From ConservativeAction.org:

CIC News Articles Archives

In our attempt to inform as wide an audience of citizens as we can, CIC is constantly in contact with the news media. The following is a selection of stories which have been published.


In Defense of the Starr Investigation
by Scott Lauf
Washington Times
June 1, 1997

Clinton crony James Carville's recent piece (May 15, 1997) cries for a response. The "Ragin' Cajun's" fiery rage against Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr needs to be doused with the truth. Mr. Carville's efforts to demean the importance of Mr. Starr's investigation are nothing more than smear tactics. He mocks the independent counsels' work as a "bunch of hot air" and sidelines the Whitewater fiasco as "ancient Arkansas nonsense." Such bravado is nothing new from a liberal hick like Carville. However, law and justice ought not to be disregarded in such juvenile fashion if a sitting President and his wife may have committed serious crimes.

Just as important, one should not overlook the real motives behind Mr. Carville and his disingenuous organization, the so-called "Education and Information Project." Mr. Carville wants to shift the focus away from the President by investigating Mr. Starr and his associates. He has previously stated that he intends to assemble a team to conduct "opposition research." It should be noted that the last time Carville cobbled together a team to perform opposition research it included the unsavory characters of Craig Livingstone and Anthony Marceca, both of whom conducted extensive forays into the FBI files of Republican political workers under false pretenses.

I believe it is only a matter of time until the Clinton White House begins to crumble from the evidence gathered by Mr. Starr's counsel. And when that happens, the only fool who will be blowing a "bunch of hot air" will be Mr. Carville.


The Washington Times
Inside the Beltway
by John McCaslin
July 2, 1997

Scott Lauf, Director of Communications for the Clinton Investigative Commission, is weighing in on recent criticism unleashed against Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr.

"Apparently, liberals are upset over a report that he [Mr. Starr] questioned Arkansas State Troopers about Clinton's intimate relationships with several women during his Razorback days as governor," Mr. Lauf wrote in a letter to this column.

"Unfortunately for the president, their overreaction to this report has unintentionally confirmed one basic fact: that Clinton's 'alleged' adulterous affairs are no longer alleged," he opined.

"Interestingly, by taking issue...the president's defenders have essentially admitted his infidelity--something many Americans have long suspected."

Mr. Lauf believes this latest episode in the Whitewater saga truly demonstrates the administration's "vicious attempts" to derail any honest and independent investigation of possible serious wrongdoing at the highest levels of power.

"Their focus on trivial aspects of Starr's investigation will not buy them time forever," Mr. Lauf concluded. "In fact, the clock is ticking on the Clintons...Soon, Bill and Hillary will realize that it is Congress and Mr. Starr that will be writing their epitaph, not the Democratic Party."


What the Clintons Are Facing
by Scott Lauf
Washington Times
July 6, 1997

The recent criticism unleashed upon Independent Counsel Ken Starr by the White House and fellow Democrats is just one more example of the liberals' desperate tactics to smear Mr. Starr and discredit his investigation. Apparently, Mr. Starr's opponents are upset over a report that he questioned Arkansas State Troopers about Clinton's intimate relationships with several women during his Razorback days as Governor.

Unfortunate for the President, their overreaction to this report has unintentionally confirmed one basic fact: 1) that Clinton's "alleged" adulterous affairs are no longer alleged. Interestingly, by taking issue with this report, the President's defenders have essentially admitted his infidelity---something many Americans have long suspected. Mr. Clinton, naturally, has always denied any hint of sexual indiscretion—which, of course, would make him a liar. So why should any American believe his denials when it comes to Whitewater and the numerous other scandals tainting the White House?

It seems that Mr. Starr's opponents find no relation between Clinton's extramarital affairs and his involvement in the Whitewater scandal. Perhaps there is none. However, if there is any grain of truth to this report, it is possible that Clinton could have shared information about Whitewater and other scandalous shenanigans with one of the many women he had an affair. Let us not forget that Dick Morris, Clinton's most trusted adviser, allowed his prostitute girlfriend to eavesdrop on private telephone conversations with the President. Who's to say Clinton didn't get in a Morris-like mood one night and start boasting to one of his mistresses?

This recent episode in the Whitewater saga truly demonstrates the Democrats' vicious attempts to derail an honest and independent investigation of possible serious wrongdoing at the highest levels of power. Their focus on trivial aspects of the investigation will not buy them time forever. Soon they will to realize that it is Mr. Starr and the law that will be writing Mr. Clinton's epitaph, not the Democratic party.


The Washington Times
Inside the Beltway by John McCaslin
September 1, 1997

Impeach President Clinton? On what grounds?

Well, in March of this year, Rep. Bob Barr, Georgia Republican, stepped forward and demanded impeachment in the form of an official inquiry letter to Rep. Henry Hyde, Illinois Republican and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

And Scott Lauf, Communications Director for the Clinton Investigative Commission, a "non-partisan" project of the Council of Volunteer Americans, Inc., says that his group's website (http://www.impeachclinton.org) has already received nearly 200,000 "hits."

Recently, the same commission placed a petition for impeachment on line to be signed by visitors, which follows the 100,000 signatures on paper petitions already collected and sent to Congress.


Washington Times
Letter to the Editor
October 18, 1997
More Questions than Answers on Vince Foster
by Scott Lauf, Executive Officer, CIC

Independent Counsel Ken Starr's long-delayed report on the death of Vince Foster ("Starr probe finds Foster killed himself," October 11, 1997) raises more suspicious questions than conclusive answers. Mr. Starr wants to close the book on this tragic incident, but his official findings only keep this mysterious case alive four years later.

According to Mr. Starr's findings, Vince Foster was suffering from clinical depression and killed himself in Fort Marcy Park with a gunshot wound to the head on July 20, 1993. Gunshot residue was found in his mouth and on his right hand—along with the gun still in his hand— and that this primary evidence shows that he committed suicide.

Unfortunately, Mr. Starr has ignored crucial evidence, and avoided blatant discrepancies in previous official investigations, which clearly contradict his suicide theory. For example, Foster was left-handed. So why was the gun and residue supposedly found in his right hand? Furthermore, the probability of the gun remaining in his hand from a self-inflicted gunshot is practically impossible and defies the laws of physics.

Mr. Starr also cites various experts and witnesses to buttress his theory, but clearly ignores those who paint a different picture. Starr states that Todd Hall and George Gonzalez, both Fairfax Fire & Rescue Personnel, saw a gun in Foster's right hand. But what about the testimony of Park Policeman Kevin Fornshill who was the first to arrive at the scene? He stated to the FBI that there was no gun in Foster's hand, that both palms were face up, and his arms were laid by his side---as if in a coffin. And what about Patrick Knowlton, a passerby in the park, who told the FBI he saw two cars—one with Arkanasas license plates and a man in the driver's seat—in the parking lot shortly before Foster's body was discovered? Normally, this type of information would raise an eyebrow of any investigator. But not for Ken Starr.

Numerous other anomalies have surfaced in this strange death which have only brought about more unanswered questions. Where was Foster in the missing three hours before his he was found dead? Why was the bullet not found in the park after an extensive FBI search which even uncovered Civil War-era musket balls? Why was there semen, blond hair and carpet fibers found on Foster's clothing, but no ground soil was found on the soles of his shoes? Why were items removed from Foster's office by White House staffers before the FBI came? Was the supposed "suicide note" a forgery? These are just a few serious questions which Mr. Starr has failed to offer explanation.

Sadly, it appears that the release of this report has compromised the Mr. Starr's integrity, jeopardized his credibility as an "independent counsel," and tarnished his own personal reputation. Perhaps the time has come for Congress to conduct its own investigation. Then the American people will finally know how, and why, Vince Foster died.


The Washington Post
Ghost Town: On Halloween, Washingtonians Are Dressed Up and Raring to Go
by Michael Colton & Lonnae O'Neal Parker
November 1, 1997

Dressed as creeps, freaks, authors, politicians and "Phantor, Ghoul of the Shadows," people all around the Washington area celebrated Halloween yesterday.

For some, the holiday started in typical DC fashion with a political protest. At noon in front of the White House, nine people from the "Clinton Investigative Commission" gathered in costume to celebrate the "Ghosts of Clinton's Past."

Oufitted as ghouls, prisoners and the first couple, the group members gave out candy and fake money and posed for the bemused tourists. They held up signs that said "Ghost of Ron Brown," "Ghost of Vince Foster" and "Everything the Clintons Do Will Return to Haunt Them."

"Our motive is to continue to remind the American people with satire about all the wrongdoings in Clinton's past that still haunt this institution," said Scott Lauf, the organization's Executive Officer.

The group, which included students from George Washington and George Mason Universities, marched slowly, because "Bill Clinton" had trouble seeing out of his mask.


The New Republic
Correspondence
November 3, 1997
Enchanted Disenchantment
by George Primbs
Director of Operations, CIC

In Charles Lane's article, "Island of Disenchantment" (September 29), one suspects that the failure of democracy in Haiti fulfills a certain liberal tendency toward "benign despotism."

While we at the Clinton Investigative Commission obviously did not urge this administration to send troops to "nation-build" Haiti, neither do we want to throw away actual gains. Undoing their work means installing a bastardized regime and unifying both new and old Haitian elites mediated by a high-tech voodoo police state. Give the U.S. Armed Forces and the Clinton White House credit for at least making a ghastly situation into a bad one.


The Fairfax Journal
Letter to the Editor
November 5, 1997
Clinton and Gore Should Be Impeached
by Scott Lauf

The White House boiler room defense of illegal fundraising on the part
of Vice President Al Gore should surprise no one. Jay Leno recently gibed on the "Tonight Show" that those Clinton officials who have notreceived criminal indictments are "underachievers." Sadly, there is a
deadpan truth to Mr. Leno's joke.

Gore's apparent illegal activities---like Mike Espy, Webb Hubbell and many others---have become commonplace in the Clinton Administration.

The American people should not have to tolerate any more delays of the Senate and the Justice Department, who are supposedly investigating these recent allegations. Real action needs to take place. Indictments and campaign-finance reform are not enough. Vice President Gore and President Clinton should be impeached.


The Washington Times
Commentary-Forum
November 9, 1997
Is Impeachment Warranted?
by Scott Lauf

The buzz around Washington these last couple months has been whether or not Attorney "General Stonewall" Reno should appoint an independent counsel to investigate the Clinton-Gore fundraising scandals. The pundits and politicians of the Beltway establishment have all weighed in with their high-minded opinions. And while many Republicans on Capitol Hill have been calling for an independent counsel, they are oblivious to their beguiled direction. It is time all of Congress get beyond the whispers and face the music. The only course of action to remedy this lawless mess in Washington is to begin immediate impeachment proceedings against President Clinton.

An independent counsel may seem like a logical next-step in legally addressing the campaign finance abuses of President Clinton (and Vice President Gore) and of the numerous other illegal improprieties of the White House. In the real world, though, another independent counsel would only serve as a political smokescreen to assist Clinton in evading justice. If Janet Reno acceded to Republican demands, the choice of counsel would certainly not be "independent" or objective. And it would waste millions in taxpayer dollars and spend the next several years pushing paper beyond the year 2000---well after Clinton has served out his final term with a self-aggrandized legacy.

There is no reason for another Starr-like "independent" counsel when overwhelming evidence is available now to impeach Clinton. Some apathetic Americans may find it accepting that our President is a "slick" politician who is more comfortable at luxuriating in his spoils and lying to the people, rather than leading a nation. Nonetheless, all American citizens rightfully assume our President is beholden to the laws of the land, and is therefore responsible for his own actions in public office, as well as for those officials appointed under him. Well then, let the impeachment process begin.

Already, the monstrosity of evidence publicly available from the official investigations of the 104th and 105th Congresses should make any half-baked legal scholar in Washington scratch his teeth and, at the very least, warrant an impeachment inquiry by the House Judiciary Committee. Since 1994, hearings and testimonies of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, the Senate Committee on Banking Housing & Urban Affairs, and the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee have compiled powerful evidence of President Clinton committing "treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors," which are clear grounds for impeachment as explicated in Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution.

The damaging revelations of the recent fundraising scandals, forexample, shamefully illustrate the President soliciting and accepting illegal contributions, and possibly returning favors for these donations. This clearly constitutes treason. Some of the unsavory six-figure donors included a convicted Cuban cocaine dealer, a Ukranian plutonium smuggler, a Chinese arms dealer, a Russian mobster, Indonesian bankers, and a Lebanese fugitive wanted for embezzlement. What a multicultural crowd! And Clinton wanted us to believe they were foreign tourists on a White House tour.

Certainly all the wrongdoing before the current campaign finance controversies cannot be forgotten. Whitewater and Travelgate together could find Clinton guilty of theft, racketeering, bribery, graft, conflict of interest, and acts of violence. And the mysterious death of Vince Foster showed a reckless White House, at the very least, guilty of obstruction of justice and larceny of government property by removing and destroying items from Foster's office and tampering with evidence during official investigations. This is only peek at the Articles of Impeachment which should be considered by the House Judiciary Committee.

In the face of all this corruption and crime, why, then, are the Republicans still yelping for an independent counsel? Answer: It lets them off the hook. They can simultaneously pass the buck to Ms. Reno and re-direct the always-constant press scrutiny of so-called partisanship. "How convenient!", as the church lady of "Saturday Night Live" used to chime. Especially convenient, considering the upcoming election cycles in 1998 and 2000, where maintaining a majority in Congress and recapturing the White House seem to be the only priorities of a lost and wounded Republican Party.

And how about those Democrats. They shoot back with the usual cliché, "the Republicans did it too!" Yet, what Democrat on Capitol Hill---besides the media-voracious John Conyers--- can be found ardently defending their own leader, President Clinton? None. They are rightfully embarrassed by these recent revelations damaging their own party. And like the Republicans, they, too, do nothing.

This saddening situation in Washington may seem to some like typical governance in a place where politicians are easy targets of sarcasm and cynicism, if only because the bias of the mainstream media has yet to aggressively report the truth according to their self-prescribed Watergate standards. Yet, we are far beyond any comparison to the watershed political events of the 1970s. For today, Bill Clinton makes Richard Nixon look like a boy scout and Congress like a bunch of passive lackeys. The Clinton regime has pushed the United States into a constitutional crisis of pinnacle proportions.

Our once great republic is crying out for a new American creed which renews the peoples' faith and trust in our elected leaders and in our system of government. Twice, Bill Clinton actually swore upon the Bible to uphold the constitution of the United States. Will Congress uphold their public oaths? Let us pray they will.


The Cleveland Plain Dealer
November 16, 1997
Look at this! Conservative Street Theater Work, Too
by Natalie Hopkinson

This spring, when the Supreme Court was deciding whether Paula Jones' sexual harassment case against President Bill Clinton should proceed, [Clinton Investigative Commission] orchestrated "Flashers for Clinton," five raincoat-clad activists who waved picket signs and opened their coats to reveal "friend of the court briefs" signs to onlookers at the court steps.

Last month in front of the White House manicured lawn, [ a CIC representative] could be seen in a gray pinstriped suit and black hat….to direct one of his favorite pranks, "Criminals for Clinton." He gave a …. McDonald's lunch to about a dozen sympathetic college students to wear prison stripes and push a wheelbarrow filled with bogus foreign money on Pennsylvania Ave., a play on the illegal campaign contributions made by foreigners to the Democratic Party.

One student wore a mask of Clinton, while others wore name tags as some of the key players in the scandal: Attorney General Janet Reno, union chiefs Ron Carey and Arthur Coaia, and businessman Roger Tamraz.

[CIC] estimates that a demonstration like this produces about a thousand contacts as gawking tourists take their buttons home and look at the organization's Web site.


Cleveland Plain Dealer
November 16, 1997
Tapping Into Mail Support
by Natalie Hopkinson

Artie Johnson, a 79-year-old retiree from Austin, Texas, said she feels it's her patriotic duty to support causes like [Clinton Investigative Commission's]. "We have to do what we must to get the money to keep our country safe," said Johnson, who used to work for the state.

Distrust of the mainstream media and what he sees as blaring indiscretions by the White House also led Robert Shaw of Greenville, NC, to support a variety of direct-mail solicitations. "The national news media, both in print and over the airwaves, is totally biased, extremely liberal," said Shaw, a 55-year-old salesman for a company that makes medical devices."

The last mailing Shaw received from the Clinton Investigative Commission described how it was trying to implicate the Clinton administration in the death of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown in 1995. The mailing claimed that a heated argument took place between President Bill Clinton and Brown the day before his ill-fated airplane trip. "Brown knew a lot of thins that were going on. Its' almost so far-fetched, even for me, but people just shouldn't blow it off as some of these conservative ideas," he said.

Ed McDonald, a spokesman for Rep. Howard Coble, Republican of North Carolina, said his office received several boxes of petitions from a [CIC] mailing calling for Clinton's impeachment. A letter was sent back to acknowledge that the office received the petitions.