Boston Hearld: Colume
Don Feder: Clinton's defense: A lie about a lie
09/16/98
by DON FEDER
If Clinton lawyer David E. Kendall (who looks like a demented Howdy Doody) successfully defends his client from impeachment, he will immediately be inducted into the Johnnie Cochran Winning-With-Totally-Implausible-Arguments Hall of Fame.
Kendall's defense of Bill Clinton verges on the surreal: The president didn't perjure himself when he testified in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case that he didn't have ''sexual relations'' with Monica Lewinsky because the president has a definition of sexual relations unknown to the rest of humanity.
Oral sex isn't sexual relations. Intimate caresses aren't sexual relations. And acts leading to orgasm do not constitute sexual relations.
On this basis, one could further surmise that even if Clinton did what Jones alleges, it did not constitute sexual harassment because, according to the president's understanding, exposing himself and saying ''kiss it'' isn't a sexual act.
Which raises an interesting question. If the president didn't think he was having sexual relations with Lewinsky, what did he think he was doing: discussing the weather, discharging his duties as commander-in-chief?
Clinton also testified under oath that he had no recollection of being alone with Lewinsky.
In his August address, the president admitted having an ''improper'' relationship that was clearly ''wrong.'' But seven months earlier, he couldn't recall if the impropriety occurred in private. (As opposed to on the Mall in Washington at noon on a business day?)
How to reconcile these positions, either: A) Clinton has so many inappropriate but non-sexual liaisons with White House interns that he can't keep them straight; B) The president is suffering from age-associated memory loss; or C) To compliment his unique definition of ''sexual relations,'' the president also has a unique definition of ''alone.''
Clinton's mouthpiece has a few non-legal arguments.
To wit: Whereas special prosecutor Kenneth Starr's investigation started with Whitewater, there are only two mentions of the Arkansas real-estate scam in the 445-page report, while sex is cited more than 500 times. Hence, no Whitewater, no credibility for the report.
This argument may be reduced to: Don't look at these crimes (11 impeachable offenses), because Starr didn't prove those crimes. In fact, Whitewater, Travelgate and Filegate are expected to be the subject of future reports from the office of the independent counsel.
Kendall might as well say, ''Forget about perjury because the special prosecutor didn't prove treason.'' Or, ''Forget about obstruction of justice, there's nothing in the report connecting Clinton to the Kennedy assassination.''
Underlying all of this, there's the it's-just-sex rationale. In its 42-page rebuttal to the Starr report, the president's legal team whined that the submittal contained ''salacious allegations. . . simply designed to humiliate, embarrass and politically damage the president.''
The reason the salacious details (uncontested) were included was to demonstrate that Clinton had lied under oath about his salacious behavior.
There's also an unstated argument: So what if the president perjured himself in a civil case, almost anything relating to private conduct is excusable. (Kendall: ''This is personal, not impeachable.'')
Kendall admits the relationship (supposedly non-sexual) was wrong, but personal, and trying to cover up the relationship was wrong, but - again - personal.
If the president can lie to the American people about ''just sex,'' perjure himself about ''just sex'' and abuse the authority of the most powerful office on earth about ''just sex,'' why couldn't he commit murder as part of the cover-up?
If the president had ordered one of his Secret Service bodyguards to shoot Lewinsky, would his lawyers now be arguing, ''No big deal, it's just about sex''?
Whether Kendall becomes a Cochran Hall Of Fame inductee will depend on whether the American people have more wit, discernment and integrity than the O.J. Simpson jury.
If we allow Clinton to get away with engaging in loathsome conduct, violating his oath of office and committing perjury, what will he do next?
What about his successors? Will one of them one day muse: Bill Clinton played perverted games in the White House, lied repeatedly to the American people, attacked the Constitution he swore to preserve and protect by trying to subvert our legal system and he got away with it. What can I get away with?
Clinton's non-perjury defense is a lie about a lie. For a man whose politics, career and very life are constructed of lie linked to lie - reaching from Hope, Ark., halfway around the globe - what would you expect? |
