Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton: Wife and witness to a presidential high crime?
By Michael Moriarty
web posted September 5, 2005
We're not talking here about Monica Lewinsky or Paula Jones or any of the other ladies who may have shown up to testify about President William Clinton's sexual abuse of authority. We're not talking about Whitewater. We're not even referring to President Clinton's white lies before a federal grand jury.
We're exposing the treasonous, criminal neglect of a President who refused to ask for Attorney General Janet Reno's resignation after she blatantly perjured herself before the Waco Investigating Committee.
On March 21, 2000, Reno appeared before a Congressional Investigating Committee looking into the 1993 disaster at Waco, Texas. When asked if she had consulted President Clinton for his approval to assault the David Koresh Compound, Reno categorically denied she'd ever done that. She said, in so many words, that she felt bound not to ask his permission. Reno then went on to defend her decision in a rationalization so bizarre that even The New York Times called portions of her testimony "nearly psychotic."
They say all criminals eventually return to the scene of the crime. Some seven or eight years later, President Clinton couldn't help but record, in his autobiography My Life, his meeting with Reno on April 18, 1993. He states on page 498 of his memoir, "On Sunday night, Janet Reno came to the White House to tell me that the FBI wanted to storm the compound. (…) Reno had to approve the assault and wanted my okay first."
During her testimony, President Clinton had to know his Attorney General was committing perjury before a Congressional Investigating Committee. With that knowledge, he was obliged to ask for her resignation.
The woman endowed by Constitutional law to prosecute Americans for perjury had, indeed, committed perjury herself on the highest level. Waco, Texas, on July 21, 1993, involved the provoked death by incineration of 80 American men, women and children.
Not only did the President not ask for her resignation, she was kept as his head of the Justice Department for a second term, during which she helped have an FBI sharpshooter assassin at Ruby Ridge acquitted, a Red Chinese Spy at Los Alamos let off, and Elian Gonzales tossed back into the arms of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro.
The unavoidable witness to all this is now the Senator of New York State – Bill Clinton's wife, Hillary. She is determined to run for the Presidency of the United States. To what extent did Mrs. Clinton know of Reno's perjury?
Will a liberal press ever ask her that question? Or will the Fourth Estate dishonorably neglect its duty to hold all public servants to personal accountability? Over two years is a long time to avoid one's professional obligation.
How Senator Clinton can dance around such a question remains to be seen. Her involvement in the selection of candidates for Attorney General is unknown. However, Ms. Clinton's classmate at Wellesley, Eleanor Acheson, was one of Reno's closest assistants. How could the First Lady remain ignorant of the Attorney General's perjury for over six years?
To watch a presidential appointee lie about the death of 80 men, women and children before Congress and keep silent about it for seven or eight years is a high crime.
The reason for the President calling Janet Reno on her lie that much later may never be known. Could there be a "statute of limitations" on high crimes? I don't know. I'm not even sure if Constitutional scholars would have an easy answer to that. I do know that the last court of America is public opinion and, at the slightest sign of a cover-up by Senator Hillary Clinton, America will hardly want such a President again. They've had Richard Nixon and William Clinton. Do they want another such character in the Oval Office?