Newt's Impeachment Plot Against Clinton Still Unfolding / Gingrich NOT Gone, Just Biding His Time
SATIRICUS
N E W T G I N G R I C H ' S I M P E A C H M E N T P L O
T
A G A I N S T C L I N T O N C O M I N G T O F R U I T I O
N
Is Ole Newt old news?
Not hardly! Newt Gingrich is still very much alive and well and apparently
still plotting. Just because he resigned from the Speakership of the House of
Representatives does NOT mean Newt is out of there. No indeed, some very
telling indications of late suggest that Newt is re-positioning himself to
re-enter the political arena.
How?
First of all, Newt Gingrich has not officially resigned from Congress yet.
Second, Gingrich has decided not to serve in his Speaker role during the House
impeachment vote on President Clinton. And *that's* a very telling thing
indeed. For you see, soon-to-be ex-House Speaker Newt Gingrich has no moral
authority to sit in judgment of Bill Clinton.
"I did not have sexual relations with those women."
--- House Speaker Newt Gingrichto Vanity Fair
magazine in reply to charges in 1995 that he
had solicited and received*oral sex* from a half-dozen
former female campaign staffers of his
"We had oral sex. He prefers that modus operandi because
then he can say, 'I never slept with her.'"
--- Anne Manning, one of a half-dozen former Gingrich
campaign workers, talking about Newt's oral sexcapades
in a 1995 Vanity Fair magazine interview
Moreover, *Newt Gingrich* was the FIRST Congressman to deny having had
"sexual relations" with a half-dozen former female campaign staffers who said
they had performed oral sex on him at HIS solicitation and that he himself "did
not consider oral sex to consitute adultry or sexual relations."
So, I guess that puts Newt on par with Clinton in no uncertain terms, EXCEPT
that Gingrich's 1995 definition of "sexual relations" was actually BROADER in
scope and definition than that of Clinton who was responding to the technical
specificity of the legal term "sexual relations" as designated by the judge in
the Paula Jones case (which did not include oral sex.)
[No, Clinton said he hadn't had *sexual relations* with Paula Jones. Clinton
responded to the technical specificity of the legal term "sexual relations" as
designated by the judge in the Paula Jones case. Notably, Paula Jones' lawyers
had no objections to this.]
> From the current Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary:
SEXUAL RELATIONS (noun plural) First appeared 1950: COITUS (physical union
of male and female genitalia accompanied by rhythmic movements usu. leading to
the ejaculation of semen from the penis into the female reproductive tract;
also: INTERCOURSE)
It was Newt Gingrich who led the Republicans to make the Clinton/Lewinsky
scandal the focus of the GOP's Election Day strategy. It was Newt Gingrich who
was "ousted" after the strategy led to Republicans' losing seats in Congress.
But, *IF* Clinton is indeed impeached, don't look for Gingrich to leave
Congress. No, if either the House or indeed Congress impeaches Clinton, then
Newt Gingrich can claim not only vindication and martyr status since he himself
led the Republicans in the "Impeach Clinton" drive but also he can justify NOT
leaving Congress.
In the November issue of Rolling Stone magazine, it's mentioned in the story
on Gingrich ("The Stench at the Other End of Pennsylvania Avenue") which was
published *BEFORE* the November elections that Louisiana Rep. Bob Livingston
felt that he ALREADY had the Speakership job in the bag. Back last spring,
Gingrich had dissuaded Livingston from retiring from Congress with the promise
of passing on to him the political plum of the House Speakership job. (Racist
Republican David Duke was planning to run for Congress if Livingston retired.)
Indeed, in the Rolling Stone article, Newt had told GOP insiders that he
expected to be leaving the Speakership in the fall of '99, apparently to run
for President.
On Friday, August 14 of this year, an anonymous source calling himself
"Peach Pit" using electronic distortion to disguise his voice disclosed on a
Pennsylvania AM talk radio show that Newt Gingrich had not only revived his
original impeachment plot against both Clinton and Gore but also was about to
launch it. In the days after Peach Pit's revelations, events did indeed
transpired *just as he said they would.*
Evidently, the anonymous "Peach Pit" has connections to, if he's not a
member of, Newt Gingrich's inner circle of confidants, a number of whom have
ratted on Newt before. More significantly, the "Deep Throat"-like nickname that
the anonymous source has adopted, "Peach Pit," is ironic enough because peaches
are the state fruit of Georgia from whence Newt Gingrich hails from. "Peach" is
also the middle syllable of the word "impeachment."
There's another possible interpretation behind the name "Peach Pit." By his
choice of Georgia's state fruit, the nickname might also be a slyly
self-effacing nickname that a gay Republican from Georgia might adopt. The
"Pit" part of the name suggests one who is at the core or maelstrom of events.
Or, the nickname could be a monicker with a built-in joke. After all, where do
you usually find a peach pit? Answer: IN the middle of a PEACH; i.e. IN PEACH.
(Sounds sort of like "Impeach" anyway.)
That "Peach Pit" spilled the beans about Newt's new plot on a Pennsylvania
AM radio talk show is significant because he apparently chose not to drop those
revelatory bombshells through any Washington, D.C. Beltway media. In essence,
he evidently wanted to leak that information outside the Beltway --- but not so
far out of range of the Beltway that it couldn't eventually drift back D.C.
news media. Indeed, I'm fairly sure that listeners in Washington, D.C. would be
able to hear that radio show since I myself was able to pick it up fairly well
on an automobile radio on a rainy night here in the Deep South.
Why would Peach Pit want to rat on Newt?
If he is indeed a gay Republican, Peach Pit may secretly oppose Newt's
self-serving scheme because its ramifications would in the long run still
better serve the GOP Religious Right, yes, even in the best possible outcome
for Gingrich. That's because Newt would apparently have to share power with
Sen. John Ashcroft (R-Mo.) as his vice president who is strongly aligned with
Pat Robertson and the Christian Coalition. Moreover, in the worst case
scenario, if Newt were to lose control in influencing both events in progress
and the persons behind them, the upshot of the less favorable outcomes for Newt
would still favor those far rightwing Republicans aligned with the Religious
Right.
So if he is a gay Republcian, Peach Pit's possible motives in leaking Newt's
new plot so serreptitiously make sense because the GOP Religious Right
advocates public policies which discriminate against gays of ALL political
stripes.
Since Newt's original master plot to impeach Clinton and Gore was revealed
by veteran Washington, D.C. reporter Elizabeth Drew, the wheels in Newt
Gingrich's Machiavellian mind had been spinning ever more furiously to
recalculate a way for him to be able to assume the presidency in a more subtle
manner. To understand the underpinings of Newt's new master plot, we first need
to review and recap his original one.
Nine months ago, Elizabeth Drew, one of Washington's most reputable and
distinguished reporters, spilled the beans about Speaker Newt Gingrich's plot
to circumvent other GOP candidates to win the GOP presidential nomination by
getting himself installed as president by or before the year 2000. On the
Sunday, April 26, 1998 edition of NBC's MEET THE PRESS with Tim Russert,
political author Elizabeth Drew exposed Newt's plot:
HOST TIM RUSSERT: "Elizabeth Drew, if that report (by Ken Starr) goes to
Congress by early June as Stuart Taylor of The National Journal has asserted,
Speaker Gingrich has said that report will come to him. And then he will have a
small group headed by Rep. Henry Hyde (to review it). You have been doing some
reporting on Capitol Hill. What is Speaker Gingrich saying to his closest
intimate friends and allies?"
ELIZABETH DREW, Author: "Speaker Gingrich has been talking with his
closest associates about the idea of impeaching President Clinton AND
Vice-President Gore."
TIM RUSSERT: "Impeaching . . . ?"
ELIZABETH DREW: "Impeaching BOTH of them. Gingrich's thinking goes that
the Starr report will be very tough. And there will have to be proceedings to
impeach Clinton. That leaves Gore in place as the incumbent president. And
then, according to Gingrich's speculations, Gore will pardon Clinton. And then
the Congress will impeach Gore for pardoning Clinton for the things for which
they impeached Clinton. This gives rise to the problem that if they impeach
Clinton, Gore becomes the incumbent president. As one of Gingrich's associates
said to me, 'There's no point in having a Clinton strategy without a Gore
strategy.'"
TIM RUSSERT: "I remember my civics lessons correctly: If the President and
the Vice-President are removed from office, next in line is the Speaker of the
House!"
ELIZABETH DREW: "You've got it! When I asked one of Gingrich's associates
about this, he said, 'Oh no, probably by that time, the House of
Representatives would have picked a successor for Gore just as the House picked
Gerald Ford as a vice-president successor to replace Vice-President Agnew.'"
TIM RUSSERT: "So when Al Gore became president, the House of
Representatives would select his vice-president but it would select somebody
OTHER THAN Newt Gingrich?"
ELIZABETH DREW: "Apparently."
TIM RUSSERT: "They'd select a 'healer' and 'unifier'?"
ELIZABETH DREW: "Right."
TIM RUSSERT: "How serious is Newt Gingrich about this?"
ELIZABETH DREW: "Apparently, VERY serious. These have been ongoing
conversations with serious people with whom he confides. And all I can say is,
that this is what Newt Gingrich thinks."
TIM RUSSERT: "If, in fact, Newt Gingrich's strategy is to impeach both
Clinton and Gore as you've outlined his thinking, then what would be the
reaction of the American public in this November's elections?"
ELIZABETH DREW: "Well, I think this requires several leaps of logic in
order to acrobatically predict that. But on the point that Republican members
of the House of Representatives are saying that they have no stomach for
impeachment, some don't; but it has to be remembered that 'Oh boy! I'm REALLY
looking forward to impeaching Clinton!' is NOT something that they're going to
say out loud and have us reporters report that they're saying, because the
White House would just hit that out of the ballpark. It would be a dumb thing
for Republicans to say out loud."
TIM RUSSERT: "Do you believe that there will be impeachment hearings
before the November '98 elections?"
ELIZABETH DREW: "As I understand it, Speaker Gingrich is more confident
that the Republicans could hold impeachment hearings without being killed in
the process by public outrage or critical flak generated by the White House.".
. . .
__________________________________________
Since reporter Elizabeth Drew spilled the beans about Gingrich's original
master plot, Newt has apparently decided to revise his plan and himself play
the classic Machiavellian Graeco Catalyst and serreptitiously propel it forward
with even more stealth than before, disclosing it --- if at all --- only to an
even more limited inner circle of friends and allies than before.
Would Gingrich have purged himself of those confidants of his who spilled
the beans about his original impeachment plot to reporter Elizabeth Drew?
In my opinion, no, he would not. After all, that would have alerted
him/her/them to the fact that they were under suspicion by Newt. Gingrich
probably limited his disclosure about the new plot to those whom he believes
are his most trusted allies --- only it would appear that at least one of them
is NOT such a good ally, because at least one of them has leaked.
That person --- or another person whom he/she leaked to --- is Peach Pit.
What Peach Pit said last summer has for the most part come to fruition ---
and events thus far in progress suggest that Newt's master plot is still
continuing to unfold, even though the Impeach-Gore option may have been lost to
him as a result of Janet Reno's announcement that she wouldn't be launching any
investigation into campaign-finance matters involving Gore's fundraising.
NEWT'S IMPEACHMENT PLOT AGAINST CLINTON AND GORE
As related by the anonymous "Peach Pit" on August 14, 1998
1. You will notice that Newt Gingrich has made himself quite scarce in the
past week. That's because he conveniently timed a trip to Ireland where he
played statesman and hobnobbed with Irish ministers about the ongoing peace
process. While there, Newt even learned from a geneological center in Ireland
his family name originated from the ancient Gaelic which means, ironically
enough, "hurtful." However, Gingrich's excursion in Ireland put him
conveniently out of the political maelstrom of events happening in/around
Washington, D.C. in the days preceeding Clinton's testimony to the grand jury.
In other words, Gingrich has decided to go out of his way to appear
non-partisan during this time of partisan fireworks.
2. Gingrich has managed to recruit some unwitting allies in his master
plot, namely a number of rightwing conservative Republicans. They are critical
to Newt's plan. Some of them are "unwitting" in the sense that they are
opportunistically acting on their own self-serving reasons to go in the
direction that Newt has nudged them. [The "them" in question apparently include
Sen John Ashcroft (R-Mo.), Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.) and House GOP Majority Whip
Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas).]
And the direction that Newt has nudged them is a persistent and strident
advocacy calling for the impeachment of President Clinton no matter what
transpires in the days ahead. A number of the ultra-conservative Republicans in
question are more motivated by their own ambitions to run for President in the
year 2000 (or thereafter) just as Newt Gingrich himself is trying to get
himself esconced in the Oval Office before/by the year 2000.
Among the Republicans in question in the effort is Sen. John Ashcroft
(R-Missouri) who views the impeachment of Clinton as a way to endear himself to
the GOP Religious Right, to win over the ultra-conservative base of the
Republican Party and to get the full endorsement of Christian Coalition founder
& president Pat Robertson. (Although Robertson has already donated $10,000 to
Ashcroft's presidential campaign warchest, that is but a pittance compared to
winning the endorsement of Robertson's self-described "Christian Coalition
political machine." Pat Robertson is also on record for having said during his
secret behind-closed-doors speech to Christian Coalitioners in Sept. '97 that
they and the Republican Party should be concentrating on getting the Democrats
out of the White House.)
For you see, by valiantly calling for Clinton's impeachment, Sen. John
Ashcroft wins on several counts:
a. If he delivers the head of Bill Clinton to Pat Robertson, he's got an
overwhelming chance of winning the Christian Coalition's de-facto endorsement.
At the same time, he believes such triumph on his part would be so profound as
to give him positive party notariety that even Steve Forbes couldn't buy.
Ashcroft would then been seen by the GOP base membership as like another Gen.
Norman Swarzkoff returning home in triumph from the Persian Gulf War. Likewise,
the victory would be such as to virtually overcome Ashcroft's own insecurities
that he would never be able to top the campaign dollars of such a deep-pockets
candidate in 2000 like Steve Forbes. [Note: The Christian Coalition will be
holding its annual "Road to Victory" conference next month at which there will
be a GOP 2000 Presidential Candidate straw poll vote taken. So he who delivers
the most for the GOP Religious Right stands to win the Coalition's straw-poll
vote.)
b. By not only calling for Bill Clinton's impeachment but also by working
to accomplish it, Ashcroft sets himself apart from the less vocal Republicans
and those who do not favor impeaching Clinton.
c. By zealously continuing to call for the impeachment of Clinton,
Ashcroft hopes to be the catalyst to cause the Clinton supporters to unleash
their scorched-earth policy revealing the marital infidelities and sexual
piccadilloes of impeachment-favoring Republicans who would then be shown to be
outrageous hypocrites themselves, lacking moral authority to cast such a stone
at anybody else.
d. How does this benefit Ashcroft? He hopes that some of the dirt dished
out will be about those fellow Republicans of his who stand to be his toughest
competitors in the race for the GOP 2000 Presidential nomination. In essence,
Ashcroft believes that the potency of the dirt against the his rival Republican
candidates will be so devestating as to wholly discourage them from seriously
considering a run in 2000, thereby saving Ashcroft the trouble of getting his
own hands muddy or bloody in making such bomb-throwing accusations at fellow
Republicans. In essence, Sen. Ashcroft believes that he has led so virtuous a
life that the Clinton supporters surely must not have anything of substance to
hurl at him. (Perish the thought!) But again, the beauty of it all for Ashcroft
is that he hopes to get Clinton supporters to do his dirty work and take out
some, if not most, of the two dozen possible GOP presidential candidates
Ashcroft would otherwise have to worry about and compete against in 2000.
e. If Ashcroft and his rightwing conservative Republicans succeed in
getting Clinton impeached, then they can demand that any Republicans candidates
running for the GOP Presidential nomination in 2000 (and presumably thereafter)
must likewise pass a marital-fidelity litmus test (which they, in fact, had
already proposed earlier this year to hoots and catcalls by fellow
Republicans). However, if Clinton were impeached, then the ultra-conservative
Republicans could then claim the moral imperative and declare that the GOP
should not imitate the Democrats' mistake and must therefore impose a
marital-fidelity litmus test on GOP presidential candidates.
Newt Gingrich apparently is unconcerned about any such marital-fidelity
litmus tests because he expects to ALREADY be in office as President.
Therefore, such litmus tests for GOP Presidential candidates by his
consideration would be a moot issue since by his reckoning, there would be NO
such opposing candidates with him already esconced in the Presidency along with
perhaps Sen. John Ashcroft as his Vice President. In other words, Gingrich and
Ashcroft would expect to be endorsed as the *de-facto incumbent GOP 2000
presidential ticket.*
f. When the dust has settled, Ashcroft thinks his rainments will still be
unsoiled and that he will emerge the party hero.
3. Now this is where the plot starts to sound sort of screwy, but think it
through before drawing your own conclusion: Newt Gingrich is counting on
Ashcroft and the other conservative/extremist rightwing Republicans to make an
extremist spectacle of themselves in trying to get or actually getting Clinton
impeached. Newt only has to vote for impeachment. He doesn't have to climb
aboard Ashcroft & Company's anti-Clinton bandwagon and sound off with the rest
of them. Gingrich can instead play statesman for appearance sake and let the
rowdier Republicans earn their brickbats from the American public while he
himself tries to look Presidential. In essence, Gingrich has co-opted a page
from Clinton's playbook: "Let the conservatives abandon the middle ground and
take extremist positions." That way, Gingrich appears all the more moderate and
mainstream to the Republican Party both during and after the fracas.
Now *this* is where some may think they've found a weakness in Newt's
thinking: If Sen. John Ashcroft does end up helping get Clinton impeached and
claims victory, then how would Newt Gingrich expect to go up against him in the
GOP 2000 presidential nomination race and win?
Well, again, that's the beauty of it: Newt Gingrich expects to *ALREADY BE*
in the Oval Office before/by the year 2000 in a manner similar, if not
identical, to his original master polot explained by reporter Elizabeth Drew at
the outset of this post. After Newt Gingrich assumes the presidency and becomes
a de-facto incumbent President, he's betting that no serious Republican
opposition will arise to challenge him. Indeed, he apparently thinks he can win
the debate by virtue of his not only claiming to be the mastermind behind the
"Republican Revolution" but also by virtue of the fact that he is indeed the
incumbent GOP candidate in office. Who knows, he may he even be thinking of
asking Sen. John Ashcroft to be his Vice President in order to neutralize his
most serious rightwing competitor who, not so coincidentally, is also the
darling of the GOP Religious Right.
And therein lay Newt's New Master Plot to impeach the President and
eventually become President himself.
Newt Gingrich has some great allies in this enterprise. He used to confer
with Rush Limbaugh several times a week and issue him the rhetorical orders of
the day. Who knows, he still may do that.
And Kenneth Starr?
Please note the following excerpt from the Monday, August 17, 1998 USA
Today story "Devotion to Duty Has Long Propelled Starr":
In 1989, Starr joined President Bush's administration as solicitor general,
the lawyer charged with arguing the government's appeals before the Supreme
Court. The job gave him the unparalleled experience but may have cost him a
chance at the high court.
_________________________________
So, if Newt's scheme works, don't be surprised if/when the would-be
President Gingrich nominates the "martyred" Kenneth Starr for the Supreme Court
at the mid-term of his first --- or sometime in his second(!) --- term. (Either
that or Gingrich will award Starr with some other judicial consolation prize if
no Supreme Court justice retires or dies in the interim.)
And that would please the GOP Religious Right to the core, for you see . . .
Excerpt from the Monday, August 17, 1998 USA Today story "Devotion to Duty Has
Long Propelled Starr":
As solicitor-general (in the Bush administration), Starr argued that
abortion is not a constitutional right and that Roe vs. Wade should be
overturned. That made him anathema (someone or something intensely disliked or
loathed) to abortion rights groups. When slots on the court opened in 1990 and
1991, Bush turned to Clarence Thomas and to David Souter, judges whose
histories with the abortion issue were less well-known. . . .
Starr is said to be a deeply religious man. He listens to Christian radio
on the drive to the office. (Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family is a
favorite.) and carries religious tracts in his wallet to help him medidate
during plane rides. After years as a Methodist, Starr joined the McLean Bible
Church, a non-denominational Protestant group that combines old-fashioned Bible
study with updated hymns.
____________________________________________________
Also, by his flawless performance as the modern-day Rev. Dimsdale, Starr's
psycho drama of a morality play with the Lewinsky scandal also helps out Newt
by getting the Independent Counsel Law revoked, most probably by the time
shortly before when Newt expects to assume the Vice-Presidency or even
Presidency himself.
-- SATIRICUS REX ?:^)
The Vitameatavegamin of Politics
The Proper Tonic for Not-So-Happy, Pep-less People Who are Pooped Out on
Politics
"IN VITAMEATAVEGAMIN EST VINO MIRABILIS!" -- SATIRICUS REX
Streek53
> --- House Speaker Newt Gingrich to Vanity Fair
Gee, that's almost like perjuring yourself before 2 different grand
juries...under oath.
Nice try, though.
You're missing the point: we EXPECT rich and powerful men to get pretty much
anything they want, up to and including extramarital sex, eg, a blow job.
(If you don't consider that sex, you don't know what a blow job is. Which
probably puts you in the same boat with Hillary!)
However, we do kind'a draw the line at lying about it under oath...and
getting caught!
Bad form.
aladdinsane.
any of your
accusations out. Gingrich's inane pronouncements on the Lewinsky matter have only
driven Clinton's approval ratings to historic highs. Moreover, Newt presided over a
GOP campaign that failed for the first time since the Monroe administration to net
seats as a party out of the White House. Your accusations that Newt also claimed
that
oral sex wasn't sex are right on factually, but while I oppose impeachment, the
truth is
that Clinton started the involvement with Lewinsky even as discovery in the Jones
case
was proceeding, at best a colossally stupid and hubristic act, and then (to be VERY
charitable) "finessed" the truth in his subsequent deposition in the Jones suit.
As for Ashcroft, I've been trying to dig up dirt on the guy and can't find a
damn thing.
And aside from early on calling on the President to resign for what he saw as a
morally
repugnant act (and screwing around on your wife is that, unless you're Bob Barr, of
course) due to his strongly held religious views, his fingerprints don't seem to be
on any of this stuff anyway. Ashcroft is quite upfront about what he believes and
apparently that is
Jim Dandy with the folks who live in his district, so that's democracy and you'll
just
have to deal with it. Moreover, his colleagues on BOTH sides of the aisle say
Ashcroft is
a pretty nice guy. I may disagree with his views, but that's life.
And "Peach Pit"? Come on! As conspiracy this makes that loony Art Bell look
credible.
Now to clarify my views on impeachment in case you're wondering why a leftwing
liberal such as myself has said the above: while I believe that Clinton was hardly
forthcoming with the facts in the Jones deposition, the whole Jones case was
brought
about by a partisan scheme to get Bill Clinton (Scaife, Faircloth, et al) from the
day he was inaugurated. In addition, what he is being impeached over has almost no
stakes for the country and its institutions in itself, unlike in the Nixon matter,
where the Trickster was using the FBI and the IRS against his political opponents,
among other things. So this
impeachment proceeding is nothing more than McCarthyism by other means.
But let's not damage our credibility by trying to smear bystanders such as
Ashcroft
in the meantime.