DEFINITELY Political!

The “Intelligence Community Report” has been released and, as I expected, it doesn’t say anything. The IC claims that (1) Russian President Vladimir Putin  ordered a campaign to influence the US election, (2) that Russian intelligence services conducted cyberespionage against US political establishments and (3) that they used certain outlets – the Russian English language TV channel and RT.com, DCLeaks.com, Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks –  to disseminate the information. Yet they only offer supposition with no actual evidence to back up their claims. Of course, they insinuate that such evidence is classified.

Let me mention a few things. First, I am an Air Force veteran and held Secret and Top Secret clearances. I was required to read classified documents and attended classified intelligence briefings. I am also a published author and was cleared by the Air Force to access classified documents while doing research. I was advised that documents are classified for three reasons – (1) to protect national security matters (2) to protect relations between the US and foreign governments and (3) to protect reputations, meaning the reputations of high placed government officials and military officers. Classified documents are routinely declassified after a specified period of time. For instance, Air Force unit records are classified for thirty years but some documents have been classified for as much as half a century and perhaps longer. An example is the intelligence report of the interrogation of the senior Japanese officers responsible for the defense of Kyushu, the Japanese island where the Allies planned to land in the initial invasion of Japan. This report was classified for a half century for one reason – to protect the reputation of President Harry Truman, who ordered the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The claim that Putin personally ordered a campaign to affect the US election is very sketchy, although the report claims that the three intelligence agencies involved, the FBI, CIA, and National Security Agency agree “with high confidence.” They also claim that Putin and the Russian government “aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him.” However, while the FBI and CIA claimed “high confidence” in this claim, the NSA’s confidence is “moderate.” That the NSA’s position is essentially “maybe” is significant because it is the agency that actually collects electronic data.

The report uses the term “to denigrate Secretary Cinton” and “discredit Secretary Clinton” numerous times, which indicates that the report was political. Bear in mind that this report was requested by President Barrack Obama AFTER Donald Trump was elected. This is an indication that he intended it for political purposes, specifically to foster discontent among Clinton supporters and to undermine President Trump’s administration.

The “Intelligence Community” is actually of recent origin. It came into existence in 1981 by executive order of President Ronald Reagan, who sought to increase the access of the CIA to classified information. The role of the IC was increased in 2004 by President George W. Bush. Bush’s order established the new Director of National Intelligence to oversee ALL intelligence agencies of the US government, both civilian and military.  The office was initially proposed by Democratic Senators Dianne Feinstein, Jay Rockefeller and Bob Graham. The position was formalized by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. The DNI is a political appointee, as is the Director of the CIA and the Director of the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) although the latter is an active duty military officer.

Although the report states that there’s no evidence of actual Russian tampering in the election, such as hacking voting machines, it states that the Russians were influential in disseminating information to “denigrate” and “discredit” Secretary Clinton. Never mind that the DNC leaks revealed information about how the committee operated rather than anything about Clinton, other than that the DNC favored Clinton over Bernie Sanders as the candidate. They claim that the Russians disseminated information through RT, a Russian television and internet network. However, the information put out by RT was no different than that circulated by conservative web sites and news outlets. I would consider the claims made in the report as disinformation, meaning that it is not really information at all.

I rate the report as nothing but political bullshit.

 

Advertisements

The Military, Heroism and “Gold Star Families”

 

DFC                                    AirMedal

The current flap over Pakistani immigrant Khizr Khan’s appearance at the Democratic convention prompted me to write about something that’s been bugging me for a long time. There seems to be a belief that anyone who serves in the military is a hero, particularly those who’ve died, and some seem to think that family members of military members and of those who died while in military service are somehow deserving, although deserving of what I’m not sure.

In the summer of 1963 my dad signed a document granting permission for me to enlist in the United States Air Force. He – or my mother – had to sign it because my birthday is late in the year and I was still seventeen when I graduated from high school a few weeks before. Air Force regulations required that although seventeen-year olds could enlist, they had to have parental permission. My dad had been in the Army Air Corps during World War II – his brother had also and had remained in service for twenty years – and he had mixed emotions about my plans to join the Air Force. He would have preferred that I stay home and farm, or perhaps go to college. I had been accepted at several colleges but didn’t know where the money was going to come from. I would also be subject to the draft once I turned eighteen and as a single teenager, would have been prime meat. So, daddy signed. (I heard later that my maternal grandmother accused him of “signing Sam’s life away.” No one ever told me until after she was dead.) A few months later I turned 18 but by that time I was already in the Air Force and in the final weeks of training to become a jet aircraft mechanic.

When my dad signed the papers for me to join the Air Force, the United States was not at war, at least not officially. Yes, we had military personnel in some Asian country called Vietnam few Americans were even aware of it. I wasn’t expecting to go to war myself and certainly wasn’t expecting to see combat, although I wouldn’t have minded. As it turned out, I spent 12 years in the Air Force with a good chunk of it in Vietnam where I saw war up close and personal. However, it was MY service and my family didn’t have a damn thing to do with it. I collected quite a few medals and decorations during those 12 years but just because I’m a decorated combat veteran doesn’t make me a hero. Had I died, it would have been my death, not theirs, and while they would have grieved over me, they were deserving of a no particular status other than that of a family that had lost a son. It wouldn’t have mattered if I’d died wrapping my car around a tree, I’d have been dead just the same as if I’d been shot down on a mission over North Vietnam. Maybe my mother would have joined Gold Star Mothers but somehow I doubt it since she never joined the DAR even though she had ancestors who fought in the American Revolution. No member of my family has ever joined the DAR, the DOC, SAR or SOC. I’m a member of three veterans organizations, one which I had a role in founding, another I was coerced into joining and the DAV, which I joined because I’m a disabled veteran and I thought they’d be of help dealing with the VA (I was wrong, they’re not.)

In recent years – mainly since Reagan – an idea has developed that anyone who’s ever served in the military is some kind of hero. People like to greet veterans with “thank your for your service” or, if a veteran “welcome home.” Now, I don’t care for such bullshit. I do sometimes wear caps, one that says “C-130 Hercules Vietnam” and one with an emblem of the Distinguished Flying Cross on it but I don’t wear them to get recognition. I only wear them in hopes of attracting the attention of a fellow C-130 veteran so I can tell them about the organization I helped found. I don’t want anyone to thank me for my service because I didn’t do it for them and I don’t need to be welcomed home. I don’t want anyone to think me a hero because I’m not, even if I did fly some 1,500 combat sorties. My dad flew 30 missions over Germany and Occupied Europe during World War II and he didn’t think of himself as any kind of hero. He put his DFC and Air Medal lapel pins in the lapel of his suit but he hardly ever wore a suit. The fact is that just being in the military -and even being in combat – doesn’t make a person a hero, not even if they die while in service. To be a hero, a person has to do something heroic.

The modern perception of military service seems to be shaped largely on the service of the men who served during the period from World War II to Vietnam when military service was to a large extent compulsory, as it was in World War I and the Civil War. Young men were forced to serve in the military against their will, and their service was seen as sacrificial, particularly by politicians eager to get their vote after they returned to civilian life. But military service hasn’t been compulsory in the United States since early 1973 when the Department of Defense announced that there was no longer a need to draft men for military service. (The end of the draft came as the United States withdrew the last military personnel from South Vietnam.) Since that time, all men and women who have served or are serving in the military are there of their own free will. They are making no sacrifice as their fathers and grandfathers did who were drafted into interrupting their lives for a period of military service. They are compensated with a pay check, a pay check that is substantial for men and women in the modern military and often in excess of what they would likely be making in civilian life. This is true even of the lowest ranking enlisted men and women. Those who elect to stay in the military for a 20-year career draw 50% of their base pay; those who stay longer draw a higher percentage all the way up to 75%, which can amount to a considerable sum for senior officers and enlisted men and women.

Contrary to popular belief by those who’ve never served, military service isn’t particularly hard. New recruits must complete a period of basic training which consists primarily of physical conditioning and military training in regulations and such disciplinary skills as learning to march in formation and small arms training. Upon completion of basic training, a new recruit is sent on to additional training that may involve additional military training if they’re assigned to the infantry but may be classroom and practical training to learn a particular technical skill. Such courses consist of as little as a few weeks from some skills to as much as two years for skills such as nuclear reactor operators. Some new officers are sent to special courses such as military pilot training or submarine officer training. Once a young man or woman has completed their training, they are assigned to an operational unit, which may be a combat unit but could also be support. If they are assigned to a combat unit, they can expect to spend their time in continued training since combat units aren’t engaged unless they are actually in a combat zone. Military training in itself can be dangerous and hundreds of young men and women die each year in accidents, both while on duty and in vehicle accidents when off duty. In fact, accidental military deaths have exceeded deaths from hostile actions in many years since the beginning of the so-called “War on Terror” after the 9/11 attacks. This was true in the years 2002 and 2003 and has been true since 2008. In fact, in the years from 1980 to 1989, accidental deaths in the military exceeded 1,000 a year; the most hostile deaths in a year since 2002 is 847 in 2007. My point is that a military member is more likely to die due to accident than from hostile action. Military Deaths by Year, which brings me to my next point.

Just because a person serves in the military – or dies while on active duty – does not make them heroic. There have been men who truly were heroic in the military, starting with Sgt. Alvin C. York in World War I and continuing through such men as Lt. Audie Murphy, Major Edwin Dyess and Colonel Paul I. “Pappy” Gunn, but such men usually became heroes because of desperation. York decided to take matters in his own hands when he saw his buddies being mowed down by German machine guns, Murphy defended his men against a German attack, Dyess carried out attacks on Japanese ships in Subic Bay in one of the few remaining Air Corps fighters left in the Philippines and Gunn waged an essentially one-man war against the Japanese to free his family from captivity in Manila. Since then, military heroes tend to have been men who performed “selfless” acts such as jumping on hand grenades, acts that might be more correctly identified as thoughtless since they happened so quickly the individual didn’t have time to consider the ramifications of his actions.

In truth, much of what is hailed as heroism is merely a military member doing the job they were trained to do, whatever it may be. Some medals – the Bronze Star in particular – are often awarded as commendations for routine performance of one’s administrative duties. In fact, the Bronze Star was originally authorized as a counterpart to the Air Medal, which was authorized in 1942 to recognize the role of airmen flying combat missions – often against great odds – at a time when ground forces had yet to enter combat. A colonel felt that infantrymen, in particular, should be awarded some kind of decoration to recognize that they had been in combat. No particular act of valor was required for award of the medal – any soldier who had qualified for the combat infantryman’s badge was eligible – and the award was also approved for administrative actions, such as maintaining files in an orderly room.  The Bronze Star It and the Air Medal were equal in prestige – until 1985 when military politics led to the elevation of the Purple Heart from a low-level award to prominence above the Meritorious Service Medal and dropped the Air Medal to the lowest precedence of any combat award and below the level of the MSM, which is only awarded for non-combat  service. (By doing so, the DOD robbed hundreds of Army Air Corps and pre-1985 USAF airmen of the recognition they so richly deserved for their meritorious service in aerial flight.)

Military medals are a story in themselves. Prior to the Civil War, there were no medals and even then, the Confederacy did not recognize its heroes with medals. The Medal of Honor was authorized during the war and was often awarded for such mediocre actions as reenlisting. (Hundreds of Medals of Honor were taken away when the criteria for the medal was changed in the early Twentieth Century.) The Distinguished Service Cross and Silver Star were authorized just before World War I and the Purple Heart was authorized in 1932 for presentation primarily to men who had been wounded. The Distinguished Flying Cross was authorized in 1926; it was awarded to civilians such as the Wright Brothers and Amelia Earhart. The Air Medal and Bronze Star came along during World War II, along with the Legion of Merit, which is essentially an award for high-ranking officers. Since Vietnam, a veritable library of new awards have been authorized, to the point that it seems that the modern military man and woman gets medals just for showing up for chow! In short, most military medals today are meaningless.

This brings us to “gold star families,” a term little heard of before a Pakistani immigrant named Khizer Khan made a speech at the Democratic Convention. To begin with, there is no such thing as a “gold star family.” It’s a term that the Army has on its web site to refer to families of military members who lost their lives on active duty. However, there’s no official organization or recognition of such families even though the military was authorized to present lapel buttons to family members – parents, spouses, children, step-children, brother and sisters – of those who die while  on active duty starting in 1947. The lapel button carries no significance and no benefits to those to whom it is presented except recognition. It’s something for family members to have to remember their family member, the same as the flags used to drape coffins and which are then presented to the family, usually to either the wife or mother of the deceased. The design is different for those who died in a combat theater, regardless of the cause of death. There is no organization and they have no official standing.

There is, however, a formal organization for Gold Star Mothers, women whose son or daughter has died while on active military service. Gold Star Mothers was formally organized in 1928 when the mother of a US Army Air Services pilot who died during the war decided to start an organization for mothers of men who had died while in military service. They got their name from the gold-starred flags family members displayed in their windows during the recent war – families with men in uniform displayed a flag with a blue star and those whose sons were lost displayed gold stars. The blue and gold starred flags became prominent during World War II but they died out after the Korean War. They were not popular during the Vietnam War – in fact, they were hardly ever mentioned. They were resurrected in the 1990s and began attracting some attention from the media – and politicians. In September, 2012 Barrack Obama proclaimed the last day of September as “Gold Star Mothers and Families Day.” However, the memo must have got lost because no one seems to know anything about it.

Families of men and women who die while on active duty have recognition, but not status or standing, as members of the media proclaimed that Khizer Khan and his wife have. The Khans claimed they have made some kind of sacrifice because their son died in Iraq. In fact, they have made no sacrifice at all and whether their son’s death was a sacrifice is debatable. Captain Khan’s commander, Maj. General Dana Pittardi, (Gen. Pittard was Bill Clinton’s military aide 1996-1999), wrote a piece for the Washington Post but was very vague as to how the officer died. He says only that he was killed by a suicide bomber and that he “may” have been trying to prevent the death or injury of innocent Iraqis. The captain was awarded a Purple Heart, which is awarded to all military personnel who die as a result of enemy action, and a Bronze Star, which is basically a glorified commendation medal. If his actions had been seen as “heroic,” he would have been awarded at least a Silver Star and possibly a Distinguished Service Cross. In the Khan’s minds, their son died a hero but in reality he was the victim of a bomb. Regardless, their son’s death reflects solely on him, not on them.

Military valor reflects solely on the individual, not corporately on their family, regardless of how close. My actions while in the military reflect solely on me and if I’d died, while my family would have suffered loss, they would have made no sacrifice. Neither would I if my son’s submarine had gone to the bottom of the China Sea while they were playing cat and mouse with the Chinese navy. Several of my ancestors served in the Revolutionary War but I have never been a member of the Sons of the Revolution and no one in my family has ever joined the DAR (except my great-aunt.) At least two of my ancestors were Confederate soldiers but I’ve never joined the Sons of Confederate Veterans – and never will. My valor is my own and no one else’s. Similarly, while I’m proud of my father for flying 30 missions in B-24s over Europe, his service is no reflection on me, nor was it a reflection on his parents, brothers and sisters.

What I’m saying is that military service and any recognition for it only applies to the one who serves, not their mother, father, spouse, brother, sister, children, grandchildren or anyone else.

 

 

 

 

 

The Despicable Clintons

I have just finished reading David Shippers’ account of his experiences as the Chief Investigative Counsel for the House Judiciary Committee prior to and during the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton in 1999. The book, called SELLOUT, is available from Amazon.com at this link – SELLOUT Considering that the wife of only the second US president to be impeached has just been nominated for the same office, it is important that Americans understand why her husband was impeached and realize that her character is just as lacking as his, or maybe more although she has never been publically accused of rape.

David Schippers was a Chicago lawyer and a lifelong Democrat who was asked by Congressman Henry Hyde to head up an investigative unit whose mission would be to investigate the US Department of Justice. Schippers had previously led the Justice Department’s Organized Crime and Racketeering Unit and had the experience. Although Hyde was a Republican, he wanted a Democrat to lead the new unit. When Schippers took the job, no action had been taken toward impeachment, although word of the sexual harassment suit against the president by one Paula Jones, a young Arkansas state employee, and his relationship with a White House intern named Monica Lewinsky had hit the media. The first action taken by the new committee, which was made up of lawyers and law enforcement personnel, mostly from Chicago, that Schippers knew, was to look into White House interference with the Immigration and Naturalization Service in regard to rushing the citizenship process of an estimated 1 million immigrants so they would be eligible to vote in the 1996 election – presumably for Clinton. Both Clinton and Vice-President Al Gore were involved in the action, which was a flagrant abuse of power that resulted in the granting of citizenship to several hundred applicants with criminal records. (In order to expedite the process, the INS was forced to forego it’s normal vetting procedures.) They were also planning to investigate Janet Reno’s Justice Department. Before the unit could pursue action, they were handed the job of investigating the president’s actions in regard to the Paula Jones’ suit and other improper actions turned up by Independent Prosecutor Ken Starr. Specifically, they were to investigate the president’s actions in regard to his relationship with Monica Lewinsky and his possibly having committed perjury and other crimes and misdemeanors in his deposition in the Paula Jones case.

The Clinton impeachment was in 1999, two decades ago, and many of today’s voters are too young to have known what took place while others didn’t really understand it. Briefly, two things happened: The first was the Paula Jones case; the second was Monica Lewinsky.

Paula Jones filed her suit against the president for something that took place while he was governor of Arkansas and she was a state employee. Clinton saw the 25-year old woman and told one of his state trooper escorts to bring her to his room in the Excelsior Hotel. When Jones got there, Clinton pulled out his penis and told her to “kiss it.”  Jones Suit Against Clinton  Jones refused and fled the room. She didn’t say anything about what had happened until a story came out in a magazine about it. She was convinced to file suit, which she did on May 6, 1994. The case was initially dismissed but Jones appealed. Clinton’s lawyers claimed that a sitting president could not be sued and the case went to the Supreme Court, which ruled unanimously that presidents are not above the law and are subject to the same legal actions as any citizen. Things got really hot for Clinton when the judge in the case decreed that Jones’ attorneys were free to interview other women Clinton had been sexually involved with or had made advances toward to show a pattern of sexual harassment. That’s where Clinton’s depravity came to light.

That Clinton has a reputation for philandering was well-known. He also has a strong tendency to lie. In 1992 during his presidential campaign, a woman in Little Rock named Gennifer Flowers came forward with the revelation that she and Clinton had been engaged in a 12-year affair. As Clintons are prone to do, Bill lied and said it wasn’t true – but in 1998 he admitted under oath that he had been sexually involved with Flowers. Schippers’ team wasn’t interested in Flowers but they were interested in other women who had been subpoenaed in the case, including – particularly – Lewinsky. However, it wasn’t the Lewinsky case that revealed Clinton’s depravity and ruthlessness.

The Jones team subpoenaed a number of women who had some kind of history with Clinton. When the Clinton legal team learned the women had been subpoenaed, The White House stepped in and contacted the women and sent them affidavits to sigh denying any kind of wrong-doing on the part of the president. Two in particular refused, and they both had sordid stories to tell. Schippers and members of his team interviewed them both extensively. Kathleen Wiley, a Virginia woman, had been pursued by Clinton even though she rejected his unwanted advances. On one occasion at a campaign event, he had groped her. Schippers and members of his team met with her and her attorney several times and believed she was telling the truth. Wiley and her attorney said that the White House put pressure on her to sign the affidavit Clinton’s legal team had drawn up, pressure that went to the point of intimidation. After her pet cat disappeared, she received threats insinuating that the cat had been taken. After she gave her deposition, a small animal skull appeared on her doorstep. She was accosted by strange men who advised her to sign the affidavit. Schippers and his team decided to have Wiley testify against Clinton in the impeachment trial.

The case of Juanita Broaddrick was different because her allegations stemmed from when Clinton was attorney general in Arkansas. Broaddrick was listed as a “Jane Doe” in the Paula Jones case who had filled an affidavit denying that Clinton had assaulted (raped) her. Because the focus of the case against Clinton was on witness intimidation and perjury, To interview her, Schippers sent Diana Woznicki, one of his staff members who had formerly worked for him as a legal assistant before she joined the Chicago PD, where she had risen to the rank of sergeant. She had a background in rape counseling. Schippers had previously found two files with FBI interviews of women who had claimed Clinton had sexually assaulted them. Starr’s staff had said they shouldn’t have been sent to the Judiciary Committee and asked that they be returned. After Broaddrick’s name resurfaced, Schippers called Bob Bittman on Starr’s staff. Bittman said that the Independent Counsel had determined that the accusations stemmed from before Clinton became president however, she had been subpoenaed by the Jones’ attorneys but had filed a motion to quash, a memorandum of law and a false affidavit. Schippers told Bittman they were conducting an impeachment investigation and to send the Broaddrick file back. He found that it consisted of several extensive interviews of her and a number of corroborating witnesses. Schippers sent Woznicki to talk to Broaddrick. Broaddrick admitted that the affidavit was false, over the protest of her attorney. However, Broaddrick later phoned Woznicki and told her the whole story. Woznicki told Schippers that “Juanita fits the pattern of the classic rape victim.”

In 1978, Juanita Broaddrick was a young married woman in Fort Smith who worked in the nursing home industry. She met Clinton when he was campaigning for governor. (I was living in Arkansas at the time.) Clinton told her to call him and visit his headquarters in Little Rock the next time she was in Little Rock and pick up campaign materials. When she was in Little Rock for a conference, she decided to call him. He wasn’t there so she left a message. A short while later, he called her back and suggested that he come to her hotel and meet her in the coffee shop to talk about his campaign. A few minutes later, he called back and said there were reporters in the coffee shop and suggested he come to her room. She had a roommate but the other woman was out and Broaddrick hestitated, but then thought “this is the attorney general; if I can’t trust him who can I trust?”

Broaddrick was alone in her room when Clinton arrived. They engaged in small talk then she ushered him to the window where a coffee service had been set up. Suddenly, Clinton began kissing her, she said “not forcefully at first.” But then he threw her on the bed and kept kissing her. She struggled to get away but he got on top of her and bit down on her lower lip – the pain was excruciating. Every time she struggled, he bit down harder. He pushed down his pants and forced her legs apart, then entered her and raped her. At one point while he was mating with her – over her protest – he said “Don’t worry about getting pregnant. I’m sterile. I had mumps as a kid.” (So did I, but I have four children!) When he finally finished, she thought the ordeal was over. Clinton rose up slightly and she thought he was going to pull out of her, but he said “My God, I can do it again!” He continued the attack.

The woman was close to collapse by the time Clinton was finished with her. She was sobbing uncontrollably and afraid he might do something else. She was in a panic but Clinton didn’t appear to even be fazed by having just raped a woman. He “cooly rose from the bed and went in the bathroom.” Broaddrick lay paralyzed on the bed, afraid to move. He came out after a few minutes and started to leave, then turned and said “You better do something about that lip. Get some ice on it”. He then put on his sunglasses and left.  She was still sobbing when her friend returned. She noticed her swollen lip and the rumpled bed and asked what happened. Broaddrick put a bag of ice to her lip and the two women got in their car and drove back to Fort Smith. During the drive. Broaddrick decided not to tell anyone else what had happened and told her friend to forget about it. A few weeks later, her husband told her they had been invited to a Clinton fund-raiser. She didn’t want to go and feigned illness but her husband talked her into going. She avoided Clinton but Hillary sought her out. She came over to her and said “I’ve heard so much about you, you’ve done so much for us!” Then she put her face close to Juanita’s and said “We appreciate everything you do.” Broaddrick thought it was a strange comment because she hadn ‘t done anything for the Clintons. She told Woznicki that she wondered if Hillary knew what had happened and was thanking her for keeping her mouth shut.

During the impeachment, a Republican woman Congressman looked at the Broaddrick file. She told Schippers, “This is his MO.” She then told about her experience at a reception for pro-choice women Hillary had hosted. When her husband came in the room, Hillary froze, scowled and stalked out of the room. The president then walked around the room putting his arms around women. He singled out two young blonde women. She later found out that Clinton had called them both and invited them to meet with him – individually – in the Oval Office. The two women talked and were surprised to learn they had each received the same invitation. They declined.

(Article About NBC News Interview with Broaddrick)

The centerpiece of the Clinton impeachment was a young woman named Monica Lewinsky, a dark-haired Jewish beauty from California. Like Paula Jones, she is buxom. In 1995 she became an unpaid intern in the White House. Apparently, the young woman – she was 21 at the time – offered herself to Clinton and he accepted. They began an affair that lasted until December 1997 when Monica wrote Clinton a letter and ended it. They both claimed that they never had intercourse – which is doubtful – and confined their activities to oral sex. Clinton claimed he never had any kind of sex with her until it came to light that she had a blue dress with the president’s semen on it.

Now, Clinton supporters claim the impeachment was all about sex – it wasn’t  it was about perjury, witness tampering, obstruction of justice and abuse of power. Clinton and Lewinsky’s affair was consensual but it became a legal matter when they realized she was likely to be subpoenaed for the Jones case and came up with a plan to deny it. They already had a cover story for their affair; they would claim that Lewinsky’s visits to the Oval Office were to deliver “papers” or to see Betty Currie, the president’s secretary. They agreed to use the same story in her affidavit and later testimony to a grand jury. When news of the affair became public, Clinton’s actions were despicable – the White House planted news stories claiming that Lewinsky was “a stalker.” Democratic Congressman Charlie Rangle claimed “the child has serious emotional problems.” He went on to say “She’s fantasizing. And I haven’t heard that she played with a full deck in her other experiences.” Arkansas columnist Gene Lyons claimed “the President was, in a sense, the victim of someone like the woman who followed David Letterman around.” In short, the White House and Democrats launched a campaign of character assassination. They did the same thing with Paula Jones and Dolly Kyle Browning, a longtime Clinton friend and high school classmate with which he had a sexual affair until 1992 when he found out she was writing a novel based on their relationship. Clinton even went so far as launching air strikes against Iraq the night before the debate on the impeachment articles was to take place. The debate was postponed.

In the end, Schippers and his investigators determined that Clinton was guilty of no less than 15 separate felonious acts involving perjury, witness tampering, obstruction of justice and abuse of power. To make a long story short, the House impeached Clinton in a vote that included five Democrats voting in favor. However, the Senate refused to remove him from office for political reasons. Not a single Democratic Senator bothered to look at the evidence. They were determined to vote against removal of Clinton and the Republicans were afraid to due to public opinion. (Yes, the 1999 public is responsible for the Clintons!)

Even though William Jefferson Clinton was not removed from office (neither was Andrew Johnson, the only other president to be impeached), the investigation revealed that he is not only dishonorable, he is despicable, particularly for his treatment of women. Juanita Broaddrick is not the only woman to accuse him of sexual assault but she went further and accused him of rape. Had she brought charges against him at the time, he would have never been elected governor of Arkansas and Hillary Clinton would not be the current Democratic Party nominee for the office of President of the United States.

That Hillary is also despicable has been reinforced by her recent actions as Secretary of State as well as her actions during her husband’s impeachment, which she blamed on “a vast right-wing conspiracy” rather than his own actions. Even though her responsibility for the death of the ambassador to Libya and three others is debatable, there is no doubt she lied to the families about the reason for the attacks and that she and the White House lied to the American public, blaming the attacks on a You Tube video rather than on Libyan Islamic militants. She and her campaign lied to the American public about the (illegal) personal Internet server she had set up at her home in New York to use for government and personal communications so she wouldn’t be susceptible to NSA monitoring – although it turns out her server was susceptible to monitoring, not only by the NSA but by foreign intelligence services. She lied about the FBI counter-intelligence criminal investigation of her use of a personal server. She claimed it was a “review” rather than a criminal investigation. In fact, it has long been known that Hillary lies about everything, just as her husband does. She was branded a liar when she was still First Lady by conservative columnist William Safire, who said she was “a congenital liar.” Journalist Carl Bernstein said “Hillary and Truth rarely walk together.”

Hillary’s conduct regarding the army of women her husband has been involved with has been despicable. She often referred to them as “trailer trash” and called Monica Lewinsky a “bimbo.” When Clinton’s Arkansas opponents filed a suit claiming that he maintained a slush fund to maintain five women, Hillary got her buddies at the Rose Law Firm, where she worked, Vince Foster and Web Hubbell, to coerce the five women into signing affidavits claiming they had not slept with Clinton, a tactic White House lawyers used against the women subpoenaed for the Paula Jones case. One of those women was Gennifer Flowers, who signed the affidavit but who Bill Clinton later admitted had been his lover (he said “only once.”) (Hubbell was later convicted of wire fraud; he was indicted three times for various infractions of the law. Foster died of an apparent suicide – under mysterious circumstances – while White House Counsel. )

Hillary Clinton is now running for the office her slime-ball husband once occupied. If she wins the election, the disgraced politician who was impeached will be returning to the White House and the two most despicable people today will again have the power to rape, lie and steal.

Schippers’ House Broken Into