Santorum South Carolina Primary- How Rick Santorum stopped the impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton- Collier Brothers
Rick Santorum tells South Carolina voters that he is the only conservative purist in the field, attacking Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney for being unreliable conservatives. Well, THE FREEDOMIST has already exposed Rick Santorum for his betrayal of a core conservative value, the right to work, the protection against Union thuggery. He is FOR right to work but NEVER votes for right to work legislation. He also endorsed Arlen Specter in his 1996 Presidential run, in 2004 against true conservative Pat Toomey, AND even endorsed Mitt Romney in his 2008 Presidential run.
Well, worse than even his right to vote betrayal and his endorsements of RINOS and future democrats was the work that he did as a Senator in the Clinton years, when he and Trent Lott undermined the Senate efforts to bring Bill Clinton to trial after the House impeached him for lying under oath.
That’s right, this pure conservative, who attacks like a tiny lap dog (see Thursday’s debate for a classic example of what an attack lap dog looks like when he nips at the heels of others), was instrumental, along with Trent Lott, in stopping the Clinton Impeachmment proceeedings, in rescuing Bill Clinton from facing a fair trial of his peers. This action should not be surprising to the people who remember how aggressively Rick Santorum worked to torpedo a true conservative, Pat Toomey, in 2004, from removing a future democrat and former RINO, Arlen Specter.
Here is all the proof you need to see that Santorum, in fact, killled the impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton, just another reflection of how Santorum is the face of Conservative Purity in Name Only (CPINO- which also sounds like the name of an exotic small wolf dop that yips and yips and yips at everyon’e ankles):
Excerpts from “Catching Our Flag: Behind the Scenes of a Presidential Impeachment”
From the Diaries of Congressman James E. Rogan, House Manager, Clinton Impeachment Trial
Published May 2011
[After the House impeached Clinton, the House Managers brought the case to try before the U.S. Senate. Once they arrived to prosecute Clinton, Trent Lott and Rick Santorum did everything they could behind the scenes to destroy the House Managers’ case and guarantee Clinton would never face a fair trial. Under Lott and Santorum’s plan, the Managers were denied the right to call a single witness or place before the Senate any trial evidence to show why the House impeached the president. When outgoing Speaker Gingrich learned of this perfidy, he grew furious]
[Pages 272-274]
Diary, Telephone Call, Speaker Newt Gingrich,
December 30, 1998
Newt said he was livid with Lott and asked what I thought about the
Senate leader’s idea. I tore into the suggestion and said I would not be
a party to him tossing out our case. I said we should show up in their
chamber on the day appointed and demand to present our case. If they
refused, we would walk out. Under no circumstance would we give Lott
or any other pantywaist Republican senator cover. We would make them
commit this betrayal in public.
Newt agreed strongly: “The Managers must be firm on this. Henry
Hyde cannot give in. This is about much more than his reputation and his
legacy. It is about the Constitution and the defense of it.” Newt said that
if Lott pushes this, he will destroy his Republican majority in the Senate.
I told Newt that I thought our conservative base would torch Lott if
he forced this idea. Newt agreed that Lott risked losing his leadership
position if he tried. Newt volunteered to help fire up our troops,
suggesting we “unleash” Majority Whip Tom DeLay [called “The
Hammer” for his political hardball instincts] and get this story out to
conservative editors, columnists, and talk radio hosts. Newt then caught
himself and wondered aloud whether he should be involved, saying,
“I’m not there anymore.”
I reminded him he was still there: technically Newt remained as
Speaker and a Member of Congress until he resigned his seat formally.
“By the way,” I added, “we may need to swear you in to the new Congress
so you can vote with us on reappointing House Managers. We’ve heard
some of our anti-impeachment Republicans might not stand with us.”
When I told him that passing a reappointment resolution might be a
problem with some Republicans, Newt blew his stack:
“This is so fundamental that nobody—nobody—gets a free vote
on this,” he shouted. “If any member of our conference won’t vote to
reappoint Managers, we should drum them out of the Republican Party.
Let them become Democrats, and let Dick Gephardt become Speaker.
Let him then try to govern the House with a one-vote majority. This is
traitorous. We must enforce a party line vote….” Newt said, “Let these guys
become Democrats if that is their game and make them show their true colors.”
After this call, I took heart when a staffer handed me a message
that Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) wanted to speak with me.
Elected to the Senate just two years earlier, Santorum had been a
conservative House stalwart who appeared to be the rare exception
to my senatorial hypothesis about new members breathing the
ether in The Other Body. I felt sure that if anyone might go to bat
for us with Trent Lott, it was Rick.
Diary, Telephone Conversation with Senator Rick Santorum,
December 31, 1998
I told Rick that Trent Lott was trying to sell all of us out and dump
the impeachment case against Clinton. I said Lott was acting out
of expediency in wanting to make a political headache just go away,
despite the evidence.
“Oh, the Leader would never do that,” Rick said defensively.
“The Leader” would never do that?
The more Rick defended Lott, the deeper my heart sank in
realizing another good guy drank the Senate’s collegiality Kool-Aid.
I told Rick I would recommend to Henry Hyde that we flatly reject
participating in anything that resembled a one-day submission on the
record so the Senate could sidestep a public trial. I also made clear that
I would vigorously and publicly object to any attempt by Lott to define
impeachable offenses as a predicate to the Senate deciding whether to
let us to try our case.
Rick said Lott was concerned about the upcoming 2000 Senate
elections, and Lott’s fear he might lose Republican seats over this
unpopular cause. As one facing defeat myself, I told him I understood,
but our obligation was to the Constitution and not worrying about
elections two years away…. “I wonder what kind of man we have in the Oval
Office?” he asked.
“I’ll tell you what kind of man we have in the Oval Office, Rick,”
I replied. “We have an impeached man in the Oval Office. And we
need you guys to let us come over and show you why.”
[Note: near the end of this conversation, Santorum started backing off on his defense of Lott. However, it was a short-lived shot of courage. A few days later, he was planted firmly in Lott’s hip pocket, as the following excerpts show]
[Pages 292-293]
Diary, Telephone Call with Senator Rick Santorum,
January 7, 1999, 5:00 p.m.
Santorum said that Lott is proposing the senators have a bipartisan
caucus tomorrow morning to adopt his latest proposal: have the House
Managers and the President’s attorneys argue their respective cases for
four weeks, and then the Senate will vote on whether to allow a trial with
witnesses. However, the Senate will also entertain a White House motion
to dismiss the case outright.
Santorum confessed that under Lott’s plans, the House Managers
should “assume that you will get no witnesses.”
Trent Lott apparently stood nearby when Santorum told me this,
because as my colorful response blared from Santorum’s telephone
receiver, Lott took the phone from him and came on the line
with me:
Lott said he wanted to meet with all the House Managers at 6:00
p.m. tonight. “Jim, we want to give you your trial and let you call your
witnesses,” he told me. “So let’s all get together with your Managers
tonight and show you that we aren’t out to be the enemy. I should have
just done this myself the first time instead of using intermediaries.”
Did I just hear him correctly? After presuming Lott to be the
boogeyman wanting to scuttle our case before we could present
it, had all this been a misunderstanding from the start? With this
personal assurance, I felt a sudden ray of hope.
Our staff rounded up the other House Managers for the meeting
in our Judiciary Committee conference room. Before Lott arrived,
I related my conversation to the group, along with Lott’s assurance
that he wants to make sure we call live witnesses. Manager Chris
Cannon interrupted me:
“I just spoke to [Utah Republican Senator] Bob Bennett,”
Cannon said. “Bennett told me, ‘You guys just lost. The Senate
plans to kill off your hope of calling any witnesses.’” Manager Bill
McCollum shared that he just received the same message from
Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH).
Fuming over Lott’s apparent smoke blowing over the telephone,
I renewed my motion that we should refuse to participate in any
proceeding where the senators block us from calling witnesses. Bob
Barr agreed, and made a motion to give Chairman Hyde authority
to tell Lott we would refuse to proceed without witnesses. Henry
took the middle ground, saying we should take two days in the
Senate to make our case as to why we need witnesses. “Otherwise,”
he feared, “we might appear to be sore losers.”
Trent Lott and Rick Santorum interrupted our discussion when
they arrived together at 6:15 p.m. After expressing his love for the
House and claiming fond memories of his own days there, Lott
lamented that the Senate is a more complicated body to lead:
“I want you to have a chance to put on your case,” Lott told us. “But
‘putting on your case’ means opening statements and maybe some
evidence. There is no guarantee that you will get any witnesses. Maybe
you can get some witnesses later, but keep in mind you always face a
motion to adjourn the trial from the Democrats.”
Some of the Managers didn’t wait for Lott to finish speaking
before weighing in:
Chris Cannon accused Lott of trying to get us to participate in a sham
trial. Bob Barr snapped at Lott, “We don’t hear you guys on TV telling
everyone you are fighting for us to be able to call witnesses. All we hear
is you Senate Republicans saying we need to convince you that we need
witnesses.”
Growing defensive, Lott shot back, “I’m not prepared to agree to fight
for your right to call witnesses without justification. I’m doing my best
to hold the line on our moderate Republican senators. They may vote
against the Articles of Impeachment themselves if you keep pushing this
witness issue!”
“Without witnesses,” Bill McCollum interrupted, “Clinton stands no
chance of ever being convicted and removed.”
“At least you’ll stand a chance to have your side heard,” Lott replied.
When my turn came, I ridiculed his position, given that the Senate
routinely spends months on judicial impeachments, and reminded him
that in Judge Alcee Hastings’ recent impeachment trial, the Senate
heard from fifty-five witnesses. I accused Lott of wanting us to come
and argue why we should have a trial, and then he wants to call that
argument the “trial.”
Next, I said the White House and the Senate Democrats fought
so hard against having any live witnesses called: with witnesses, the
Democrats have no control over an otherwise preordained verdict of
acquittal. “The Managers understand why the Democratic senators
don’t want witnesses,” I goaded, “but why on earth are you Republican
senators afraid of them?”
Finally, I told Lott that if he really was fearful that moderate Republicans
would vote against impeachment articles out of revenge if we asked for
witnesses, then Lott should reverse the order of his proposal: have us
argue to the Senate why we needed witnesses for a trial, and then let the
Senate vote. If the Senate refuses our request, we should announce that
the Senate has rendered us unable to proceed and walk out.
Lott and Santorum shared a panic-stricken look.
Santorum blurted, “If we did that, then you guys could leave and say you never got a trial!”
With that comment, both Lott and Santorum tipped their hand. Here,
ultimately, was their plan: call their charade a trial, and then let the history
books record Clinton’s acquittal after an impeachment “trial.”
Lott distributed copies of his final “no-witness” trial plan. He
asked us to review it, and then he and Santorum stepped out of the
room to await our decision.
A glum-looking Henry Hyde said he was willing to go along
with Lott’s plan. Bob Barr spoke against it vociferously. I joined
Barr in suggesting we return to the Senate to argue for our right to
have a trial, but refuse to cooperate with this plan.
Henry summoned Lott and Santorum back to the room. “I’m
getting great resistance to your plan from my team,” Henry told
them, and repeated our willingness to come and argue for our right
to have a full trial. Lott then reiterated Santorum’s earlier concern
that if they agreed to this, and if the Senate later refused to give us
witnesses, “you guys might later say there never was a trial.”
There it was again. Stripped bare were all the earlier winks and
nods about calling witnesses later in the trial. Lott and Santorum
stalked out of the room amid hostile comments from our team.
[Pages 385-387]
Diary, U.S. Senate Floor During Impeachment Proceedings
against President Clinton,
Saturday, February 6, 1999
[After a long day of being battered by hostile senators who made sure the House Managers could not present evidence to convict Clinton, the House Managers gathered off the Senate floor for a quick strategy session]
Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) interrupted our meeting. When he said
he wanted to give us “advice,” some of us started grumbling. We all liked
Rick, but he was there to do Trent Lott’s bidding.
“You guys did a great job…,” Santorum gushed at
Asa [Hutchinson] and me. “For the first time, our Republican senators are listening to
the facts and thinking that having witnesses is valuable . . .”
I interrupted Santorum: “Rick, if your colleagues now find the testimony
so enlightening and valuable, why don’t you go back and tell them
there’s much more where that came from. Go back and make a motion
to open this up to live witnesses, and to have a real trial.”
Suddenly, Rick’s demeanor turned dour. “Oh, that will never do,” he
replied.
Wrong answer; I remember vividly taking out some pent-up
exasperation on my friend Rick:
“If you won’t make that motion,” I snapped at him, “then get the
fuck out of here.”
Some Managers laughed and jeered at Rick, who grew quite flustered.
“I was just trying to be helpful,” he said. “If you don’t want my advice,
then I’ll leave.” Henry tried to assuage Rick’s feelings as other Managers
continued heckling him [as he stormed out of the room]. Senate’s Republican led sell-out of our case.
* * * * * * * * * *
GINGRICH AND THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT
Op Ed Published: 12/02/2011 at 6:31 PM
….In fact, if there is any presidential candidate running for the GOP nomination in 2011 who needs to come clean on his role in the failure to oust Clinton for high crimes and misdemeanors, it is Rick Santorum.
It was Santorum who worked side-by-side with Trent Lott to ensure no real impeachment trial, one where witnesses would be called and evidence submitted, would ever take place in the U.S. Senate. And that is exactly what came to pass.
Now, I generally like Rick Santorum. I think he is a feisty advocate for conservative principles. But on the impeachment of Bill Clinton, Santorum served as Trent Lott’s toady. Those are the facts. Read the story for yourself in “Catching the Flag,” without question the best historical record of the Clinton impeachment process, written by the man on point – House impeachment manager Jim Rogan.
Politics is a complicated business. Sometimes the good guys err, and the bad guys get it right….
– - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -
http://www.wnd.com/2011/12/373665/
The Rick Santorum CPINO (Conservative Purity in Name Only) exposed:
Rick Santorum Endorses Arlen Specter and Mitt Romney
Rick Santorum kills Clinton Impeachment proceedings
Rick Santorum opposes Right to Work Legislation
