far the very effective White House Spin doctors have succeeded, with the assistance of a cooperative media, in convincing the American people that it is Kenneth Starr, not Bill Clinton who is the villain here.
However, Starr has won almost all the important legal battles. Now, in a matter of about two days, the situation has changed dramatically. So far, eleven judges have seen things the same way that Kenneth Starr sees them. If the twelfth judge, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, concurs with the eleven judges which have already supported Kenneth Starr's view of the law, not the President's lawyers ...only the most dedicated of Clinton supporters will be able to continue to ignore the situation.
The next few days may very well be critical. It is ironic that in the end the American people are about to get a second witness of the immoral and law defying behavior of the man they elected as President from members of the Secret Service. Those who were listening have heard it before - from a White House FBI Agent, Gary Aldrich, who used a quote from Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" and a quote from George Washington's "Rules of Civility and Decent Behaviour in Company and Conversation" to start each column. Saul Alinsky was a radical communist who actually taught people the confrontational methods of the 1960s which he spoke of as "rubbing raw the sores of discontent."
Why? Because, he said, "Saul Alinsky's view seems to me to convey the adjustable ethics and moral relativism of the Clintons and their associates, while sharing their vague but constant ends. George Washington's view is what I think most people expect from those who work in the White House, and rightly so. Without ethical men and women in government, the pomp and circumstance is a sham and power is merely abused."
Gary Aldrich retired because he couldn't stand to be there and watch what was happening to the White House. He left because "no one in the media was reporting the administration I saw every day. It was an administration where many little things - like the evidence police officers drop into small plastic bags during the investigation of a crime scene - added up to something big."
In the end, will America care? Or have we reached a point that the majority of the people are just no longer interested in whether or not the leader of the free world is a man who lies to hem and abuses the power they have given him?
To comment: mmostert@originalsources.com