Wednesday, August 26, 1998
Can Clinton, the Survivor, Still Lead the Nation?
White House scandal: A chief executive devoid of credibility would be
worse than an impeached president.
By JONATHAN TURLEY
President Clinton's admission that he lied about his relationship
with Monica Lewinsky has produced a torrent of
commentary on whether he can survive perjury and obstruction
charges. The question, however, is not survival, but survival in what
condition. This was the question that concerned the drafters when
they created the impeachment clause.
In politics and law, scandals are rarely lethal, but some injuries do
not heal. It is a question that the president and the public will have
to consider carefully in the next few weeks. When the Constitution
was written, there was considerable debate over impeachment
standards and procedures. While the mechanics of impeachment
were controversial, the purpose of impeachment was always clear.
The drafters wanted to avoid the danger of paralysis in the
presidency: the inability of a president to effectively lead without
political and legal legitimacy. The drafters understood that a
president's power is derived in most part from his accepted
authority as chief executive officer. When a president is found to
have committed criminal acts in office, the drafters believed that he
would lose both political and legal legitimacy.
In the current crisis, the president appears to have succeeded in
retaining political support while losing legal legitimacy. This
achievement, however, would be survival at any cost without a view
to the office and its responsibilities. With the exception of handling
threats from abroad, there may be little left for President Clinton
beyond continuing a role as a presidential litigant.
The president will be in no position to initiate any new major
domestic initiatives or law enforcement programs. This may be the
best scenario for the Republicans: an unimpeached but severely
crippled president who finishes the remain-der of his term more as a
litigant than as a leader.
Ironically, if the president resigned, it may be viewed as his most
presidential act. In doing so, he would unleash a nightmare for the
Republicans by inaugurating a Gore administration with the time
needed to secure reelection. Clinton also would destroy his nemesis
Ken Starr in the view of the public, who would blame him for the
resignation of a popular president. Finally, he could produce a
sweep of both houses of Congress for the Democrats in the likely
backlash.
Few, however, believe that Clinton is the resigning type. In a
practical sense, if events unfold as expected, the effective
presidency of William Jefferson Clinton already may be over. After
depleting his resources in the pitched battle with Starr, the president
may be faced this year with a new and more threatening
independent counsel looking into the campaign finance scandal. This
scandal raises all of the clear official misconduct issues claimed to
be missing in the Lewinsky matter, ranging from illegal fund-raising
practices to illegal foreign contributions and influence peddling.
Moreover, as the president deals with the final stage of the Starr
investigation and the opening stage of a new investigation, he may
face an old adversary: Paula Jones. Jones is pursuing an appeal in
her sexual harassment case against the president and there is a
possibility that the litigation could be reinstated.
The corrosive effects of these continuing investigations will be felt in
both domestic and foreign arenas. The president's alleged acts of
perjury and obstruction will undermine other cases prosecuted by
his Justice Department in the next two years. Citizens have been
prosecuted for perjury in civil deposition as well as the use of
"hypothetical" coaching of witnesses. Military personnel have been
discharged for lying about "inappropriate relationships." Likewise,
the president stands accused of acts of sexual harassment that his
own administration has prosecuted in other cases.
On the international front, the president has already seen the effect
of his legal troubles on foreign relations.
Within minutes of his ordering an attack on a terrorist base in Afghanistan, a public
debate ensued on whether his motivation was not to protect but to
distract our nation. Foreign leaders used the president's difficulties
to challenge the American response on the same basis.
This is why the question of survival may be more important to a
president as an individual but the condition of survival is more
important to the presidency. A president who can claim only
political, but not legal, legitimacy holds the title to the office without
the necessary mandate to govern. We may discover that the only
thing worse than an impeached president is a partially impeached
president.
- - -
Jonathan Turley Is a Professor of Law at George Washington
University Law School in Washington
latimes.com; |
