District Judge Susan Webber Wright found President Bill Clinton in
civil contempt of
court for his "willful failure" to obey her repeated
orders. Hate to criticize a judge, but in a
manner of speaking, this one
is on drugs. Doesn't she read? The brilliant Vincent Bugliosi
spelled
it all out in an entire book, whereupon he defined the insanity of giving
the Jones
lawsuit a green light in the first place, as long as the President
was in office. We're talking about the leader of the free world and the
law in the real world, not about a self-service
smorgasbord where
anything goes and everything is conveniently disconnected, to
produce
a "clean" verdict. If the truth appears less reliable, it is because much
is
conveniently ignored. Clearly, Lewinsky-related testimony exists,
not because Paula Jones
was denied her legal rights but because a
cabal of hired guns on a mission to destroy the
President of the United
States, refused to quit. Is that the conduct and the practice that
District
Judge Susan Webber Wright is willing to encourage? If this case merits
Federal
preoccupation, it should be to protect rather than to condemn
targets of persecution. That
is what the jury that exonerated Susan
McDougal made absolutely clear, and it should not
escape public
acknowledgment. Talking heads are already saying that historians will
look
back at Judge Susan Webber Wright's decision and see it as the
final word on Clinton's
conduct. Is that what she wanted, the final word?
Does she in fact believe that she has that
kind of power? Here's one
word that she should have contemplated very carefully. Susan
McDougal was exonerated after surviving a degree of unprecedented,
legally sanctioned
torture. The assault that McDougal survived was
extraordinary, to say the least. Talk to
her if you want to appreciate
the magnitude of the torture she sustained not only at the
hand of the
Justice Department that Starr symbolized, but also at the hands of
private
attack dogs. Clinton critics like lawyer Mark Levin and Former
Special Prosecutor Joe
DiGenova repeatedly and savagely lambasted
Susan McDougal to the point where they
publicly declared that Susan
McDougal had refused to testify because she was waiting for
her former
husband to die, so that she could not be contradicted. It is simply not
even
remotely possible to produce an allegation which is more cruel,
more contemptuous, more
bizarre and more unfounded. These savages,
who repeatedly hounded and isolated Susan
McDougal are not
prosecutors and lawyers, they are violent thugs who do not know the
difference between legal license and Nazi gas chamber. Jim McDougal
died in prison, his
conviction was probably wrongful, and while he can
no longer defend the claim that the
documents that buried him were as
fraudulent as the testimony of Starr witness David
Hale, Susan
McDougal survived long enough to prove her story. At every turn, the
final
analysis is very clear and very obvious. President Clinton was not
removed from Office
because his reprehensible conduct paled in the
light of the contemptible tactics that were
used to expose him and if
Judge Susan Webber Wright did not join the club of lost
credibility all
by her lonesome, she obviously cracked under enormous pressure.
And now
there is talk that the Supreme Court of Arkansas is going to
disbar President Clinton. Do
not delay, reach your decision now! Nazis
with a license to practice law are already using
Judge Susan Webber
Wright's decision to claim vindication for Starr, for the impeachment
squad, for Jim McDougal's blood... Under the circumstances as they
exist, disbarment will
define Clinton's Presidency like a badge of honor
and the scum that in fact deserves
disbarment will forever remind you
of your folly. Understand the peril before you take the
bait. Nazis are
seeking vindication. THERE IS NO VINDICATION ! ! !
[posted April 14, 1999]
Our readers never fail to identify our folly, and for that, we will always
be grateful. The following thoughtful exchange criticizes us for using
words like "Nazi" and "scum",
and it is perhaps important to make it
very clear that these words disturb us even more than one can possiby
imagine. Regarding Judgment Day, a thoughtful reader said:
"An excellent post. I agree with every word. One slight criticism,
however, -I would have preferred it without references to Nazi, Nazi
gas chamber, scum etc. I hope you don't mind my mentioning that."
We do not mind. In fact, we share the disturbance of using these words
and the author of Judgment Day posted the following response:
"I appreciate your comments and I fully understand your objection. At
the same time, I fully believe that if the entire plot to destroy President
Clinton was fully exposed, you would welcome the terms. There is just
one more thing that you should probably know. I am not a Clinton
supporter and perhaps, if the Justice Department operated as it should,
Jim McDougal would be alive today. I hope I did not inadvertently
undermine the horror of the real holocaust, but I chose to focus on the
plight of Jim McDougal, and the people who are responsible for his
death are in fact scum. I apologize, if you can, please teach me how to
avoid the word. I have strained my vocabulary and I can't think of
another. If you can provide one, I would really appreciate it. If you
cannot, I just want to tell you that I really appreciated your comments.
I am trying to work on the conflict you thoughtfully identified -but I
don't know what to do, can I ignore the obvious anger, when I believe
that the subject matter warrants it? Is there anything wrong with being
angry when it is justified? The media lambasted Clinton when he
was
angry at Starr, and that is what I did not understand. I actually believe
that if warranted outrage blossomed, Ken Starr would have been
laughed out of town years ago, and
Jim McDougal would still be alive
today. If you can think of a single term to fully describe Ken Starr,
I'd also appreciate that."
Go To The Top
Copyright © 1998 - 2001
[
Nixon X-posed |
Media |
Politics
|
News |
Weather |
Paperboy |
Sports |
Leadership |
Credits |
Links ]
