That was an interesting, and as is usual for The Economist, a most eloquent essay.
It is also I think of some note that the word "Constitution" is not mentioned once. It is an argument of political expediency. The essence of the argument is that Clinton has lost the respect and moral authority of the country, he has lost the ability to govern strongly and effectively, and therefore should be removed.
It is a profoundly non-constitution argument. Perhaps not surprisingly for a British publication, it is in essence a Parliamentary argument. If the President has lost public confidence, have a vote of no confidence in Congress, call it an impeachment vote, and vote him out of office. Or force him to resign with impeachment as the alternative.
Our framers had in mind a different approach, and a more stable and enduring term of Presidential office. A President may be removed, but not because there has been a loss of confidence. He must have committed a High Crime or a High Misdemeanor.
If the President survives in office, and when the hearings are over, his authority to govern will return, much more quickly and much more fully than most now imagine.
Indeed, the President retains much more intrinsic authority to lead the American people than is now thought by the media and by Washington. When this matter is resolved that disconnect will be resolved.by the media, and Washington, doing most of the adjusting. People will talk with amazement about Clinton's comeback ability.
That's a way to talk about it, but it really isn't what it's about. It's really about the media and official Washington going nuts, and playing vastly out of proportion, a scandal that a majority of the public, and certainly the vast majority of other countries (despite the Economist) think is really not that important, or that central. Sure this crisis is important, and should end. By the impeachment hearing coming to a rapid conclusion.
That's something I'd like to underline. I do think that there is a very real imperative now to speedily conclude these hearings and come to a judgement. Unlike in Watergate, Starr has developed a full and detailed case, with marshaled arguments, for the offenses he alleges. The prosecution, in Congress as well, should be deemed to have made it's case, and to have rested. (This actually is to Republican's advantage, most of them, because it avoids their appearing to hound or pile on the President, rather than merely sitting in judgment, as they are required to do.) So now let the President make his rebuttal, but make it quickly. While the President's attorneys have just gotten Starr's report, and certainly need to see the backup material, extensive leaks have given them a very good head start on marshalling their response. So require that it be quick, even if one might argue that that is at some cost to due process. There is a counterbalancing large public interest now in swift resolution.
Alternatively, and preferably really, this is how I think Congress should proceed. I think in the interests of speedy resolution Congress should first entertain and decide a motion by the President's attorneys for summary judgement. That is, assume for a moment that all the alleged facts set forth in Starr's report are in fact true, without necessarily agreeing with the conclusions Starr draws from those facts, or how he characterizes them. Is there enough evidence about offenses serious enough to warrant impeachment?
That, in essence, is the discussion the whole country is having this weekend. Congress should get right to that, and only later get into the business of allowing the President's lawyers to start cross examining Lewinsky and all the rest, if absolutely necessary.
I don't think it is necessary. I don't think this perjury under these circumstances is impeachable. I don't think Starr has marshaled enough evidence to be sure, without reasonable doubt, that Clinton suborned Lewinsky's perjury. But also, even there is enough evidence of that, I don't think THIS suborning perjury, with THESE underlying facts and in these circumstances, rises to an impeachable level. Not all crimes are impeachable crimes. Despite what some wrongly say. Under our Constitution, they are not.
Starr's other theories of impeachable offenses, that Clinton abused his office by asserting privileges to be tested by the courts, and by lying to his Cabinet about the affair as well as to everyone else (knowing the Cabinet would believe him and say so), are really non-starters. Most legally educated observers seem to essentially agree with that already.
If this sort of perjury, or encouragement that Lewinsky continue to cover up the same affair and thus also commit civil perjury, are determined to rise to the level of a "High Crime or Misdemeanor", then we do indeed have to have cross examination, presentation of the President's evidence, and a trial. Lord lets hope not. But if so lets do it with all unaccustomed speed. Whether the President like that or not.
And reach a swift decision. It is possible, it's very possible. It's up to Congress. And important for the country and for the world.
Doug |
