clinton: the point, again


Joseph Rose ([email protected])
Fri, 25 Dec 1998 22:36:02 -0800


Should Linda Tripp, Lucianne Goldberg and Kenneth Starr decide
who is to be
                              President of the United States? When you
analyze the principal argument made for the
                              impeachment of President Clinton, you are
brought inevitably to that question.

                    Perjury was the House Republican mantra, the
argument pressed by the hard right to bring moderates to
                    heel. In the debate, one Republican after another
said he or she had to vote to impeach Bill Clinton
                    because he lied under oath. But that proposition
overlooks what the trio did.

                    The President tried to keep his sexual improprieties
secret. That was neither surprising nor ignoble. Henry
                    Hyde and Robert Livingston did the same, and so men
have done since the Creation.

                    But Monica Lewinsky told Mrs. Tripp, a former White
House employee who had been trying for years to
                    harm President Clinton. At the urging of Ms.
Goldberg, a right-wing literary agent, Mrs. Tripp taped her
                    telephone conversations with Ms. Lewinsky. She told
Paula Jones's lawyers and Mr. Starr about the
                    tapes.

                    The resulting trap was sprung on the President at
his deposition in the Jones case. That was the fount of
                    his troubles. So it is vital to understand how his
testimony has effectively been judged.

                    Mr. Clinton denied, famously, having had "sexual
relations" with Ms. Lewinsky. The definition of that
                    was so obscure that no jury was likely to convict
him of perjury in his denial. And the House of
                    Representatives evidently took the same view. It
rejected the article of impeachment charging him with
                    perjury in the deposition. Mr. Starr had another
string for his bow. He called the President before a
                    grand jury, where he was asked about his statements
in the Jones deposition. Then Mr. Starr charged that
                    Mr. Clinton's answers were false.

                    Again, I doubt that a jury would have convicted Mr.
Clinton of perjury. Millions of Americans saw the
                    videotape of his grand jury appearance and most
sympathized with him -- indeed, were outraged at what
                    he was put through.

                    But House Republicans said that the President's
answers to the Starr prosecutors were perjurious. That is,
                    answers that the House found were not perjurious at
the original proceeding became high crimes when
                    the same answers were given again.

                    No other American would have had to undergo that
second turn of the screw. Targets of prosecutors
                    customarily invoke the Fifth Amendment; Justice
Department rules discourage calling them before grand
                    juries. But Mr. Starr, determined to get something
on him after four years of fruitless investigation,
                    guessed correctly that for political reasons the
President would not refuse to testify.

                    In truth, many House Republicans who cited perjury
as their ground for impeachment had deeper
                    reasons. They do not like this President. An
unmistakable venom ran through the whole process.

                    An astute foreign eye saw it clearly. Philip Stevens
of The Financial Times wrote: "This was not about the
                    sacred Constitution of the United States. It wasn't
even honest politics. The impeachment of Bill Clinton
                    was personal. It was an act of vengeance."

                    Conservatives have hated Bill Clinton since the day
he took office. Some conservative commentators,
                    broadcast and print, seem obsessed by the man.
Robert Livingston, before he gave up the Speaker's job,
                    showed his distorting animus when he said: "Richard
Nixon's crime was covering up a crime he did not
                    commit. Clinton is covering up a crime he did
commit."

                    There are reasons for politicians, Democratic and
Republican, to distrust Bill Clinton. He has not played
                    straight with many of them. And the public has
reason to have been offended at his false assurance that
                    he had not had sexual relations with that woman. But
those are not grounds for impeachment, or
                    resignation, unless we are going to make the
impeachment process a vote of no confidence and move
                    toward a parliamentary system of government.

                    In the end, I do not believe that the Senate or the
public will want to reward hatred. I do not believe they
                    will want our political fate to be decided by Linda
Tripp, Lucianne Goldberg and Kenneth Starr.



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Fri Dec 25 1998 - 22:40:15 PST