-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
