Hyde, Canady, Bush, Reagan, Schippers, Lott, DeLay, Gingrich and Starr:
All to Be Indicted in February
Hustler Magazine List May Add More
Breaking Development: It is about sex, drugs and bombs

Saturday, January 9, 1999 -- WASHINGTON -- Late yesterday evening, Attorney General Janet Reno was trying to sort out her schedule when a little-known Deputy Attorney General appeared, hesitating at her door.

His name is Oscar Meak.

Oscar had been working, for the past three years, in a secluded corner of the Justice Department's offices on Constitution Avenue in the nation's capital.

He is the only staffer in the Office of Perjury, Lying and Other Crimes and Misdemeanors set up by Reno's predecessors.

Meak had finished his 1998 report. Title 18, Section 224 of the Federal Criminal Code, requires him to deliver his full report for review before the end of the first week of January. Reno beckoned him in and they took a seat at her conference table to study his findings. As she moved through the executive summary at the top of the 834-page report, her jaw dropped. She moved back in the fine leather chair, reached for a pack of unfiltered Camels, lit one, and inhaled deeply.

"Mr. Meak, what are you advising me to do about this?"

Meak replied that the Attorney General had no choice but to move toward prosecuting more than a dozen defendants -- all of whom were either currently serving or had served in federally elected office. Only one, David Schippers, was an appointee.

And Reno knew that Meak was correct. There was no way she could ignore the charges he had outlined against members of Congress, two former Presidents and the former Speaker of the House. She also knew that her announcement of these indictments would cause an uproar and a furor so violent such as would never have been witnessed in American history.

She checked off the recommended charges in her mind:

Henry Hyde

(1) For breaking his oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States by lying to his constituents for more than three decades about his adulterous affair with Cherie Snodgrass, a married woman whose husband divorced her over the incident.

(2) For felony assault perpetrated against Fred Snodgrass, the husband of Cherie Snodgrass, as Hyde punched him and shoved his hand in the door of an apartment he had rented for his love trysts with Cherie. Mr. Snodgrass had been trying in vain to enter the apartment and plead with his wife to stop her sexual escapades with Hyde. He had begged Hyde not to destroy his family -- but Hyde strong-armed him into oblivion.

Reno knew that Hyde had not only broken his oath to uphold the laws of the United States not only by lying to his constituents but also by lying about sex. The President had just been indicted by Hyde and the Republican-controlled Congress for much the same thing. She had no choice but to indict him.

Charles Canady

(1) For breaking his oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States by lying to his constituents about his adulterous affair with Sharon Becker, then the wife of Robert Becker -- a Florida businessman. Canady had caused the divorce of the Beckers.

(2) Lying under congressional oath to the American people about a waitress he ordered fired for "insulting" him by pointing out his vicious cheap-shot attacks and preaching regarding the actions of the President of the United States. Canady repeatedly lied about this incident, and thereby violated Title 18 -- not to mention other labor laws contained in the Federal Codes.

George Bush

(1) The case against George Bush, as argued by DAG Meak using the standards being applied to Bill Clinton, appeared even stronger than the charges against the current President. Bush claimed in his 1992 campaign that he had given sworn testimony re Iran-Contra "hundreds of times conceding that he knew all about the arms-for-hostages deal." But Reno knew in fact that when the story broke in 1986, Bush repeatedly claimed to have been "out of the loop." He, too, had lied to the American people, the Congress and the media. He knew the United States was quite plainly and illegally selling arms to Iran, in unbelievably direct conflict with Bush's own public pronouncements -- but, he claimed, he had no idea the deal involved paying ransom for hostages.

Specifically, Bush said he did not attend a January 1986 meeting at which Secretary of State George Shultz and Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger violently opposed trading arms for hostages. When White House logs showed that Bush was at the meeting, he changed his story to saying he hadn't "caught the drift" of Shultz's and Weinberger's objections. Bush said, "If only I'd known George and Cap were as bothered as I was, I would have tried to stop the policy."

This was his lie until 1992, when Walsh released notes taken by Weinberger at the meeting, recording that "VP approves" of the arms for hostages policy. When Bush took office he did his best to derail Walsh's investigation. He refused to release classified information. A diary he started keeping in 1986 "disappeared" until after he lost the 1992 election to Clinton. And his last-minute pardon of Weinberger, Poindexter, and others after he'd lost re-election effectively killed Walsh's pursuit of Bush himself. Thus Bush could not then be prosecuted for obstruction of justice, lying under his own oath of office or abuse of presidential power.

However, Meak's report showed that Weinberger and Poindexter -- concerned about the current assault on the presidency -- were now ready to testify against George Bush and send him to prison.

Meak also told the Attorney General that both Governors Jeb and George Bush Jr. were fully aware of their father's lies and obstruction of justice, and might be prosecutable under RICO -- the Federal laws regarding conspiracy and racketeering.

(2) During Bush's presidency, he continually lied to the American people about his own affair with a yet-unnamed middle-aged woman living in Washington. He lied while under oath, as President, to preserve the Constitution and uphold the laws of the United States.

He should be prosecuted, recommended Meak.

Ronald Reagan

(1) Ronald Reagan talked about Iran-Contra under oath in a deposition for the criminal trial of his former National Security Adviser John Poindexter. The deposition was in 1990, after Bush took office. He claimed that there wasn't "one iota" of evidence profits from arms sales to Iran had been sent to the Nicaraguan Contras, and also averred that his aides had not lied to Congress about the matter.

All of Reagan's testimony was proven false. Reagan was guilty not only of violating his oath, but lying under oath in the Poindexter deposition. He too, should be prosecuted argued Meak -- even in absentia, or absent-minded-entia due to his current condition.

Reno knew that Special Prosecutor Lawrence Walsh should have forced Reagan, while President, to repeat -- under oath -- his lies about Iran-Contra, such as those he made on international television when he said it was "utterly false" that arms had been shipped to Iran in exchange for the release of the hostages.

Reagan was at myriad meetings during which the arms-for-hostages deal was discussed and where his own Cabinet members warned him it was illegal. Reagan said he didn't care.

According to Michael Kinsley, Walsh's final report concluded that Reagan "knowingly participated or at least acquiesced in" the Iran-Contra cover-up, which involved, among other things, Oliver North shredding thousands of documents that may well have implicated Reagan far more deeply. Yet Walsh didn't bring charges against Reagan -- or even depose him to squeeze out information or set him up for a perjury rap.

Another cover up by the same people now trying to oust Clinton? We think so.

David Schippers

(1) David Schippers, who also took an oath -- not only as an attorney but as the House Judiciary Committee Counsel -- told us in weepy tones, "Lies are lies are lies."

Meak demonstrated beyond doubt that Schippers himself is a serial liar. During his opening statement before the House Judiciary Commmittee he said, "When I appeared in this committee room a little over two months ago... it was merely to analyze the Starr Report Referral and to report to you. Today, after our investigation, I come to a point that frankly I prayed I would never reach. It is my sorrowful duty now to accuse President William Jefferson Clinton [of high crimes and misdemeanors]."

Schippers was clearly lying here as his own testimony showed over an over again. Did he look sorry? Did he speak sorrowful words? Was he truthful when he said he came to the Starr Report with a completely open mind and had no view of whether the President was guilty? Did Schippers actually do "his own investigation" as he told the Judiciary Committee under oath? Meak quoted Schippers: "Every time a witness lies, that witness chips a stone from the foundation of our entire legal system." Reno knows that Schippers himself was part of the problem.

Trent Lott

(1) As Senate majority leader, Lott is the head honcho of the Clinton trial. Yet Meak showed that he publicly lied last month to get himself out of trouble. He told a New York Times reporter in regard to the decision to bomb Baghdad, "While I have been assured by administration officials that there is no connection with the impeachment process ... I cannot support this military action in the Persian Gulf at this time. Both the timing and the policy are subject to question."

Before the words were in print, Lott knew he had made a mistake, so two days later he said that he supported the bombing, did not suspect the President's participation in a "Wag the Dog" conspiracy and did not mean to imply such a two days before. He used his words "at this time" as the President had used "it depends on what the meaning of 'it' is." Lott was under oath as a United States Senator at the time of his statements and therefore guilty of perjury and lying to the American people, said Meak. Like Clinton's Cabinet, most Republicans relied on Lott's first lie and went out screaming that President Clinton was sending American boys to their deaths in order to create a "diversion" from the Lewinsky scandal and his upcoming impeachment. Lott also lied to the media as did Paul Gigot, a right wing reporter for The Wall Street Journal, found out when he praised Lott's remarks about the Iraq bombing as "an honest, considered judgment."

Kenneth Starr

Mr. Meak had listed multiple charges of perjury and abuse of power for Mr. Starr.

(1) For starters, he said Starr lied when he told the Congress under oath that he did not recall whether or not he discussed his and his law partner's legal advice to Paula Jones even as he was beginning his "independent" investigation of Bill Clinton.

(2) Starr also lied when he told the Judiciary Committee under oath that he saw no conflict of interest in his moving into the Lewinsky matter when he testified to Janet Reno and the three-judge panel that he needed to open the scope of his investigation on the President. Meak had proved, through documents shown to Reno last night, that Starr had already planned to wire Tripp and was in direct contact with the Jones and Lewinsky lawyers at the time.

(3) Starr also lied when he told the Committee, under oath, that he had never seen such an honest and wonderful group of investigators as he did under his five-year reign of terror on the Clintons. He lied by covering up the fact that some of these investigators had willingly provided counsel, funds, transportation and other "goodies" to known criminals in Arkansas -- men known to hate Clinton and known to lie about him.

(4) Starr also lied on each and every occasion where he told the President's counsel, under oath, that he did "not recall" or "had to check back" in order to answer the questions then put to him. Meak had records and other evidence that Starr "must have known" he was lying, and therefore obstructing justice while under oath and while sitting as a prosecutor in front of a Congressional Committee.

All are prosecutable felonies, said Meak.

Newt Gingrich

Really, need we say anything?

Tom DeLay

(1) Along with all the "Managers" of the Clinton trial, Mr. DeLay, wrote DAG Meak, has violated numerous Federal laws including tampering with witnesses, tampering with a federal jury and abetting others (the 12 additional Republican managers) to do the same. In specific, DeLay and the managers have been phoning, visiting, harassing and threatening at least 50 members of the United States Senate regarding the rules of the Trial of President William Jefferson Clinton. His, and the others', activities are tantamount to jury tampering prima facie.

(2) In addition, DeLay and his assigns, with the cooperation of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, has been harassing and threatening and cajoling witnesses who could be called before the Senate Jury including Dolly Kyle Browning, Juanita Broaddrick, and other witnesses not germane to any part of the two articles of impeachment voted by the Judiciary Committee and the Republican members of the House.

(3) Mr. DeLay also sought and got cooperation from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, by lying to the FBI in claiming that Norm Sommer, the man who broke the Hyde adultery story, had been working with the White House to expose Hyde. DeLay knew that this was not the case. Mr. DeLay can and should be prosecuted for these and other crimes, recommended Mr. Meak.

The news stunned the Justice Department, but it is reported that General Reno is still taking the Meak Report under advisement and has not made a decision whether and when she will bring her indictments.

What comes to mind is the differences between the above potential indictments and the lies Mr. Clinton is supposed to have told.

What I see is this: Bill Clinton's lies about his affair with Monica Lewinsky were far less significant that those told by Presidents Reagan and Bush surrounding the Iran-Contra affair. In that situation, tens of thousands of Central American men, women and children died because the two Presidents were able to circumvent (that means break) the law and sell arms to Iran -- which was, by the way, using them to kill thousands of Iraqis, instilling in them a deep hatred of the United States which ended in Desert Storm and Desert Fox, killing thousands more innocents.

Does lying about a quickie now and then in the Oval Office come close to the genocidal horrors caused by Reagan and Bush? And why did Oliver North become a felon if Reagan's and Bush's lies were "okay?" Remember, it was Henry Hyde, the ultimate hypocrite, who told us that some lies by President's were okay -- and he was referring to the very lies about which Mr. Meak now recommends prosecution.

How stupid do they think we are?

-- Mac MacArthur