-Caveat Lector-

>From wsws.org

WSWS : News & Analysis : North America : Clinton Impeachment

Conyers defends Democrats' silence on impeachment conspiracy

By Jerry White
28 January 1999

At a forum held last Sunday at Michigan State University, John Conyers, a
senior Democratic Congressman from Detroit, acknowledged that the Senate
impeachment trial is the outcome of an immense political conspiracy, but
that he and his fellow Democrats have decided to conceal their knowledge of
this plot from the American people.

Conyers spoke at a teach-in entitled "Americans Against Impeachment"
organized by Democratic Party supporters in the Lansing area. Before a
small audience of about 250, he described the events in Washington as a
"political coup d'etat" and "a bloodless takeover of the government."

Conyers has been a fixture in the House of Representatives for three
decades and, as the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee,
played a key role in the hearings last fall that ultimately resulted in the
first-ever impeachment of an elected president. Speaking from the vantage
point of a Washington insider, he suggested that the right-wing conspiracy
involved the highest levels of the state, including the Supreme Court.

"There have been a lot of changes that make us have to look at the Supreme
Court itself," he said. "They ruled that Clinton would be the first
president to stand trial during his presidency."

Indicating that the choice of Kenneth Starr for the post of independent
counsel was part of the conspiracy, he pointed out that Starr, a well-known
figure within the right wing of the Republican Party, "was not an unknown
quantity."

Those who selected Starr, Conyers continued, "knew he would do the things
he did." (Conyers could have added, but didn't, that Chief Justice William
Rehnquist, the man who is presiding over the Senate impeachment trial, had
a hand in Starr's appointment, having chosen an extreme right-wing
Republican, David Sentelle, to head the three-judge panel that fired Robert
Fiske and named Starr as his replacement.)

Finally Conyers implicated the media, saying it "fed fuel to the fire" and
withheld information that would have exposed the "perjury trap" and
"elevation of a personal matter into an impeachment."

Conyers' remarks on the Republican Party reflected the common knowledge in
Washington that the GOP has largely become the instrument of extreme
right-wing and fascistic forces, such as the Christian Coalition, militia
groups and anti-abortion zealots.

"A huge battle is going on for the soul of the Republican Party," he said.
"It is between the Conservative Right and a dwindling number of quiet,
milk-toast moderates. The moderates have been told: 'Those of you who break
ranks will have an opponent and we will run against you with everything we
have.'" He added that the people leading the charge against Clinton have a
"pathological hatred" of the president and the "modest programs" he
proposes.

The audience at the MSU meeting was indicative of the narrow social base on
which the Democratic Party rests. Those present consisted chiefly of
Democratic Party officials, their staffs and families, as well as local
clergymen and demoralized veterans of various protest movements. As the
turnout indicated, the active supporters of the Democratic Party come
mainly from the privileged sections of the upper-middle-class and the rich,
social layers that are for the most part oblivious to the conditions of the
vast majority of Americans, and indifferent to the defense of democratic
rights.

Within this milieu, Conyers felt at liberty to say things he has not said
on the floor of the House of Representatives or before television cameras.
But having outlined a political attack from the right on the institutions
of American democracy, he spent much of his time Sunday evening justifying
his own refusal, and that of the White House, to fight back.

When challenged by supporters of the Socialist Equality Party in the
audience to explain the Democrats' failure to alert the American people of
the threat to their democratic rights, Conyers made it clear that this
silence is absolutely conscious and deliberate.

In response to a question from the floor, Conyers admitted that he and
everyone else on Capitol Hill know about the ties between leading
Republicans and racist organizations. "I would love to raise all the
questions of [Bob] Barr and [Trent] Lott and everybody's association with
racist organizations," he said. "But guess what? A lot more besides those
two have been doing it for a long time. And some Democrats, by the way,
have also."

It cannot be said that Conyers has lacked a platform to speak to the public
about these matters. For weeks on end, during the House impeachment
hearings, he made the rounds of the TV interview shows, where he was
presented as the leading Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. He questioned
Starr under oath when the independent counsel testified before the
committee. He was in a position to subpoena documents from Starr's office,
and demand the testimony, under oath, of Starr's deputies and the entire
cast of conspirators, from Linda Tripp to the multimillionaire
reactionaries who have financed the plot, such as Richard Mellon Scaife and
Peter Smith. Needless to say, none of this was done.

At the Sunday forum Conyers said he has not raised these issues because
they would be "extraneous." Amazing! He acknowledges the existence of--in
his own words--a political coup d'etat, but says it is an "extraneous"
issue! At another point Conyers said to expose the conspiracy would "create
far more problems." Indeed, Mr. Conyers, problems for whom?

One can compare the role of Conyers and his fellow Democrats to officials
who have direct knowledge of a contagion that threatens the population, but
decide to keep their mouths shut. Precisely this happened a few years back
in Europe, when health officials concealed their knowledge that the blood
supply had been tainted by the HIV virus. They were prosecuted and sent to
jail.

Conyers attempted to justify his silence as a matter of tactical expediency
and political realism. "We cannot raise these questions under this
particular timeline," he said. "We're appealing to 100 senators."

This argument is bankrupt, even if one takes Conyers on his own terms. The
White House's policy of accommodation and silence has produced one disaster
after another. What was the result of this policy as applied by Conyers in
the House? The Republicans succeeded in impeaching Clinton, despite having
suffered a debacle just weeks before in the November election.

In fact, for all his experience as a congressman and for all his political
"realism," Conyers admitted Sunday that he completely underestimated the
forces that he and the White House were up against. He confessed to the
audience that after the November elections and the resignation of
Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich, "We expected there would be
contrition ... [but] the Republicans kept moving forward as if the November
elections never happened."

In Conyers and the Democrats as a whole one sees a peculiar combination of
cynicism, deceit, contempt for the working class, cowardice and
bewilderment. But underlying their prostration are definite social and
class issues. The overriding concern of the Democratic Party is not the
defense of the democratic rights and social interests of the broad masses,
but rather the preservation of the economic and political status quo. Far
more than the destruction of bourgeois democratic institutions, they fear a
movement of the working that could assume the character of a political
challenge to the capitalist system.

At one point on Sunday this writer, pressing Conyers to explain his silence
on the political conspiracy, asked, "Is the concern, in fact, that there
would be a social reaction in this country a lot broader than the
Democratic Party really wants?"

"Well, there might be," he replied.

See Also:
Paul Wellstone on "Larry King Live": a revealing exchange
[28 January 1999]
Senate impeachment trial: a conspiracy of silence
[27 January 1999]
The Senate impeachment trial
Democrats paralyzed as Republicans present their case against Clinton
[16 January 1999]

Top of page

Readers: The WSWS invites your comments. Please send e-mail.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 1998-99
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved


WSWS : News & Analysis : North America : Clinton Impeachment

Paul Wellstone on "Larry King Live": a revealing exchange

28 January 1999

On January 23 Senator Paul Wellstone, Democrat from Minnesota, appeared as
a guest on the "Larry King Live Weekend" program on CNN. The television
program was devoted to a discussion of the Senate trial of Bill Clinton
and, in particular, the issue of whether witnesses should be called to
testify. When host Larry King fielded questions from callers, the following
exchange took place:

King: Daytona Beach, Florida. Hold on, let me get another call in. Daytona
Beach, hello.

Caller: Yes, I just have a question as a concerned American citizen
watching these [hearings] every single day. If the Republicans are going to
call Monica Lewinsky, are the Democrats going to call the people we really
want to see, Linda Tripp and Lucianne Goldberg, to testify to find out what
happened here?

King: Senator Wellstone is that fair? They certainly would be logical
witnesses, wouldn't they? On your side of the ledger?

Wellstone: They would be, but I don't want this to ...

King: What's wrong? It should get a lot of points for you. These are not
the two most popular people in America.

Wellstone: That's right. And I appreciate what the caller is saying, but
you know what? I'm not thrilled about saying: Well, if they bring in
witnesses, then we bring in these other witnesses, because it becomes a
spectacle. It goes on and on and on, the environment becomes more
poisonous, and people in the country will be furious.

Wellstone is the great hope of left-liberal circles in the US. The Nation,
for example, ran a cover story last year headlined, "President Wellstone? A
Liberal Populist Considers a Run." The magazine called the Minnesota
Democrat "America's most liberal--some would say radical--senator."

The exchange underscores a basic political reality: the primary goal of the
Democratic Party, including its most "left" and liberal wing, is to conceal
the dimensions and character of the ongoing conspiracy against democratic
rights.

See Also:
Conyers defends Democrats' silence on impeachment conspiracy
[28 January 1999]
Senate impeachment trial: a conspiracy of silence
[27 January 1999]
The Senate impeachment trial
Democrats paralyzed as Republicans present their case against Clinton
[16 January 1999]

Top of page

Readers: The WSWS invites your comments. Please send e-mail.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 1998-99
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved


WSWS : News & Analysis : North America : Clinton Impeachment

Senate impeachment trial: a conspiracy of silence

By Martin McLaughlin
27 January 1999

As the Senate trial of President Clinton moves towards a decision, the
policy of the White House and the Senate Democrats is to keep hidden from
the American people the true implications of the political crisis that has
dominated Washington for over a year.

It is increasingly clear that even if the Republican majority forces
through a resolution approving the calling of witnesses, in the vote
scheduled for Wednesday, the Democrats will not themselves offer any
witnesses to provide evidence of the political conspiracy which set in
motion the impeachment drive.

In the hearings before the House Judiciary Committee, the Democrats limited
themselves to an interrogation of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr,
failing to call Linda Tripp, Lucianne Goldberg, or any of the other figures
in the network of right-wing lawyers and political operatives who set the
Paula Jones lawsuit into motion and used it, in concert with Starr's
investigation, to prepare a perjury trap for Clinton.

In the Senate trial, the Democrats and the White House will do even less.
In their television appearances on the weekend, one Democratic senator
after another demanded that no witnesses be called. Senator Paul Wellstone,
a liberal from Minnesota, appearing on a call-in program on CNN, flatly
rejected a suggestion that Tripp and Goldberg be called as witnesses.

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle declared that a Republican decision to
call witnesses would be answered by "vigorous cross-examination." This
threat makes little sense legally, since the three people on the Republican
witness list--Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan and White House aide Sidney
Blumenthal--are all sympathetic to Clinton. More significant was what
Daschle left unstated: that the Senate Democrats and the White House will
not attempt to put on a counter-case by calling their own witnesses.

Clinton himself takes the same position. During Tuesday's arguments before
the Senate over whether witnesses should be called in the trial, his chief
private lawyer David Kendall warned Republican prosecutors that a full
airing of the circumstances surrounding the impeachment drive might have
unforeseen political consequences.

The president's lawyers could choose to call witnesses like Wesley Holmes,
the attorney for Paula Jones who interviewed Linda Tripp on January 16,
1998, after she had begun cooperating with Starr's office, and on the eve
of President Clinton's deposition in the Jones case. "He would be a very
interesting witness to depose," Kendall said.

"I think we could show that there were a number of connections between the
independent counsel, Linda Tripp and the Paula Jones lawyers," he said.
"But I don't think you need to get into that briar patch."

The Democrats' rejection of any serious effort to lay out the facts about
the campaign to destabilize the Clinton administration comes under
conditions where the right-wing conspirators are more exposed than ever. On
Sunday the New York Times published a detailed account of the activities of
a small group of right-wing lawyers who worked to set up the Paula Jones
lawsuit as a vehicle for dragging Clinton into court, and then, with the
crucial assistance of the US Supreme Court and the Office of Independent
Counsel, leveraged the Jones suit into an impeachment trial before the US
Senate.

These connections were first detailed in press accounts based on the
documents released last fall after Starr filed his impeachment report with
the House of Representatives. New information has been provided in the
aftermath of Clinton's $850,000 settlement of the Jones lawsuit, as
attorneys begin filing their billings to claim a portion of the cash.

According to the Times, the billing records document the role of Paul
Rosenzweig, a right-wing Washington lawyer who discussed joining the Paula
Jones legal team in 1994 and was a friend and law school classmate of
Jerome Marcus, the Philadelphia attorney who did the bulk of the
behind-the-scenes legal work on the Jones case over the next three years.

In November 1997 Rosenzweig was hired by the Office of Independent Counsel.
OIC spokesman Charles Bakaly did not respond to an inquiry about the reason
for Rosenzweig's hiring, but the action was certainly unusual, since at
that point Starr's investigation was supposedly winding down.

The timing of Rosenzweig's joining the Starr investigation is extremely
suggestive. November 1997 was the same month that Linda Tripp made
anonymous phone calls to the attorneys for Paula Jones, naming Monica
Lewinsky and describing her affair with Clinton. At the same time, Lucianne
Goldberg supplied Tripp's name and phone number to the Jones lawyer David
Pyke. Pyke called Tripp, and she gave another description of the
Lewinsky-Clinton affair, this time without giving Lewinsky's name.

In short order, Lewinsky was being subpoenaed as a witness in the Jones
lawsuit, Tripp was urging Lewinsky to demand a job as the price of
concealing her past relationship with Clinton, and Rosenzweig, a camp
follower in the Jones lawsuit, was working in the Office of Independent
Counsel, helping to prepare the legal trap which was sprung on Clinton a
month later. It was Rosenzweig who, on January 8, 1998, received a phone
call from Marcus announcing that Linda Tripp was ready to provide her
services to the Starr investigation. Seven months later, he was one of four
lawyers for Kenneth Starr who interrogated Clinton before the grand jury.

The general outlines of this dirty tricks operation have been an open
secret in Washington. Hillary Clinton was referring to the
behind-the-scenes connections between the Jones suit and the Starr
investigation a year ago when she attacked the "vast right-wing conspiracy"
against her husband. But the details have remained largely unknown to the
American people.

This is the result of an even more significant "conspiracy," the conspiracy
of silence in which Clinton and the Democrats play the leading role.
Together with the media establishment, they are engaged in an effort to
conceal from the American people the degree to which the political and
judicial system is being manipulated by extreme right-wing forces.

Any serious investigation of Starr, Jones & Co. would demonstrate that the
real "high crimes and misdemeanors" were committed by those who have sought
to overthrow the Clinton White House by means of a quasi-constitutional
coup. Such an investigation could not be limited, moreover, to the handful
of lower-level right-wing activists whose names have already come to light.

It would have to go back to the origins of the Starr investigation itself,
and decisions of highly placed figures, including Appeals Court Justice
David Sentelle, a former aide to Jesse Helms, who fired Robert Fiske as
special prosecutor and replaced him with Starr, and to Chief Justice
William Rehnquist himself--now presiding over the Senate trial!--who
selected Sentelle, passing over higher-ranking judges, to head the panel
which chooses independent counsels.

It would examine the role of the Council for National Policy, the secret
conclave of top Republican congressional leaders and representatives of the
Christian Coalition and other far-right groups, which decided in the summer
of 1997 to launch the impeachment drive.

The Senate trial of Clinton, far from being a solemn constitutional
proceeding, is the end product of a shabby criminal enterprise, in which
extreme-right and neo-fascist elements have played the main role. These
elements have little mass support, as is demonstrated by the continued
public hostility to the impeachment drive, but they have powerful influence
in Congress, the courts and the media. They are aided above all by the
complicity and cowardice of the Democratic Party liberals, from Clinton on
down, who are incapable of any genuine opposition to the dangers revealed
in the impeachment drive.

See Also:
The Senate impeachment trial:
Starr intervenes to salvage House Republicans' case against Clinton
[25 January 1999]
The Senate impeachment trial:
White House lawyers expose legal frame-up
[23 January 1999]
In fourth day of impeachment trial:
White House Counsel refutes case against Clinton
[21 January 1999]

Top of page

Readers: The WSWS invites your comments. Please send e-mail.


------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright 1998-99
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved


~~~~~~~~~~~~
A<>E<>R

The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking
new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing!  These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically  by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html

http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

Reply via email to