From the McLaughlin Group, Jan. 16, 1999
John McLaughlin-
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Are there reasons to remove Bill Clinton from office beyond the felonies detailed in the Articles of Impeachment, if that's what they are? Should senators consider the collateral damage stemming from Clinton's criminal conduct?
Okay. Let us move beyond the criminal predicate to the collateral fallout.
One, disgrace. "On January the 20th, 1993, William Jefferson Clinton took the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States 'faithfully to execute the office of president.' Implicit in that oath is the obligation that the president set an example of high moral standards and conduct himself in a manner that fosters respect for the truth, and William Jefferson Clinton has egregiously failed in this obligation and, through his actions, violated the trust of the American people, lessened their esteem for the office of president, and dishonored the office which they have entrusted to him."
These are not the words of Republicans, the loyal opposition; these are the words of Clinton's friends -- the exact words, indeed, of the House Democrats in their proposed resolution of censure against Mr. Clinton. This is the judgment of the president's most ardent backers.
The question that the Senate jurors may wish to ask themselves is: Should a president who has disgraced himself, his family, and the nation's citizens, and who has become a laughingstock throughout the world, be judged to be too flawed to govern? |
