Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Did Slick Boink Monica? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (11949)	3/23/1998 12:31:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

March 23, 1998 ESSAY / By WILLIAM SAFIRE U.S. Versus Clinton WASHINGTON -- By defiantly asserting that he and his aides are above the criminal law -- the essence of his claim last Friday of "executive privilege" -- Bill Clinton has increased the likelihood of their indictment and his impeachment. Pitting his soaring poll ratings against bedrock judicial principle, he offers the other two branches of government the choice of the rule of Clinton or the rule of law. That is the meaning of his decision to place his cover-up crew beyond the reach of a grand jury. Not since Richard Nixon tried to withhold incriminating taped evidence -- and was forced by the unanimous Supreme Court to respond to the subpoena of a grand jury -- has a President presumed to wrap personal wrongdoing in the cloak of official business. Firestorm, anyone? Not yet; most are hung up on trashing the background of women accusing the President of misconduct to grasp the constitutional import of Clinton's blatant attempt at the usurpation of power. Perhaps his reach for unlimited immunity has little of the human interest of a sex dispute. But what Clinton crudely groped at last week is an idea called "equal justice under law." To try to stretch Presidential prerogatives to subvert the course of a criminal investigation goes beyond ordinary criminal acts to reach the level of a "high" crime. Despite being committed under the secrecy of an ill-considered judicial seal, Clinton's claim of unprecedented privilege is not denied by the President's fleet of lawyers. We know it has taken place. If Clinton can get away with this, any future President would be able to get away with anything. He will declaim piously that he seeks only to protect the confidentiality of official advice. That's sophistry because he is blocking inquiry into a conspiracy of witness-tampering, which is not in his job description. We can hope that the Supreme Court, in a U.S. v. Clinton, will again deny a Presidential power-grab (and this time Justice Rehnquist need not recuse himself). But Clinton hopes his stall will get him past the Jones trial and the midterm elections. To pay for his bid to run out the clock of his second term, this self-weakened President is willing to force the Court and the Congress to weaken the Presidency permanently Why take such a risk to keep his aides from talking? Only one logical answer: He sees a greater risk in letting them tell the truth. Note the difference between his defiance of the independent counsel, who is unpopular, with Clinton's more cautious approach to delaying the Congress, which now nearly matches his own popularity. Bruce Lindsey, Clinton's longtime Mr. Fixit, who refuses to answer the grand jury's questions, also invoked a spurious executive privilege when deposed by the staff of the House committee looking into campaign scandals. Chairman Dan Burton once before brought a contempt of Congress resolution against a White House counsel, who caved in at the last minute. Under the same threat, Lindsey has agreed to return to testify April 6 about conversations with Clinton about James Riady's influence. Behind the talk of a select committee to replace Judiciary in considering impeachment is this: House rules require a two-thirds vote to grant witnesses immunity and force them to testify. In Judiciary, Clinton diehard Barney Frank has the votes to block such vital grants. That's why a new committee, headed by Judiciary chairman Henry Hyde, will likely be appointed with two-thirds Republicans. Otherwise, the parade of 89 witnesses taking the Fifth or fleeing the country would continue and no serious inquiry could proceed. Example: Burton's Government Reform committee is considering offering immunity to John Huang limited to violations of the Hatch Act and Federal election regulations (not more serious potential crimes like espionage or helping Clinton hush up Web Hubbell). If Democrat Henry Waxman blocks immunity to get Huang's testimony, then Clinton's Lippo connection could be handed off to House Oversight, which is 6-3 Republican. The prospect of Huang's talking has cover-up conspirators profoundly worried. If impeachment comes, Clinton's power-abusive attempt to carve out a personal privilege that places him above the law -- the high crime perpetrated last week -- will be remembered as the beginning of his end. nytimes.com