John, I can't disagree with that generally. But what if, in the midst of WW Two, it was learned that Churchill had both had an affair and perjured himself about it? And what if Parliament distracted him about such matters, risking the loss of many lives and imperiling the whole nation? Would that have made sense?
Now, okay, Clinton was no Churchill, and the threat was not as great (or was it greater? when did bin Laden begin his planning?), but my basic point is that many of our greatest men have done a thing or two that is questionable. Our cherished democratic principles are vitally important, but our laws are not a suicide pact. In times of peril, sometimes minor infractions are overlooked, lest we lose the nation.
Perhaps a middle ground is that statutes of limitation should be tolled while a man is President for all but the most serious crimes (murder, sedition, etc.), but that thereafter he can be prosecuted and if convicted fined and/or imprisoned? Impeachment would, by agreemment of both major parties, be reserved for grave offenses such as above. Thus, a President will fully answer to the law, but only a bit later. How does that sound? |
