Jeffery Winkler


	I want to preface this by saying that I'm a Democrat. If anything, I am a partisan 
Democrat. However, Bill Clinton more than deserved to become the second president in 
American history to be impeached. Andrew Johnson was impeached in 1868. Richard 
Nixon would have been impeached in 1974 except he resigned first. Bill Clinton was 
impeached on December 19, 1998.
	I'm against all adultery, but this is not about a man who has a single mistress for 
decades that he's deeply in love with, and he's discreet about, like Prince Charles or 
Mitterand. This is the president of the United States having repeated oral sex in the Oval 
Office with a 21 year old unpaid intern. Would you care if your 21 year old daughter was 
an unpaid intern in a company, and you learned that the CEO of the company, who is in 
his 50's and is married, was having repeated oral sex with her in his office? In addition, 
Clinton is a notorious womanizer, sexually harassed Paula Jones, and sexually assaulted 
Kathleen Willey, also in the Oval Office. In 1978, Clinton raped Juanita Broaddrick. I 
should also point out that two congressmen, Dan Crane and Jerry Studs, were formally 
censured for having consensual relationships with young pages. In those cases, no one 
suggested that laws were broken.
	This is not about perjury about a non-material point in a civil suit that was 
dismissed. First of all, it was never ruled immaterial. That is an untrue statement that is 
often repeated. The case was on appeal when Clinton's people pretended it didn't exist, 
and then Clinton paid Paula Jones $850,000, much more than she originally asked. Is that 
what an innocent person would have done? That was an admission of guilt. Today, there 
are people in prison for lying about sex in civil suits. Aside from that, what this is really 
about is that the president has a pattern of behavior of using his influence as president to 
get people to get other people to lie under oath, and paying them off to do it, in order to 
protect himself personally. Clinton had Vernon Jordan get Web Hubble tons of money 
for no work, in exchange for which Hubble would "roll over one more time" to protect 
Clinton. Clinton had Nate Landow tell Linda Tripp to lie about Kathleen Willey. Bruce 
Lindsey tried to get Tripp to lie. Clinton had Vernon Jordan get Monica a job she was not 
qualified for in exchange for Monica lying about her relationship with Clinton under 
oath. Clinton got Monica to try to get Linda Tripp to lie about Kathleen Willey. What's 
important is not any one example but the over arching pattern of behavior of Clinton 
getting people lie under oath for him. The way Clinton does all this through surrogates, 
Betty Currie, Bruce Lindsey, etc., showed how he gets many other people to commit a 
large number of felonies on his behalf. This goes directly to a misuse of presidential 
power because even the vice-president could not effortlessly get Vernon Jordan do stuff 
for him.
	The Clinton spinmeisters continually defend him against perjury about having sex 
with Monica Lewinsky in the Paula Jones deposition, trying to imply that that's the only 
crime he committed. That is a drop of water in the ocean of he's accused of. He 
committed perjury dozens of times in that deposition about dozens of aspects of his 
relationship with Monica, as well as dozens of other things. For instance, he committed 
perjury when he said that he only had sex once with Gennifer Flowers. More serious than 
that is getting Monica to lie under oath. For months, Monica had tried to get people at the 
White House to help get her a job but no one gave her the time of day. When she was 
subpoenaed to testify in the Paula Jones case, the wheels started moving very quickly. 
They tried to get her a job at the United Nations. Vernon Jones, paying staggering interest 
in an intern, got Monica a job. Most important, all of this was timed exactly with her 
signing the affidavit. Is that supposed to be a coincidence?
	People tend to forget that Clinton and his people committed dozens of felonies 
that nobody ever talks about. For instance, Clinton gave Monica gifts, and later had her 
give them back so the Paula Jones people couldn't get a hold of them. That's destroying 
evidence which is a felony. Clinton gave his deposition to the Paula Jones lawyers, and 
immediately afterwards, briefed Betty Currie on everything he said. The White House 
tried to say that he was refreshing his memory. Excuse me, he did this right after he gave 
his testimony. He obviously wanted to make sure her story was in sync with his. That's 
witness tampering, which is another felony. You had this situation before he admitted his 
relationship with Monica Lewinsky. After he admitted it, it can not be described as 
anything other than witness tampering.
	In addition to all of the felonies associated with Zippergate, there are also Clinton 
scandals that have nothing to do with it. There is Filegate in which over 1000 FBI files 
were illegally obtained by the Clinton Whitehouse. In Watergate, a man went to jail for 
obtaining one file. You have Chinagate. The Pentagon told Clinton that national security 
had been breached, and after that Clinton signed the waver allowing more rocket 
launches, because the leader of Laurall was the biggest contributor to the Democratic 
National Committee. That goes directly to national security. In addition, there is the 
campaign finance scandal.
	What's more serious than any group of scandals is the criminal mentality at the 
White House. Dick Morris said the White House controls secret police. They have private 
investigators, paid for with tax payers money, investigating people. They intimidate 
people, and blackmail women to keep quiet. See how in Travelgate, how they sicked the 
IRS on that guy, Billy Dale? That may not be important in itself, but it provides a window 
into how the Clinton administration regularly operates on a daily basis. People involved 
in Filegate said that they got the files specifically for Clinton. However even if you 
assume that Clinton had nothing to do with it, it begs the question as to how these guys 
were able to so casually and easily get a hold of 1000 FBI files, how they were able to 
continue to do this over a years time, who hired these guys and why, and why were they 
so comfortable committed such outrageous felonies under everyone's nose in the White 
House. The White House illegally released Linda Tripp's personal files. All of this may 
not be important in and of themselves but all together paint a frightening portrait of how 
this White House operates.
	People trivialize this, saying you would bring down a president over a sex 
scandal. You could trivialize Watergate in the same way. You could say that it was just a 
third rate burglary by these clowns, and Nixon didn't know anything about it. You 
wouldn't expect that to cause a president to resign. Any one aspect of Watergate sounds 
trivial, stealing psychiatric records, etc. However Watergate wasn't about any one thing. 
It was about finding out how Nixon conducts himself as president. It was about finding 
out the sort of man he is. Do you want someone like that to be president? The Clinton 
scandals are not about any one thing. It's about finding out how he conducts himself as 
president. It's about finding out what sort of man he is. Do you want someone like that to 
be president? There were people out to get Nixon before Watergate. Does that imply that 
Nixon was innocent?
	At one point, Clinton spinmeisters tried to imply that Monica wrote the talking 
points all by herself. That is the intellectual equivalent of saying that Vince Foster was 
murdered. Anyone who would suggest that's possible, has not read the talking points. 
They contain legalistic and White House jargon. Someone who had input into them had 
comprehensive knowledge of the Paula Jones case and Clinton's legal risks. It sounds like 
a lawyer told Monica what to say, and she wrote it down. The talking points refer to 
Monica without using her name, or using the pronoun "I", but an unspecified person 
stalking the president. Does that sound like Monica talking? At one point in the talking 
points, Monica tells Tripp to say, that she, Monica, was "stalking" the president. Monica 
wouldn't say that if it were in her best interest. It would definitely not be in her best 
interest. Someone would have to get her to say that. It would have to be someone who 
had great influence over her. It would have to be someone in who's interest it would be. 
To me, it's obvious that someone at the White House suggested this to Monica. Some of 
the language in the talking points in similar to that used else where by Clinton's friend 
Bruce Lindsey. Although Clinton supporters hate to do this, just step back and think for a 
second. The talking points were a culmination of Monica harassing Linda Tripp for 
months, trying to get her to lie about the Willey incident. Why would Monica Lewinsky, 
all by herself, be absolutely obsessed with trying to get Linda Tripp to lie about Clinton 
sexually assaulting Kathleen Willey? Why would she care about that?
	I want to get back to the initial points. Let's say it came out that Dwight 
Eisenhower was having repeated oral sex with a 21 year old unpaid intern while 
physically inside of the Oval Office. Let's say most people believed he did do this. Would 
people at that time say that the economy is good, he's a nice guy, so we shouldn't care 
about that? If it had come out that George Bush was having repeated oral sex with a 21 
year old unpaid intern while physically inside the Oval Office, would people say, "How 
dare you care about that! How dare you care about his private life!" You forget that when 
the Monica Lewinsky story first broke, people reacted with the horror you would 
normally expect. Non-partisan people assumed that he would have to resign immediately. 
Sam Donaldson said that he'd be out in a week. Tim Russert furrowed his brow, and said, 
"This is very serious!" Mark Shields predicted that Democrats on the Hill would support 
impeachment so they could have an incumbent Gore, while Republicans would oppose it 
so keep a hobbled disgraced Clinton in office. It wasn't just the talking heads that reacted 
that way. According to the polls, the majority of people said that if the relationship was 
true, he should resign immediately, even if he didn't break a single law, but that it was so 
horrible, it couldn't be true. I vividly remember a Clinton spinner on TV, bragging that 
only a third of Americans wanted him to resign immediately even if he didn't break a 
single law. I thought, "My God! A full third of Americans want him to resign 
immediately!"
	Clinton refers to his relationship with Monica as his "private life". It is not private 
because he's doing it with an intern in the Oval Office, and then he lied about it, both 
under oath, and on TV to the American people. I'm against all adultery, but this is not 
normal adultery. This is the president of the United States having repeated oral sex with a 
21 year old intern while physically inside of the Oval Office. If a CEO of a company did 
this with an intern, he'd be fired immediately. If a college teacher did it with a student, 
he'd be fired immediately. Clinton took advantage of a young girl who had a crush on 
him. Monica was slightly older than Chelsea. How would Clinton react if he learned that 
one of Chelsea's teachers was having repeated oral sex with her in his office? According 
to federal guidelines, federal employees are not allowed to have consensual sexual 
relations with other federal employees under them in the hierarchy. Violations are cause 
for dismissal. The reason is because if a woman's boss makes a pass at her, how easily 
can she say no? Why should we have a lower standard for the president than anyone else? 
Let's not forget that we're not talking about normal sex but gross disgusting perverted 
acts. The only presidents this century for whom it's possible to imagine them having ever 
had oral sex ever in their entire lives is Kennedy, Johnson, and Clinton. NBC said that 
Clinton and Monica engaged in "unusual sexual practices". FOX news said that they 
engaged in "activities that most Americans would describe as unusual". Newsweek said 
that when people learn of what Clinton and Monica actually did, "they'll want to throw 
up". According to Monica's testimony, this happened not only in the small room adjacent 
to the Oval Office but the actual Oval Office itself. The Oval Office is a sacred location, 
like Mount Rushmore. the Liberty Bell, the Washington Monument, the Jefferson 
Memorial, etc. Why did Clinton have to do it there? Couldn't he go up to the living 
quarters? This is the first time sex of any type has taken place in the Oval Office. Also, 
this was taking place in the work place. I almost get the impression that people would be 
more shocked and offended if he was having oral sex with Hillary in the Oval Office. If 
Clinton was telling racist jokes in private, would people say, "How dare you care about 
that, that's his private life." Also, don't forget that Clinton's sexual misconduct includes 
nonconsensual behavior such as Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, and Juanita Broaddrick.
	Clinton's supposed mea culpa on Aug. 17 was so weak. He admitted to only that 
the relationship was "not appropriate", which could mean he spent to much time with her, 
or was to good of friends with her. He said that in the deposition, his answers were 
"legally accurate". He said in that deposition that he couldn't remember being alone with 
her, never gave her gifts, and never had an affair with her. He said that her affidavit was 
accurate. Is he standing by that? He said that he "misled people" and "gave a false 
impression". That is an understatement. He committed perjury, and then wagged his 
finger and told a bold faced out right lie to the American people. He dismissed his 
actions as a "lapse in judgment", implying that for a fraction of a second, he had an 
uncharacteristic lapse in judgment. In reality, that is his normal self. He should try to 
change his real self. Another remarkable piece of arrogance was that shortly after he gave 
his little mea culpa, he compared himself to Nelson Mandela. A similar irrational 
statement was when right after Clinton became the second president to be impeached, Al 
Gore said that Bill Clinton will go down in history as one of the greatest presidents in 
history. Shortly after he was impeached, he was asked how he felt about it, and he said, 
"not bad". Later during his Senate trial, he said it was "the greatest day of his life". Earlier 
Clinton said that he would have "the most ethical administration in history".
	Betty Currie racked up $100,000 worth of legal bills solely because Clinton stuck 
to a lie for seven months. Is that fair to her? Was it fair to Paula Jones for Clinton to lie in 
her case? Was it fair to the other interns that Monica was getting special treatment, high 
level people getting a job for her, etc? Was it fair to Pam Parson that she literally went to 
prison for lying about sex in a civil suit while Clinton did the exact same thing in 
addition to a large number of much worse crimes, and not only didn't go to jail, but 
wasn't even removed from the presidency? Was it fair for the Clinton Justice Department 
to prosecute Barbara Battalino for lying about sex in a civil suit?
	I've never understood anyone criticizing Linda Tripp. Monica was trying to get 
her to lie under oath which is a felony. She was trying to get Tripp to commit a felony. If 
she went public, they would just deny it. What would you do if you were in that 
situation? You would want to record the felony taking place so they couldn't deny it. It 
was exactly the same as the guy who taped the Rodney King beating. Nobody says that 
guy was evil because he was taping the officers beating Rodney King without their 
knowledge. Yet that's essentially what some people say about Linda Tripp. People say it 
was all right to tape the Rodney King beating because it was evidence of a crime. You 
have the same situation with Linda Tripp.
	People say it would be to traumatic to remove the president. It would be more 
traumatic to not remove the president. If Clinton isn't impeached, you'll have a guilty 
person unpunished. It will be exactly the same as when O. J. walked out of the courtroom 
with a big smile on his face. Just ask yourself these questions. Why did Monica lie on the 
affidavit? Why did Vernon Jordan get her a job? Why were those two things timed 
exactly? Why did they try to get her a job at the U. N.? Why did Monica give the gifts 
back? Why was Monica trying to get Linda Tripp to lie about the Kathleen Willey 
incident? Why did Web Hubbell get a ton of money for no work? Why did his wife say 
she was getting "the squeeze play" from the White House? Why did Betty Currie retrieve 
gifts that were subpoenaed? How did Hillary's billing records, which were subpoenaed, 
suddenly appear on a table in the living quarters of the White House after they had been 
missing? Why did Clinton go over his perjured testimony with Betty Currie before she 
testified? Remember that Nixon was elected twice, and you could trivialize Watergate in 
the same way, it was just a third rate burglary, etc. Right now, Clinton's personal 
approval rating is only 40%. Only about 20% of people say they trust or respect him.
	In 1974, Clinton said, "No question that an admission of making false statements 
to government officials is an impeachable offense". If a normal person did what Clinton 
did, they'd be in jail. Yet with Clinton, people say even if he did all that, not only should 
you not put him in jail, you should even remove him as president. Simply not being 
president is a much milder punishment than going to jail. Therefore the amount of 
evidence that would trigger than much milder punishment should be much less. It should 
be much easier to get a very mild punishment, simply not being president, than to get a 
much more severe punishment, going to jail. Yet some Clinton supporters act like it 
should be more difficult to get the milder punishment. Remember that having a sexual 
relationship with Monica is less than a millionth of one percent everything immoral or 
illegal that Clinton has done, and that all by itself would get anyone else fired. Also, I get 
the impression that a lot of people haven't read the Constitution. They act like 
impeachment means he'd be removed from office. Impeachment is nothing more than 
deciding that you will later decide whether or not to remove him. If you impeach him, 
then after that, you'll decide whether or not to remove him. Therefore I don't consider 
mere impeachment to be to radical of an idea.
	Bill Clinton only admitted the sexual relationship when DNA tests came back 
positive. Before they knew about the dress, he planned to destroy Monica, saying she was 
a stalker. When he coached Betty Currie, he said, "She came on to me, right?" Bill 
Clinton in not contrite. Bill Clinton is the only president to have committed perjury in 
front of a federal grand jury while in office, and he did this immediately after all his 
friends and supporters pleaded for him not to. Clinton got Monica to commit perjury. He 
got Monica a job in exchange for lying under oath. He got Monica and Betty Currie to 
hide the gifts. The cell phone records prove that it was Betty who called Monica. He 
coached Betty Currie, a good woman, to lie under oath, saying, "We were never alone, 
right? She came onto me, right?". You have the pattern of behavior of both Monica and 
Web Hubbell being bribed to lie. Bribery is one of the few things mentioned explicitly in 
the Constitution as grounds for impeachment. He sexually assaulted Kathleen Willey, and 
then intimidated her to keep quiet. A large number of women, Dolly Kyle Browning, etc., 
were intimidated and threatened into silence. Why was Monica trying to get Tripp to lie 
about the Kathleen Willey incident? Aside from all that, I believe that the original sexual 
misconduct all by itself would be impeachable. Bill Clinton had a very young girl 
working for him suck his penis in the Oval Office while he was simultaneously on the 
phone to Congressmen discussing sending U.S. troops into harm's way in Bosnia. How 
would you feel if you learned this, and you were an American soldier in Bosnia, and you 
yourself could be court marshaled for mere adultery all by itself. Not only that, but you 
could actually be court marshaled for nothing more than verbally criticizing Clinton for 
anything he's done. Keep in mind that Nixon was going to be impeached for the actions 
of his subordinates. There is more than enough to impeach Clinton. Most people know 
nothing about the scandal, so the polls shouldn't prevent Congress from fulfilling their 
constitutional duty. I say this as a loyal Democrat.
	There are very telling things that have been glossed over. Matt Drudge showed a 
videotape that had been filmed at the White House in which Clinton jogs with a bunch of 
teenagers, and then signs autographs in the Oval Office. Afterwards, Clinton goes into 
the infamous hallway with one girl. There is zero doubt in my mind that he was engaging 
in lewd acts with that other girl. What is on the tape is absolutely identical with what 
Monica described he did with her. With both Monica and the other girl we see on tape, 
Clinton is with a bunch of young people, such as when Monica was at the pizza party. 
Then everyone leaves except Clinton and one girl. Clinton says to the girl, "You can 
leave this way", and points to the hallway, even though it is not a way out. Then they both 
go in, and Clinton props the door slightly open so he can hear if anyone is coming. The 
girl on the tapes flirts with Clinton, shaking her breasts at him, in way similar to how 
Monica did. Clinton asks, "When's my next appointment", just as they were going in the 
infamous hallway. Clinton tells the girl, "There are towels in here", even though they 
already had towels in the Oval Office. The similarity with Monica is so striking. The girl 
even looks like Monica. The girl on the tape never heard of Monica since it happened 
earlier. Monica never heard of this other girl since the tape was released after she gave 
her grand jury testimony. Ken Starr's report was released, containing an account of 
Monica's relationship with Clinton. Drudge thought it was similar to the tape, and played 
the tape. After he played the tape, Monica's grand jury testimony was released, and it 
turned out that what Clinton did with the other girl was far more similar to what he did 
with Monica than Drudge could have imagined when he played the tape. The main 
difference seems to be that this girl was much younger than even Monica, probably about 
16 years old. During the Rodney King beating, L. A. police chief Darrell Gates claimed 
that the only time L. A. cops beat up a black man, there just happened to be a guy there 
with a videocamera. What is the likelihood of that? What is the likelihood that Bill 
Clinton did lewd acts in the Oval Office with only two young girls, one of which just 
happened to be secretly taped by a friend of hers while talking about it, and the other was 
videotaped going into the hallway alone with Bill Clinton? What is the likelihood of that?
	In many ways, the Clinton scandal was similar to the O. J. trial. Both involved 
overwhelming evidence that previously popular people did horrible things. For seven 
months, Clinton's minions said that Clinton did not have a sexual relationship with 
Monica Lewinsky, which sounded as ridiculous as saying that O. J. Simpson was 
innocent. Both of their supporters acted like the accused's denials proved their innocence. 
When Monica lived in Washington, she lived at the Watergate Hotel, which gave its 
name to the last potential impeachment of a president, literally right next door to Bob 
Dole. When she was at home in L. A., she lived near O. J. Simpson, and Bob Dole's 
running mate used to shower with O. J. Simpson. Both Clinton and O. J. are notorious 
womanizers, have taken drugs, are/were married to enablers, are surrounded by 
obsequious sycophants, and are painfully arrogant without trace of remorse. Both were 
proven guilty by DNA tests. Both are popular with blacks. Both were acquitted by juries 
who knew they were guilty. O. J. was accused of having raped Nicole, so both Clinton 
and O. J. may be rapists. O. J.'s lawyer Alan Dershowitz said that the people against 
Clinton were "pure evil".
	The main difference is that O. J. killed two people. That's a big difference 
because O. J. only murdered two innocent people whereas Clinton murdered several 
hundred innocent people. Right wing crazies love to accuse Clinton of murdering his best 
friend Vince Foster, which is as off the wall as claiming that a UFO crashed at Roswell. 
Unfortunately, both Fiske and Starr had to waste time disproving it. The irony is Bill 
Clinton really did murder innocent people, not one or two but several hundred. When 
Monica Lewinsky gave her grand jury testimony, Clinton decided to knock it off as the 
lead story by firing missiles into Sudan and Afghanistan. Clinton made up a fake story 
that he was firing missiles into Sudan to destroy a chemical weapons plant. This was 
proven false. There wasn't a shred of evidence that chemical weapons had ever been 
produced at the plant, and Clinton knew it. He fired missiles into Afghanistan ostensibly 
to kill a bunch of terrorists gathering for symposium. This was also proven false. No such 
meeting took place, and Clinton knew it. He also claimed to fire missiles into 
Afghanistan to destroy a base run by terrorist Osama Bin Laden. However, this base was 
composed of many small building covering a large area, against which missiles would be 
ineffective. The wealthy Osama Bin laden could easily rebuild the buildings, and hire 
people to replace those killed. The real reason Clinton did this was to get Monica's grand 
jury appearance off the front pages. This conveniently overlooks the fact that about a 
hundred people were killed in these two missile attacks.
	Unfortunately, this was only a mere precursor to what was to come. The vote for 
impeachment on the floor of the House was scheduled for Dec. 17. Clinton knew that on 
that date he would become the second president in history to be impeached. He was 
desperate to prevent it or delay it. He was so desperate, he was dangerous. The day before 
he shocked the world by suddenly launching a massive military attack, without the 
slightest provocation, against America's favorite enemy, Iraq. The supposed rationale was 
that Saddam Hussein wasn't cooperating with U. N. inspectors. However, he never had in 
the past, so why would that suddenly cause an American attack at this time? Several 
times previously, people advocating attacking Iraq, and Clinton was always reluctant to 
do so. Then all of a sudden, Clinton launches a massive attack even though Saddam was 
more cooperative at that instant than he had been many times previously when Clinton 
did nothing. Why would Clinton suddenly start a war with Iraq on the day before he was 
going to be impeached instead of a few months earlier, a few weeks earlier, a few days 
earlier, or a few days later? The obvious answer is that was the day before he was going 
to be impeached. Clinton's toadies actually claimed that it was a sheer coincidence that 
he attacked everyone's favorite enemy the day before he would be impeached. He hoped 
he look presidential, get everyone to rally around the flag and himself, and maybe change 
some congressmen's minds about impeachment. If not nothing else, it would delay 
impeachment because for some reason you couldn't spoil everyone exuberant jingoistic 
glee at slaughtering innocent people with something unpleasant like impeachment. Of 
course, the rain of American missiles on Iraq did nothing to harm Saddam Hussein in the 
slightest. He doesn't care if we kill his people. He kills his own people so why would he 
feel bad about that. If anything, our attacks strengthen him since he can paint himself as a 
victim, and us as the villain. However, the crucial point is that when Clinton attacked 
Iraq, he killed several hundred innocent Iraqis. These are completely innocent people 
who oppose Saddam Hussein. Clinton knew they'd be killed, and their deaths would 
probably help Saddam. He chose to do it anyway, thinking it would be so popular, it 
might save him from impeachment. Bill Clinton deliberately murdered several hundred 
completely innocent people, including children, in the vain futile hope that it might 
prevent his impeachment. George Bush killed at least 100,000 Iraqis so Americans 
wouldn't have to pay so much for gasoline, and to restore one of the only absolute 
monarchies on the planet. Even though Clinton killed fewer innocent people than George 
Bush, not a strong statement, in some ways I think it's actually even worse because his 
reason for doing it had a personal selfish quality that George Bush's did not. Also once 
Clinton quoted a president character from a movie, I think played by Michael Douglas, 
talking about innocent people being killed when the president takes military action, so 
Clinton was very much aware of what he was doing. He's probably contemplated this 
more than Bush did which makes his actions worse. It's like when he allowed a mentally 
retarded man to be executed in Arkansas during the 1992 campaign, or when he vetoed 
the partial birth abortion ban. He's not against taking human life under questionable 
circumstances as long as it might benefit him politically.
	With the campaign finance scandal, they would lead infamous Chinese thugs into 
the Oval Office, such as a notorious Chinese arms dealer, and the daughter of a high 
ranking Chinese general, and tell Clinton that these are big contributors to the 
Democratic Party. Clinton knows it's illegal to accept campaign contributions from 
foreigners. How does he dance out of that? It would be equally illegal to accept 
contributions from British people, but there's something worse about being bought by a 
tyrannical regime such as China. We have Clinton on tape talking about using soft money 
as a loophole. Clinton acted like that was just something going on at the DNC, but he was 
involved in every aspect, from raising the money to writing the campaign ads. 
Unfortunately, Clinton's involvement with China is much deeper than that. Clinton 
signed a waiver to allow Laurall to launch Chinese satellites. In the process, Laurall gave 
secret U. S. missile technology to China. The Pentagon told Clinton that national security 
had been compromised. Secretary of state, Warren Christopher told Clinton not to sign 
another waiver. Despite that, Clinton went ahead and signed another waiver for Laurall. 
Why did he do this? It just so happens that the leader of Laurall had contributed one 
million dollars to the DNC. It is terrifyingly easy to conclude that Clinton was allowing 
U. S. military secrets to be given to the tyrannical Chinese regime in exchange for 
money. This could easily be construed as treason which another one of the few things 
explicitly mentioned in the Constitution as grounds for impeachment. Also, the Chinese 
have given weapons technology to Pakistan triggering a new nuclear arms race on the 
Indian subcontinent.
	What blows my mind away is the way the Clinton spinmeisters use the fact that 
he's a sexual predator as some sort of defense. He sexually assaulted Kathleen Willey in 
the Oval Office. Not only that, he chose to do it when she was at her most vulnerable, 
when she was pleading for a job, as opposed to some other time. Why did he choose that 
instant as opposed to either earlier or later? He goes after women that he has power over. 
Paula Jones was a state employee, he was governor, and he reminded her that he knew 
her boss. Monica was a lowly young intern, and he was president. He meticulously 
cultivated a crush within Monica for him so she would do lewd acts with him. He did 
these gross acts with her the very first time he met her, and she wasn't even sure he knew 
her name. The only difference between Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky is that Monica 
agreed and Paula did not. With Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones, and Kathleen Willey, it 
took place in the work place on the job. Anyone else doing these things in their office, on 
the job, with a subordinate or someone seeking a job, would be fired. Anyone else in any 
other job who did nothing more than oral sex with a subordinate in their office, on the 
job, would be fired instantly, even if no one accused them of breaking the law, and even 
if they weren't married. Before Clinton, no one would have ever suggested that they 
shouldn't be fired instantly. Also, don't forget that the Clinton Justice Department chose 
to prosecute Barbara Battalino for nothing more than perjury about consensual sex in a 
civil suit that was dismissed. Compare that to the vast conspiracy of obstruction of justice 
that Clinton engaged in, with perjury in front of a grand jury, getting Monica a job in 
exchange for lying, coaching his secretary, hiding the gifts, etc. Judges have been 
impeached and removed for nothing more than perjury. 
	Somebody killed Kathleen Willey's cat, slashed her tires, and then threatened her 
to keep quiet about when Clinton sexually assaulted her in the Oval Office. Clinton had 
consensual relationships with Gennifer Flowers and Dolly Kyle Browning, and then he 
set out to destroy them when they went public. Dolly didn't even want to go public, but 
Clinton's people were under the mistaken impression that she might, so her own brother, 
who was a Clinton supporter, told her, "We will destroy you!" Clinton had a consensual 
relationship with former Miss America, Elizabeth Ward Gracen. Later, people threatened 
her to keep quiet. Former Miss Arkansas, Sally Perdue also had a sexual relationship with 
Clinton. Later, Clinton's thugs tried to both bribe and threaten her to keep quiet. They 
threatened to break her legs. A flight attendant named Christine Zercher says he fondled 
her breasts against her will. Clinton, without warning, showed his penis to Paula Jones, 
and told her to "kiss it".
	There is strong evidence that Clinton actually raped a woman. In 1978, he 
brutally violently brutally raped Juanita Broaddrick, who was working on his campaign 
for governor. Immediately after it happened, she told four people that Clinton had raped 
her. Norma Rogers found her lying on the bed sobbing, her lip bleeding from where 
Clinton had bit her. Norma treated the injures she suffered in the attack. How ardent 
feminists can so enthusiastically support the only rapist to be president is beyond my 
comprehension. These are the same people who previously said that a consensual sexual 
relationship between a high level and low level employee constituted sexual harassment. 
Clinton's strongest supporters are feminists who were appalled that Clarence Thomas was 
allowed to be on the Supreme Court when he was never accused of doing anything more 
than making lewd comments. They marched on Washington, and said that Clarence 
Thomas was unfit to be on the Supreme Court because he had told dirty jokes in the 
workplace a decade earlier. The blind devotion that feminists and other liberals have for 
Bill Clinton is beyond anything I've ever witnessed. Alec Baldwin said that Ken Starr and 
his family should be dragged out into the street and stoned to death.
	Clinton had zero emotional feeling for any of these women at any time, using 
them only to satisfy his lust. He is more than willing to denigrate any destroy any woman 
than goes public. When the Monica story first broke, he said that she was stalker who 
threatened to falsely accuse him of having sex with her. He often selects women who are 
young, vulnerable, or that he has economic power over. He is more than willing to force 
himself on women against their will. Nobody ever accused any former president, 
Kennedy, Johnson, or Harding of any such thing. No current member of Congress has 
ever been accused of anything like this. In 1988, Clinton told Dolly Kyle Browning that 
he suffers from a sex addiction. I actually think that he suffers from some sort of 
psychological problem. If a Republican president did anything like this, or even just did 
lewd acts with a young intern in the Oval Office, the feminists would be demanding that 
he be put in a straight jacket in a prison for the criminally insane, for sex offenders. 
However, in this case, the feminists and all of the Clinton spinmeisters use the sexual 
nature of the underlying facts of the impeachment, as some sort of defense against the 
serious crimes of perjury, suborning perjury, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, 
hiding evidence, and abuse of power, the facts of which they do not actually dispute. It's 
like it's all right to commit dozens of serious felonies if and only if you are also a sexual 
predator and sex offender, otherwise it would not be all right.