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