found this at www.worldnetdaily.com:


                   An open letter to Hillary


Dear Mrs. Clinton:

In February 1974 the staff of the Nixon impeachment
inquiry issued a report produced by a group of lawyers
and researchers assigned with developing a scholar
memorandum setting forth the "constitutional grounds
for presidential impeachment."

You were a member of that group of lawyers and
researchers, barely, I am sure, able to conceal your
dislike for President Nixon. Within the year, Nixon
would leave office disgraced , having witnessed articles
of impeachment voted against him by the House
Judiciary Committee, based in part on your report.

		Relevant Today

I must give you and your colleagues credit. You did
not appear to have let personal animus influence your
work product, at least not the final, published report.
In fact, the report you and your colleagues produced
appears objective, fair, well researched and consistent
with other materials reflecting and commenting on
impeachment. And it is every bit as relevant today as it
was 23 years ago.

I presume -- but I must ask whether -- you stand by
your research and analysis today. You said in 1974
that impeachment, as understood by the framers of our
constitution, reflected the long history of the term used
at least since late-14th-century England: "one of the

tools used by the English" to make government "more
responsive and responsible" (page 4 of your report).
You also noted then -- clearly in response to those
who mistakenly claimed impeachment as a tool to
correct "corruption in office" that "alleged damage to
the state," was "not necessarily limited to common law
or statutory ... Crimes" (page 7)

You quoted James Wilson, who at the Pennsylvania
ratification convention described the executive (that is,
the president) as not being above the law, but rather

"in his public character" subject to it "by impeachment"
                   (page 9)

You also -- quite correctly -- noted then that the
constitutional draftsmen chose the terms describing the
circumstances under which a president could be
impeached very carefully and deliberately. You noted
that "high crimes and misdemeanors" did not denote
criminal offenses in the sense that prosecutors employ
such terms in modern trials. Rather, in your
well-researched memorandum, you correctly noted
that the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" was
substituted for George Mason's less precise term in an
earlier draft of the Constitution:

		"Maladministration"
(page 12 of your report). Not only that, but your
further research led you to quote Blackstone's
"Commentaries on the Laws of England" in support of
your conclusion that "high crimes and misdemeanors"
meant not a criminal offense but an injury to the state
or system of government (page 12). I applaud the
extent and clarity of your research. You even note that
the U.S. Supreme Court, in deciding questions of
intent, must construe phrases such as "high crimes and
misdemeanors" not according to modern usage, but
according to what the framers meant when they
adopted them (page 12 once again).

                   Magnificent research!

Even Alexander Hamilton finds a place in your
research. You quote from his Federalist No. 65 that
impeachment relates to "misconduct of public men, or
in other words, from the abuse or violation of public
trust" that is "of a nature ... POLITICAL [emphasis in
original]" (page 13 of your report).

Finally, in bringing your research forward from the
constitutional drafting documents themselves, you find
support for your properly broad interpretation of "high
crimes and misdemeanors" in no less a legal scholar
than Justice Joseph Story. I was in awe of your use of
Justice Story's "Commentaries on the Constitution"
(1833) supporting your proposition that "impeachment
... applies to offenses of a political character ...[that]
must be examined upon very broad and
comprehensive principles of public policy and duty"
(pages 16 and 17 of your report). I could not have
said it better.

You even note that the specific instances on which
impeachment has been employed in our country's
history "placed little emphasis on criminal conduct" and
were used to remove public officials who had
"seriously undermined public confidence" through their
"course of conduct" (page 21).

                   Clear Basis

Mrs. Clinton, when I first raised the notion last month
that the House should take but the first step in
determining whether impeachment might lie against
President Clinton for a pattern of abuse of office and
improper administration of his duties, little did I realize
your scholarly work 23 years ago would provide clear
historical and legal basis and precedent for my
proposition.

Amazingly, the words you used in your report are
virtually identical to those I use today. For example,
you said in 1974, much as I did in my March 11,
1997, letter to Judiciary Chairman Hyde, that
"[i]mpeachment is the first step in a remedial process"
page 24 of your report) to correct "serious offenses"
that "subvert" our government and "undermine the
integrity of office" (page 26).

Thank you, Mrs. Clinton, for giving Congress a road
map for beginning our inquiry.

Sincerely,
Bob Barr (R., GA.)
Member of Congress




--
Glenn Dixon---ICQ # 392271
[email protected]
http://thedixons.net
http://home1.gte.net/webwide