What's the difference? This is a precedent setting incident. If he is just censured, it says that the President is immune from punishment for breaking the law (at least while in office). If he is impeached, it sends the message that the President *IS* subject to the law *AND* the matter will go to trial.
Well, there's the precedent setting Iran-Contra investigation, where barely a whisper was heard of impeachment, even though Reagan expressed pride in flouting the Boland ammendment. My understanding is there was also a bit of perjury, or at least lying under some kind of oath, in that one. Especially wrt. George "out of the loop" Bush. He was in all the NSC meetings, and given his background and general mental energy compared to Ron, most people would estimate that he knew more about what was going on than Reagan. Lawrence Walsh did, his report caused George a bit of trouble, though it was a lot less, uh, pornographic that Starr's.
Newt and Henry Hyde can push impeachment if they want. As I've said, I think the context is relevant here, and the more context about the Starr investigation you see, along with the long intertwined Paula Jones/ "Arkansas project" stuff, the worse he looks. And there's always my anonymous honest Republican's argument:
"I thought from day one, as I think today, that this was bad for the country," said one of Starr's defenders who now questions his tactics. "Sometimes you have to exercise prosecutorial discretion." Even though this defender of Starr said he believed the president was guilty of significant misconduct, he said, "the cost to the country far outweighs the value of proving it."
Of course, Newt's show himself willing to burn down the house before, so to speak, but politically he didn't come out of that act too well. Maybe he learned something, maybe not.
Oh, and a final parting shot from Salon:
The only criticism of Starr's performance that the elite media has been able to muster during the frenzy of the last several months is that the independent counsel is not PR-savvy, that he lacks the conniving political instincts of, say, President Clinton. (Even in this criticism there is buried the glow of approbation, a sense that there is something noble about Starr's naivet‚.) And yet nothing could be further from the truth. Kenneth Starr is a consummately political being, and has been throughout his public life. And his goal from the moment he sought the independent counsel appointment was to hobble, if not destroy, a duly elected presidency that gave him and his conservative allies great offense.
That little bit sounds unfortunately closer to the "facts" as I understand them than the tightly constrained set that others here want to concentrate on. Puts a funny light on the allegedly "liberal" press bias, too. Don't worry, though, if Starr & Co. win this one, the FBI will take care of Salon just fine, in due time.
Cheers, Dan. |
