|
| LETTERS |
|
Impeachment at Hand President Clinton has, with much personal strength and courage, led this country to prosperity while enduring years of insidious legal attack and relentless, vicious personal attack designed to humiliate and degrade him. If Jerry Falwell and Richard Mellon Scaife disapprove of the results of the next presidential election, will the next president have to go through this again? William C. Edwards Jr. (North Carolina) It comes as no surprise that the House Judiciary Committee voted for articles of impeachment. This entire debacle has been characterized by an "independent" counsel with ties to right-wing groups, prosecutorial leaks, tabloid journalism, specious evidence, and overt partisanship. Clinton's consensual sexual infidelity and subsequent evasion hardly rises to the constitutional crisis regarding the subversion of democracy implicit in the Watergate crimes. The American constituents have expressed their willingness to forgive Clinton's trangressions, their distaste for impeachment, and their strong desire to see the entire sordid investigation and hearings resolved in a timely manner which allows the executive and legislative branches to resume focusing on issues that are important to the citizens of this country. Republican congressional representatives ignore the will of the people at their own peril, and the retrospective eye of history will view these reprehensible proceedings as a lamentable travesty of justice. Christopher Jon Largen (Denton, TX) Ever day a friend sends me a copy of the e-mail "Censure and Move On" petition [Ed: http://www.moveon.org] asking me to contact my representative in Congress to vote for censure, not impeachment. I can't do that. My representative is Frank Riggs, who didn't run for reelection and is taking a job with a Washington D.C. think tank. Riggs returned to Northern California last week and announced that he was casting his final vote in Congress for impeachment. Riggs has made it very clear that he doesn't care what his (ex) constituents feel, and we can't tell him because his D.C. office is closed. So, as the House of Representatives prepares to cast one of the most important votes in our nation's history, we have no representation whatsoever. Thanks, Frank, for finally showing us what you think of democracy. Jim Tunney (Santa Rosa, CA) Like many ordinary Americans, I reserved my judgement of President Clinton until I read the Starr report. I needn't have waited. The report confirms my suspicion that the President's actions were unwise, but hardly criminal or treasonous. The American people have rightfully expressed their outrage at Mr Starr's sleazy and expensive production: they understand that the President's personal life is his own business, not theirs, Mr Starr's, or the government's. Yes, he lied. That's what people who have affairs do. The President's behavior differs from that of Dan Burton, John Kennedy, Franklin D Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, and no doubt thousands of other elected officials, only in that he was asked a question and they weren't. But who gave anyone the right to ask Mr Clinton the question that compelled his lie? What public interest is served by this sort of entrapment? Pundits seem surprised that Mr Clinton's approval rating remains high, even after the release of the Starr report. They shouldn't. Americans elected Mr Clinton to take care of our nation's business, which he has done. We live in a democracy, not a theocracy, and Americans tolerate human failings as long as the public interest is not compromised. Let's stop the posturing and get on with life. Patrick Campbell (Glen Ellen, CA) A right wing cue is underway in America to overthrow a democratically elected government. A select few Republican congressional representatives are holding our country hostage to foster their fundamentalist view of morality at the cost of serious issues such as education, health care, reducing military spending, keeping our economy healthy etc etc. If we do not act now and excercise our rights as citizens to express our views and opposition to this evil waste of tax payer money and time we may move one step closer to losing our power as free citizens to democratically elect our leaders. Josh Beggs I believe that the billions of dollars that foreign investors have invested in U.S. Stock markets will be pulled out in waves of panic selling if the President is impeached. Foreigners do not understand the technicalities ( that the Senate will not ultimately vote to "convict" in a trial). To them the nation that they thought was the bedrock of the global economy will look like a shaky banana republic. If the House votes next Thursday to impeach, look for the Dow to fall 3000 or more points on Friday. I'm calling my Congressman to beg him to vote against impeachment to save my retirement nest egg. C. Murray (Encino, California ) The Fight For Headwaters Forest I am shocked that the local sheriff thinks he can get away with charging the other activists with this death. Clearly, the logger is at fault here. One would hope that a state or federal investigative agency will take charge of the situation. Tim Barchak (Jefferson City, Missouri) [Your profile of Julia "Butterfly" Hill] is such a grand article. I am so grateful that you took the time to put it on the Internet. It is complete and informative, and we really appreciate all that you are doing to get the truth out to your reading audience. Kat Bradley (Butterfly's mom) D.A. Sends Bear Lincoln Case to Lungren Open Letter to Dan Lungren, Attorney General I understand that outgoing Mendocino County District Attorney Susan Massini has passed the Eugene "Bear" Lincoln file on to your office for possible prosecution. Her stated reason for doing so is that her successful opponent (Norman Vroman) in the November election for District Attorney, made "unqualified campaign promises" to not retry Mr. Lincoln. I believe that Ms. Massini's allegation is false; what I personally heard Mr. Vroman say during campaign appearances was that he would review the case file and decide whether to go ahead with a retrial. As one of the jurors in this case, I am writing to request that you do not waste further time or money prosecuting Mr. Lincoln. Ms. Massini's request to you is motivated by County politics, not by the facts of the case. In fact, it would be contrary to the interest of justice to retry Mr. Lincoln. Nine of the twelve jurors in the case, including myself, sent letters to Ms. Massini in November 1997 urging her to not waste any more time or money prosecuting a case in which there is no evidence for the charges. The jury unanimously acquitted Mr. Lincoln of all murder and attempted murder charges, and voted 10-2 to acquit Mr. Lincoln of the manslaughter charges. In addition to the lack of evidence, the prime prosecution witness changed his story several times and was caught in falsehoods on the witness stand; his final version of the events of the evening do not even match the physical evidence that exists in the case. Another law enforcement prosecution witness was also caught lying during his testimony. Other testimony describing the collection of evidence at the scene showed that process to be slipshod, careless, and woefully lacking in thoroughness and professionalism. Our jury proved that our justice system works -- a defendant is indeed innocent until proven guilty. Ms. Massini's request to you is purely political; continued prosecution will be a further waste of time and money in this matter. Jane Dymond Nuxalk RebornI just want to comment on the article written Korey Capozza was very well done and displayed an in-depth understanding to all sides of the situation on King Island. Having visisted this region myself, I understand how complex the situation is and hope you continue to support writers such as Ms. Capozza. Lauretta, University of Alberta
Albion Monitor December 26, 1998 (http://www.monitor.net/monitor)
All Rights Reserved.
Contact rights@monitor.net for permission to use in any format.
|