Clinton is a certified liar. . .
ÿ
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Washington says this White House scandal may yet rival Watergate
<Picture>. . . but adultery is not a crime
DO you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
I do.
It was downhill from there. The prosecution explained the "important function of the oath in our judicial system". They told the President of the United States that the purpose of the oath is "calculated to awaken the witness's conscience". With barbed menace, they added that he could face criminal prosecution for perjury and obstruction of justice if he tried to mislead the grand jury.
The warnings fell on deaf ears. President Clinton had already made the decision to obfuscate, deceive and lie, whatever the cost. There was a moment, perhaps, when he could have saved his presidency. If he had admitted perjury in the deposition given last January, in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit, he might just have negotiated a retreat to a half-way defensible position. He could have argued that his testimony last January was "not material", given that the case was later dismissed by the judge. He could have repeated the mantra that the Jones lawsuit was financed by his political enemies with the sole purpose of inflicting damage, that he was the victim of a carefully constructed legal trap. Many Americans would have accepted this line of argument.
But it is not the nature of the man to admit guilt. Caught in a lie, his instinct is to fall back to another lie. When he chose to do so before the grand jury, in a criminal investigation, he crossed the point of no return. If the Office of the Independent Counsel could demonstrate beyond a doubt that he was defying the judicial process, and doing so in a systematic manner, the US Congress would be compelled to remove him from office. The Democratic party cannot be seen to tolerate a leader who is engaged in open subversion of the rule of law.
I do not know whether Americans will react instantly to the broadcast of this testimony. Most citizens are not sufficiently familiar with the facts of the case to know exactly when Mr Clinton is committing perjury. Their education will take a few days. But the scenes of their President, at times angry, at times smug, mostly evasive, sitting in the interrogation chair at the White House Map Room, will be replayed again and again on television with suitable juxtapositions from the greater body of evidence. At some point it will be folded in with even more flagrant perjury from the videotape of his January deposition. The message will get through.
The definition of sexual relations given to Mr Clinton in the Jones case was very specific: when the "person knowingly engages in or causes contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to gratify the sexual desire of any person". It is obvious to any sane human being that it was intended to cover the whole gamut of sex. Indeed, the President's lawyer, Robert Bennett, conceded as much when he stated - with the approval of his client - that there "is no sex of any kind, in any manner, shape or form" with Monica Lewinsky.
Was this not an "utterly false statement"? asked the prosecution. No, sir, not at all, answered Mr Clinton before the grand jury, it depends on the meaning of the word "is". The relationship was not going on at that moment, as the President sat in the room with the lawyers. It had ended before. Therefore, using the "present tense", it was an "accurate statement". Not even Bill Clinton, brilliant actor though he is, was able to prevent the hint of grin enveloping his face as he served up this ridiculous contortion. This was followed by his inventive assertion that oral sex performed by Monica Lewinsky while he was on the telephone to congressmen, or leaning against the door off the Oval Office - a confession forced on him after the discovery of his semen DNA on her blue cocktail dress - did not amount to sexual relations because she was the donor, and he was just the lucky recipient.
The members of the Washington DC grand jury, most of them black women of Democratic leanings, were clearly not amused by these attempts to outwit the judicial system. They submitted their own questions, intended to specify forms of sex. In the course of cross-examination, Mr Clinton was informed that Monica Lewinsky had testified in convincing detail that he had kissed and fondled her breasts, and stimulated her genital area with an intent to cause sexual gratification. He clenched his hands together, perspired and swore to the jury that he had never engaged in any conduct intended to arouse Miss Lewsinsky in any way.
And on it went: implausible denials about sex, about attempts to suborn the perjury of his elderly black secretary, about his efforts to draw the Secret Service into obstruction of justice, about misuse of his White House staff to perpetuate the lies for seven months. You would have to be a diehard believer in the greater mission of this President to excuse the pattern of malfeasance.
Kenneth Starr, the Independent Counsel, has plainly achieved his preliminary purpose of discrediting the word of this President. Mr Clinton is now a certified liar. After this softening-up exercise, Mr Starr probably feels strong enough to move on to the next stage. A few months ago, he seemed ready to admit defeat and close down his other investigations of the Clintons with a non-committal report to a panel of three judges. This was not because of a failure to find any credible evidence of wrong-doing, but rather because of a political judgment that his various cases were not quite strong enough to challenge a sitting President who still enjoyed broad popular support and institutional deference. The public would give more credence to the word of Mr Clinton than that of any ordinary citizen called to testify against him. That has now been reversed. After the Monica cover-up, a jury, or an impeachment committee, would sooner believe a tramp off the street.
"Where's Whitewater?" asked the President's lawyer in a mocking tone when the Starr report was delivered to Congress. Where are all the other so-called scandals - Filegate, Travelgate, Madison Guaranty, Castle Grande, etc? - asked the President's supporters tauntingly. Mr Starr spent four years and $40 million turning over every stone in Arkansas (he didn't, actually), and all he could come up with was a disputed story about sex.
They may regret that challenge. Kenneth Starr, a gentle man, famously slow to anger, does not want to go down in history as nothing more than a bedroom snoop. I hear that he is now turning with zeal to matters of financial fraud, obstruction of justice, misuse of the FBI and witness intimidation. His two grand juries, one in Washington, the other in Virginia, are very much alive. If my information is correct, he will soon give an accounting for those four years and that $40 million. It will come in the form of criminal indictments at the highest level of the US government.
Those who say that this scandal does not rise to the level of Watergate may have to eat their words.
telegraph.co.uk |
