Unasked questions 
George Metcalf
www.worldnetdaily.com
1/18/99


    As the eyes of the world are turned on the U.S. Senate trail of William 
Jefferson Clinton, the questions unasked remain the most significant, 
monumental, and potentially terminal. 
    I have often noted the difference between form and 
substance/perception and reality. The mere fact that the current dog and 
pony show is allowed to overshadow the more salient, and noxious, facts 
surrounding the unfitness of the president to remain in office, is a finesse 
of epic proportions. Sherlock Holmes once observed that it isn't important 
what a man does, but rather what people think he has done. 
    The House managers are doing a workmanlike, albeit ponderous, job 
of delineating the details of the president's demonstrated perjury and 
obstruction of justice. However, no one is (or arguably will) ever get to 
address what many consider to be the president's treason and national 
security threat. 
  -- National Security: Last week Jim Hoagland of the 
Washington Post urged the timid, diffident congressional 
prosecutors to examine "one corner" of the Monica Mess. He 
observed "Clinton recognized in a telephone conversation with his 
young paramour that foreign intelligence organizations could, 
without much trouble, be listening in on their phone sex and other 
musings, according to Lewinsky's detailed unchallenged 
testimony." He went on to note "What did the president do to 
protect himself, and national security, from blackmail and damage 
other than propose an absurd cover story to Monica?" Was the 
Clinton conspiracy to conceal the Monica factor because of 
embarrassment over a sexual indiscretion, or an effort to thwart 
Congress and the American people from learning how a foreign 
intelligence service may have pierced the curtain of White House 
security? Hoagland wasn't the Lone Ranger. John Fund of the Wall 
Street Journal, Reed Irvine of Accuracy in Media and others 
mentioned this Starr report revelation. However, despite the 
obvious significance of the national security angle the major media 
routinely ignored it ... and they continue to ignore it. Hoagland 
writes for the Washington Post, and yet the big boys haven't 
reported Jack-spit ... Meanwhile, Monica Lewinsky was given 
above a top-secret security clearance. How? 
  -- The Cox report: It has been reported in Insight Magazine 
that the fallout from the classified China report published by 
Representative Chris Cox has sparked whispers of treason in halls 
of power. The unasked question of whether there was a quid pro 
quo arrangement between the Communist Red Chinese and the 
White House which resulted in exchanges of money for favors 
remains unasked. Was the money which the Communist Red 
Chinese paid Clinton and the DNC a bribe (for intelligence, 
technology, or contracts), or was it a gratuity paid for favors 
received? Regardless of which, it would clearly fall under even the 
broadest definition of "impeachable offenses". 
  -- North Korea: A significant historic note is that the 
United States is STILL at war with North Korea. North Korea is, by 
definition, an enemy. For the Clinton administration to provide 
them "aid and comfort" in any form constitutes treason. 
If, or when any one of the three aforementioned items were to be 
introduced into an impeachment trial, the result should be (ipso facto) 
GUILTY. Frankly, any senator failing to convict on these high crimes, 
would themselves, be guilty of massive and monumental malfeasance. But 
there is more. ... 
  -- An examination of presidential orders regarding access 
to classified information reveals that the president is guilty of 
numerous violations. 
  -- Cliff Kincaid of the Free Congress Foundation reported 
last week that Clinton signed Presidential Decision Directive 29 
establishing a body known as the Security Policy Board. That entity 
developed guidelines for determining eligibility for access to 
classified information which state that "Sexual behavior is a 
security concern if it involves a criminal offense, indicates a 
personality or emotional disorder, may subject the individual to 
undue influence or coercion, exploitation, or duress, or reflects lack 
of judgment or discretion." 
  -- Clinton signed Executive Order 12958 regulating access 
to classified information. It declared that individuals eligible for 
access to such information must have a record of "strength of 
character, trustworthiness, honesty, reliability, discretion, and 
sound judgment, as well a freedom from conflicting allegiances and 
potential coercion. ..." The blatant hypocrisy is axiomatic. Compare 
Clinton's performance compared to his own written standard for 
eligibility to classified information. "Strength of character": No; 
"Trustworthiness": No; "Honesty": No; "Reliability": Depends what 
you mean by "reliability" -- he can be relied on to lie, obfuscate, 
delay, and deny; "Discretion": Hell No; "Sound Judgement": Duh?; 
Finally, "freedom from conflicting allegiances and potential 
coercion": Uh ... NO. 
  -- Florida attorney Jack Thompson recently sent the 
following letter to House manager Rep. Asa Hutchinson: 
"Re: Obstruction of Justice by Bruce Lindsey and Other 
Clinton Attorneys 

   "Dear Representative Hutchinson: 

      "Having seen your presentation yesterday, which liberal 
   commentator Morton Kondracke correctly called 'dazzling' and 
   'devastating,' I should like to alert you to a piece of evidence of 
   which you may not be aware: 
      "David Schippers sent his two top investigators to Miami to 
   interview me because of my affidavit filed in Jones v. Clinton 
   which states that my best friend at Vanderbilt Law School, Sam 
   Jones, who is senior partner to Bruce Lindsey, told me, in front of 
   witnesses, that it was his job to track down women with whom 
   Clinton had sex in order to silence them and to pay them hush 
   money if necessary. These were witnesses in another lawsuit. 
      "I did not tell Mr. Schippers' people at the time something that 
   I have just learned in the past week: Gennifer Flowers mentioned in 
   a WABC-AM radio interview in July, 1997, the very same 'Sam 
   Jones' as part of what you would call the 'seven pillars of 
   obstruction.' My affidavit had not been reported yet in national 
   media at that time, so she did not get the name 'Sam Jones' from 
   me. 
      "I believe when you have a huge number of people working 
   on a matter as large as the impeachment of a president, relevant 
   evidence such as this can fall between the cracks. Surely Clinton's 
   own attorney admitting obstruction is useful to your prosecution. 

   Jack Thompson" 

   All of the above is known to the House and the Senate. All of the 
above could, should, and would lead to an obvious guilty verdict in the 
Senate. However, we haven't (and probably won't) get to hear any 
testimony or see any evidence introduced. Why? 
Is the president above the law?