From KALLISTE@delphi.comMon Oct 28 16:10:47 1996
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 00:37:41 -0500 (EST)
From: KALLISTE@delphi.com
To: jya@pipeline.com, jqp@globaldialog.com, tenega@aol.com,
jw-rh@ix.netcom.com, bigred@duracef.shout.net, jlavis@communique.net,
liberty@gate.net, vikbob@halcyon.com, rwb@daka.com, cato@cato.org,
akimery@citizen.infi.net, pwatson@utdallas.edu, garb@ix.netcom.com,
maddog6@flex.net, edb@interport.com, wdmann@ix.netcom.com,
germanic@netcom.com, eric@remailer.net, sandfort@crl.com,
loboazul@icsi.net, bdolan@use.usit.net, fathom9@aol.com,
defraud@tpi.net, L.L.Grabbe@theol.hull.ac.uk, JMcCorm215@aol.com,
jdtabor.uncc@uncc.campus.mci.net, zns@interserv.com, tbyfield@panix.com,
drdean@bio.win.net, rpedraza@sierra.net, kalliste@aci.net
Subject: The Starr Indictments II
The Starr Indictments II
by J. Orlin Grabbe
It looks like the mainstream media was right and I
was wrong. Though perhaps not for the reason they think.
I had followed the progress of the Starr probe
carefully and knew when the first (unannounced)
indictment was handed down in Arkansas. I also knew
how angry Starr was at press reports he had "promised"
not to announce anything prior to the November election,
and how eager he was to get the indictment particulars out
into the public domain. I also knew of at least five people
who were indictment targets.
But there were two glitches that affected the
original timing. The first one was good: more walk-in
witnesses. (More accurately, the witnesses were dragged
in.) Their testimony greatly improved the conviction
probability of the charges against Hillary Rodham
Clinton. The second glitch was legal in nature. An
outside review of the indictments as signed by the grand
juries both in Arkansas and New York made important
criticisms of the wording. So the indictments were
rewritten both in Arkansas and New York earlier this
month. The revised indictments had to be re-presented to
the grand juries. But the revised versions had been signed
in both locations by the end of day Friday, October 18.
I anticipated the indictment particulars would be
made public the following week. But no news was
forthcoming. The first intimation I received there might
be a change in plans was when an individual connected to
the Starr investigation observed that the election wasn't
really over until the state electors had cast their votes in
December. This was offered as a simple observation,
without elaboration.
The second indication was when the Fifth Column
said they would not be giving Bob Dole a second
incriminating financial package prior to the election. (The
first package induced Dole to resign from the Senate.)
Explanation: "So as to not be seen as playing politics."
Of course, it wouldn't be playing partisan politics if
Clinton and Dole went out together.
The final indication was the incarceration of
Charles Hayes in Kentucky. Hayes had reminded me
more than once: "Before this is over, it's going to get
rough. Mark my words: It's going to get rough."
I knew how rough it had already become. A silent
war had been in existence for the past two months. A
committee formed under the Emergency Powers Act was
negotiating with Bill Clinton over his resignation, and
Clinton was using his powers as President to fight them
every step of the way. And I knew that this committee,
not Starr, was in charge of the timing of the indictment
announcements. The committee was trying to deal with a
Criminal Presidency, on a neutral bi-partisan basis--but to
keep things silently in the background. Hayes, as a
participant in this fight, had deflected so many attempts
on his life as to seem invulnerable. His incarceration
showed how massive the battle had become.
Of course, it is times like this that give definition
to the term "fair-weather friends". But for the rest, here is
what is important to keep in mind: This is only a
temporary setback. It is not the end of the war.
And battleship-size Roto-rooters have been
prepared both for Bill Clinton and the U.S. Department of
Justice.
October 27, 1996
Web Page: http://www.aci.net/kalliste/