Since you introduced the subject matter of Lewis Carroll, this is seemingly serendipitous:
January 5, 1999
Red Queen Trial?
While Lewis Carroll's Red Queen wanted the sentence first,
then the verdict, Trent Lott says he wants an impeachment verdict first, then
maybe a Senate trial. "Stuff and nonsense," Alice replied in Wonderland.
This is also good advice to other Senators considering the majority leader's
anti-trial balloon.
To their credit, some are already heeding
Alice--even "moderates" supposedly spooked at
the thought of a Senate trial. "A serious mistake,"
says Ohio's Mike DeWine. "The Constitution calls
for a trial, and customarily there are witnesses at a
trial," adds Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter about the
notion of voting before hearing testimony.
Even Utah's Orrin Hatch, usually Bill Clinton's
favorite Republican, opposes Mr. Lott's proposal
to have Senators declare whether the evidence is
impeachable (and thus end a trial) even before
they've heard much of the evidence.
The high-tone political case for Mr. Lott's wimp-out is that there aren't 67
Senate votes to remove Mr. Clinton, so what's the point of a trial? The
lower-tone truth is that Mr. Lott is covering for Senators who want to be
spared from their sworn duty, under the Constitution, to hear the evidence
and pass public judgment on an impeached chief executive.
Not surprisingly, Mr. Lott has the approval of Democratic leader Tom
Daschle, and the quiet assent of the White House. With the unfortunate fact
of serial Presidential perjury* thus disposed of, everyone in Washington
could then get on with the business of trusting Mr. Clinton to save Social
Security.
Mr. Lott and his running mate Slade Gorton can't be as obtuse as this
makes them sound. To appease a public cynical about scandal, he'd
sponsor a cynical insider deal designed to shield Senators from public
accountability. To honor the courage of House Republicans who voted their
consciences, he'd dismiss their case without even calling witnesses. And to a
President he publicly mistrusts even on the bombing of Iraq, Mr. Lott would
nonetheless offer an outcome Mr. Clinton would spin as complete
vindication.
It's hard to see how Republican voters would be thrilled at this show of
backbone, with the majority leader joining a handful of Republicans in
voting with the Democrats and against most of their party. Mr. Lott's
implicit promise, of course, is that a quick trial dismissal would be followed
by something called "censure." But this is like asking the accused to admit
his crime after he's been acquitted. And in any case, the idea looks as
fanciful in the Senate as it did in the House.
Mr. Hatch and others have offered censure as a kind of plea bargain if Mr.
Clinton admits he lied under oath--something he shows no sign of doing. In
fact, the President who admitted his affair with Monica Lewinsky only when
confronted with his DNA on her dress can't admit to any such
thing--because of his fundamental personality, because of potential criminal
liability, and because many Democrats need a fig leaf of ambiguity on
perjury to justify their slavish support.
Senators of both parties may also want to think about the ever-present
possibility of new evidence popping up. A special House committee has just
announced its findings that China pried out valuable U.S. defense secrets
from an Administration eager for business deals (and maybe campaign
contributions directed by the mysterious Colonel Liu). While the details
remain classified, it'd be at least inconvenient if they leaked the day after the
trial ended.
Then there is "Jane Doe #5," whose story became public as long ago as
March 28 when NBC's Lisa Myers reported "the explosive new allegation"
that "President Clinton sexually assaulted a woman 20 years ago in
Arkansas."
Ms. Myers identified the woman as Juanita Broaddrick, a campaign worker
who came to the attention of lawyers for Paula Jones. According to Ms.
Myers, "Broaddrick, now 54, recently denied under oath that such an
assault occurred. But Jones's lawyers claim she had told their investigator
she had suffered a quote 'horrible thing' at the hand of Clinton, and did not
want to relive it. And NBC News has talked to four people from Arkansas
who say Broaddrick told them of such an assault years ago."
The White House has called the charge "outrageous" and Ken Starr didn't
make it part of his formal impeachment charges. But an appendix to the
Starr report includes this troubling entry: On Jan. 2, 1998, "Jane Doe #5
signed an affidavit in which she denied that the President made 'unwelcome
sexual advances toward me in the late Seventies.' (On April 8, 1998,
however, Jane Doe #5 stated to OIC investigators that this affidavit was
false.)"
We also know from other nonpartisan sources, including ABC News and
the Washington Post, that the Broaddrick material, and possibly still other
so far undisclosed testimony, was influential with some House Republicans
on the fence over impeachment. Even if House prosecutors decide not to
bring up this false affidavit as part of their obstruction of justice case in the
Senate, what if Ms. Broaddrick herself decides to come forward to explain
what induced her to file it? Mr. Lott's premature dismissal would look
foolish.
In sum, the safest political course here is also the right Constitutional one.
Start a trial, let it run its full course, and let every Senator declare whether
perjury and obstruction are impeachable offenses. Any other outcome
would make Senate Republicans complicit in the demeaning of political
standards that is the hallmark of the Clinton Presidency.
interactive2.wsj.com
*serial Presidential perjury
Remember when some clown said I made that phrase up? I guess he must think I also wrote the WSJ article. |
