High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton

383 Pages·2016·1.56 MB·English

by  Ann Coulter

Table of Contents

Title Page
Dedication
Chapter One - Just Do It
VICTIM OR THE CRIME
JOHNNY B. GOODE
SUBSTANCE AND MEANING
THE PROMISED LAND
THE LAST TIME
U.S. BLUES
HIGH TIME
PART ONE - “Kiss It”

Chapter Two - You Can’t Prove I Lied
THE UNDERLYING CASE: JONES V. CLINTON
THE TAPES
STARR STRUCK
Chapter Three - Prevaricator in Chief: The President’s Deposition
Chapter Four - The Monica Story Breaks: Clinton’s Legacy Is Formed
RECIPE FOR PERJURY
SUPER LAWYER VERNON JORDAN
THE TALKING POINTS
PRIAPUS’S PERJURY
Chapter Five - Kathleen Meets Paula
THE WILLEY DEPOSITION
“I DID TO HER WHAT I HAVE DONE TO SCORES AND SCORES
OF… WOMEN…”
Chapter Six - The 60 Minutes Interview
Chapter Seven - Blasting the Bimbos
BIMBO ERUPTIONS DURING THE 1992 CAMPAIGN
NO MORE FLOWERS
PERDUE CHICK
KEEPING UP WITH JONES
WEE LITTLE WILLEY—INDUCING LARYNGITIS
GOOD TRIPP
EARNING HER PRESIDENTIAL KNEEPADS
Chapter Eight - Persecuting the Prosecutor
STARR’S REINCARNATION AS A HARDLINER
CLAIMS OF “LEAKS”
OUTING STARR’S DEPUTIES
Chapter Nine - Starr Turn: The White House’s Secret Weapon
Chapter Ten - A Cancer on the Country
THE PRESIDENT LYING
PERJURY “ABOUT SEX”
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE “ABOUT SEX”
PART TWO - Abuse of Power

Chapter Eleven - Job Creation, Clinton Style: The Travel Office Massacre
THE FOBS
FUTURE EX-CODIRECTOR OF THE WHITE HOUSE TRAVEL
OFFICE
THE PRESIDENT AND FIRST LADY’S FORGOTTEN ROLES
“PUTTING PEOPLE FIRST”—THE PUTSCH
THE SCRIPT REQUIRED CRIMINALS
SMEAR
ABUSE OF FBI FILES
FBI INVESTIGATION
THE TAX MAN COMETH
ALL THE PRESIDENT’S FAULT
Chapter Twelve - Filegate: A “Bureaucratic Snafu”
THE “SNAFU”
THE FILES
THE MYSTERIOUS CRAIG LIVINGSTONE
“HILLARY WANTS HIM”
ANTHONY MARCECA: DIGGING IN LOW-GRADE DIRT
SHAKY WHITE HOUSE EXCUSES
FIGHTING BACK
THE PRESIDENT’S RESPONSIBILITY
Chapter Thirteen - Auditing the Enemy
BILLY DALE
CAN’T WIN IN THE SUPREME COURT? CALL THE IRS
THE LIST GOES ON
ASSIGNING RESPONSIBILITY
PART THREE - Obstruction of Justice

Chapter Fourteen - Whitewater
OVERVIEW OF CLINTON CONNECTIONS TO MCDOUGAL’S
CRIMES
CASTLE GRANDE
MRS. CLINTON DRAFTS THE FRAUDULENT OPTION
AGREEMENT
MRS. CLINTON ACTS LIKE A GUILTY PERSON
THE GOVERNOR’S ALLEGED PARTICIPATION IN DAVID
HALE’S CRIME
Chapter Fifteen - Fostergate
FOSTER’S ROLE
THE TIMELINE
“BERNIE, ARE YOU HIDING SOMETHING?”
THE ODDITIES PILE UP
THE WHITE HOUSE HIDES THE TRUTH
Chapter Sixteen - Webb Hubbell: Friend of the Voiceless
A FELON IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
THE WHITE HOUSE ACTS SUPPORTIVE
THE LIPPO GROUP CHIPS IN
MONEY, MONEY
THE PRESIDENT EXPLAINS EVERYTHING
HELP ON THE WAY
PRISONER BLUES
PART FOUR - Corruption

Chapter Seventeen - White House Coffees
THE PLAN
THE WHITE HOUSE EXPLANATION
THE SHOPPING LIST
“POLITICAL FUND-RAISING IS CRITICAL”
WHITE HOUSE SPIN
THE LAW
MEDDOFF
SLEAZE AND CORRUPTION
Chapter Eighteen - Wampumgate
THE CHIPPEWA CASINO
THE LAWSUIT
THE CASE AGAINST BABBITT
THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL
Chapter Nineteen - The Manchurian Candidate
THE LIPPO GROUP
COMPANY MAN JOHN HUANG
CHINA CAT JOHNNY CHUNG AND COSCO
YOU GOT ME
THOMPSON COMMITTEE
LORAL
Chapter Twenty - High Crimes and Misdemeanors
VIRTUE MEANS MORE THAN NOT BEING A FELON
IMPEACHMENT IS THE MOTHER OF ACCOUNTABILITY
MASTERPIECE: THE CONSTITUTION
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS THROUGHOUT HISTORY
AMERICAN RIPPLE: NO KING
THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT JOHNSON: NOT POLICY
THE NEAR IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT NIXON
THE OKIE FROM MUSKOGEE
IMPEACHMENT OF A PRESIDENT FOR OBSTRUCTION OF
JUSTICE
IMPEACHMENT OF A PRESIDENT FOR LYING
IMPEACHMENT OF A PRESIDENT FOR PERSONAL
MISCONDUCT
EYES OF THE WORLD
Notes
Index
Copyright Page

FOR MY PARENTS,
who see virtues in the British system.
The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the Unites States,
shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of,
Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
—United States Constitution, Article II, section 4
Chapter One

Just Do It

Compared to the long hours and amazingly tedious work of practicing law,
political punditry has much to recommend it. In only one respect does practicing
law compare favorably with practicing punditry, but it is an important one. In the
law, there are standards, rules, and precedents that must be adhered to by
everyone—trial judges, opposing counsel, jurors, appellate courts, even, in
theory, the Supreme Court. The first principle of law is that like cases are
supposed to be treated alike.
Political commentary is completely different. Like cases are treated unalike
with such alacrity as to make the head spin. No general principles can ever be
adduced. If a pundit opines that there is no constitutional basis for President Bill
Clinton’s claimed immunity from civil suit, that is assumed to be a political
preference, rather than an attempted interpretation of the law… and half the time
it is. Pundits left and right1 switch sides with barely a blush, depending on whose
president is being gored.
Nevertheless, there are standards and precedents and rules about the conduct
of public men, presidents in particular. It cannot be the case, for example, that
President Richard Nixon “shredded the Constitution” for inquiring about having
the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) audit his political enemies (request declined),
but that President Bill Clinton is an innocent victim of—in his wife’s words—“a
vast right-wing conspiracy” when he succeeds in having the IRS audit his
political enemies. The evidence for either claim may be disputed—to a point—
but the answer to whether politically motivated IRS audits are right or wrong
should not depend on who the president is, or who the enemies are.
There are even standards for evaluating the evidence of such misconduct. And
these standards, too, must be applied evenhandedly if the rule of law is to
survive. It cannot be the case, for instance, that, when a Republican president
stands accused, he is to be held accountable for the actions of his subordinates,
even in the absence of proof that he directly ordered those actions, and that a
Democratic president is assumed to be innocent, no matter what the evidence,
unless we catch him with a smoking gun in his hand. On videotape.
With each new revelation about President Clinton’s apparently corrupt and
sometimes illegal behavior, paid and unpaid Friends of Bill (FOBs) take up the
public relations gauntlet to announce that previously abhorred conduct is now
considered wholly excusable conduct. “In the end the party would announce that
two and two made five, and you would have to believe it…. [T]he logic of their
position demanded it…. The heresy of heresies was common sense.”2 Oceania is
at war with Eastasia. Two plus two makes five. We’re “waiting for the facts to
come out” to decide if President Clinton has lied,3 and Mrs. Clinton is confident
the allegations will “evaporate and disappear if they’re ever given the light of
day.”4
The only coherent epistemology at the moment is that once Clinton is caught
doing it, it’s okay. At this rate, the entire country will soon be molesting interns,
lying under oath, buying witnesses, flashing subordinates, and rifling through
confidential FBI files. The only thing American citizens must never, ever do is
tape a friend—even to expose government corruption. Free John Gotti! And
those Floridians who secretly taped Newt Gingrich go to prison for life.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion; everyone is not entitled to his own
facts. Precedents, like Watergate, are facts. If a president’s “cutting corners or
hoarding dirty little secrets” is enough to impeach him, as Nixon’s attorney
general, Elliot Richardson, said, because “honesty is the best politics,”5 then a
president’s bald-faced lies under oath in a citizen’s constitutional case against
him have to be enough. If it is wrong to talk about pornographic movies to
female subordinates, it is wrong to drop your pants and say “kiss it” to female
subordinates. If the woman’s statement plus one corroborating witness was
enough evidence yesterday, it’s enough evidence today. Although, ultimately,
one might have a preference for one rule or another, at least we should all know
what the rules are.
There are pretty clear rules and standards for what constitutes a “high Crime
and Misdemeanor,” or an impeachable act. Certain types of conduct have been
accepted as valid grounds for impeachment throughout American history, and
under the British constitutional precedents the Founding Fathers had in mind
when they wrote the impeachment clauses of the Constitution. The grounds, and
even more important, the purposes of impeachment, reach back with remarkable
consistency more than six hundred years.