With all the allegations swirling around the Oval Office and the person
of the President of the United States and his subordinates, the list of
which grows daily, where does all this lead us? Is there a smoking
gun? Do we have evidence of a quid pro quo? Is there a pattern
of activity or a course of conduct that clearly indicates a scheme to defraud
the people of this country, or to obstruct justice? I believe the
answers to all these questions is, yes. I believe clearly we have
reached critical mass. We are now at that point at which the only
way to properly focus attention on these allegations is to place the matter
squarely in the lap of the one Committee of this Congress with clear Constitutional
jurisdiction and mandate to determine the applicability of the one, single
tool given us by our Founding Fathers to make the President accountable
and correct abuse of office by the President -- an Inquiry of Impeachment
-- directed to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives
of the United States of America.
Obstruction of Justice. As with President Nixon
in 1973-1974, President Clinton has engaged in an intentional and very
broad course of conduct designed to thwart or obstruct congressional process
and justice. He has refused to honor subpoenas. He has consistently
and deliberately delayed responding to subpoenas and proper congressional
requests for information and documents. He has deliberately engaged
in other dilatory actions; providing partial information, refusing to release
other information clearly mandated to be turned over to the Congress in
its oversight and investigative responsibilities, and mysteriously "finding"
incriminating materials long after subpoenaed, with only flimsy excuses
as to the delays. The Attorney General is enmeshed in a hopeless
conflict of interest, further providing opportunity for the President,
to obstruct the lawful process of law.
Foreign Influence. The President is the Commander
in Chief. The President is charged with carrying out the foreign
relations and foreign affairs of this country. The President is charged
with executing those policies and actions to protect and project the national
security interests of the United States; at our borders, domestically,
and anywhere in the world in which those interests are threatened or to
which they need to be projected. Quite aside from federal laws protecting
against imposer disclosure of national security information or provision
of goods or equipment that could be used for military purposes by an adversary.
The President of United States is responsible for ensuring that no decision
he makes shall be dictated by or based upon the interests of any country
other than this country. However, we have voluminous evidence that
this solemn pact, if you will, between the President and this country,
as well as specific laws regarding foreign influence and foreign monies,
have been violated. To list but a few specific instances: Lippo/Riady
money. Campaign donations from foreign sources via the John Huang,
Riady, and Wiriadinata connections. Raising of foreign money from
non-U.S. citizens at DNC coffees at which the President, on tape, discloses
he knew in advance of the preparations for such meetings, and knew money
was going to be raised apparently from foreigners. The Roger Tamraz
connection. The sale of super conductor computer technology to Communist
China possibly in return for campaign donations.
Bribery, Fraud and Conversion. Under Federal law,
the people of the United States have a right to expect and receive the
honest and faithful services of their government officials, including the
President. Failure to provide such honest and faithful services is
a violation of federal law. Receiving a quid pro quo of campaign
donations in return for the taking of official action is a violation of
federal law. The channeling of hundreds of thousands of dollars to
DNC coffers apparently in return for certain decisions benefiting certain
indian gambling interest, is another clear quid pro quo and violation of
federal laws. Use of federal facilities, such as computers and databases,
maintained by and for the official functions of the President, for campaign
purposes, is a violation of federal laws. The selling of access to
the President is a conversion of federal property and the institutions
of the Presidency, for money, and is a violation of federal law; it may
also provide the basis for bribery or Hobbs Act convictions.
Systematically selling off the attributes of the Presidency, whether White
House sleep overs or meetings with the President by Communist Chinese arms
dealers, is a violation of federal law. Laundering of campaign monies to
and through organized labor, as has very clearly been alleged, is a violation
of federal law; labor laws, money laundering laws, possibly fraud, and
other federal laws.
Campaign Law Violations. Foreign money was raised,
apparently at events at which the President participated in the planning
for, at which foreign persons attended and contributed; much of this money
has had to be returned already because it was raised in violation of federal
laws. The deliberate and systematic use of so called "soft money"
in order to circumvent federal restrictions on the amount of "hard money"
that could be used by the DNC, the Clinton-Gore campaign, and various state
democrat organizations, is a violation of federal campaign laws; possibly
also, money laundering and fraud statutes. Circumvention of federal
laws prohibiting the raising of money from foreign sources and persons,
which clearly took place, apparently with the knowledge of the President,
is a violation of federal laws. Use of organized labor to launder
campaign funds that would be directed to certain campaigns and vice versa,
is a violation of federal laws. The solicitation and receipt of funds,
by federal officials at, from or using federal facilities, for federal
campaigns violates federal laws, and very clearly took place by both the
President and Vice-President directly. Evidence further indicates
that at least some of the White House coffees were used to solicit and
receive campaign funds and, at a minimum, were part of a systematically
course of conduct controlled by the President to solicit and receive monies
for the Clinton-Gore reelection campaign.
Other Offenses. The above very modest list clearly
indicates a pattern of activity that beyond doubt establishes an attempt,
a scheme, and a conspiracy, if not a racketeering enterprise, to obstruct
justice, circumvent laws against foreign influence in our governmental
decision making process; and engage in bribery, fraud, conversion of government
assets, and federal campaign and money laundering laws. The list does not
even touch other evidence of violation of laws and abuse of office, such
as "Filegate," which entailed apparent breeches of federal privacy laws,
misuse of government property and possible conversion thereof, and possible
obstruction of justice. The list does not include "Travelgate."
What is apparent, however, from even this very partial list and a cursory
review thereof, is that there is a clear pattern of abuse of office and
abuse of power, which includes, though not required by the Founding Fathers
for the remedy of Impeachment to lie, violations of federal criminal laws.
This is why an Inquiry of Impeachment, which is but a preliminary step
to determine if sufficient evidence that the criteria set forth in Section
4 Article II of the Constitution for a finding of Impeachment, should lie.
For those who require a "smoking gun," clearly the evidence presented
thus far in various forms, constitutes more than a smoking gun. However,
it should also be kept in mind that thus far we have only seen a small
portion of the evidence. If we focus our investigation, and focus
our effort through an Inquiry of Impeachment in the Judiciary Committee,
it will provide the very best and most appropriate means to obtain full
and complete disclosure including all the facts and circumstances through
which this systematic abuse of office has taken place.
The question is not whether each of these literally hundreds of allegations,
examined and dissected carefully, can be proved in a criminal court of
law beyond a reasonable doubt. That's the tortured, technical, time-consuming
process the Attorney General says she's conducting. It's as if she
is a traffic cop, coming upon the scene of a 55-car pile up, examines
the tail light of the 33rd car, and declares it may have been broken but
further study is necessary. That may be what a mid-level police investigator
must do in his job. But that is not the proper process in our constitutional
republic for answering the most profound and fundamental questions of abuse
of power at the highest levels of government. There is a larger picture
here that must be considered and developed.
The question is, given evidence that laws clearly appear to have
been broken, and given a pattern of abuse and evasion of laws, shall we
in Congress provide the overall, focussed, and deliberate study this pattern
of abuse warrants? If so, an Inquiry of Impeachment is timely
and essential. If not, we could pack up and go home.
