And the chorus grows stronger:
09/13/98- Updated 10:35 PM ET
USA Today - Lead Editorial
A matter of integrity: Clinton should resign
To hear White House lawyers tell it, independent counsel Ken Starr's
impeachment report is a "hit-and-run smear campaign" full of sexual
details designed to damage the president. Nothing in the report
supports Starr's claim of 11 impeachable offenses, they say.
Not so, according to Starr. After eight months of investigation, he says
it's clear the president repeatedly lied under oath, encouraged others to
lie, obstructed justice and defiled his office. His 445-page report details
grounds for removal from office.
That is essentially the same argument that has raged for eight months,
with details added, and now moves to Congress for judgment.
But the legal skirmishing misses the central question: Has the president
so failed in his duties to the nation that he should leave office?
The answer to that question is yes, and the time for the president to
leave is not after months of continued national embarrassment but now.
Clinton should resign.
Not because he is unquestionably guilty of any specific criminal offense,
though he may well be. Not because of his sexual behavior, as
disgraceful as it is. And not solely because of Starr's report, which is far
from an impartial judgment. He should resign because he has resolutely
failed - and continues to fail - the most fundamental test of any
president: to put his nation's interests first.
The least any American can expect of a president is that in crisis he will
readily put the welfare of the nation he leads ahead of his own
well-being. In other contexts, that is the ultimate test of character. It
separates the military leader or executive who accepts blame for failure
from the one who tries to shuffle it elsewhere.
There's no doubt which kind of man the Founders had in mind. Not
someone with "talents for low intrigue and the little arts of persuasion,"
but with qualities to "establish him in the esteem and confidence of the
whole Union," as Alexander Hamilton put it in The Federalist Papers.
This crisis continues to expose Clinton as someone who lacks both the
courage and the character to make that sacrifice.
If nothing else, this is made plain in the Starr report, as salacious and
flawed an impeachment document it may be. It is a tale of a man who
entered into the most shallow sort of affair knowing better than anyone
else what pain the nation would suffer if he were caught; a man, who
once exposed, lied in the nation's face and then used his considerable
power to intimidate and discredit his accusers; a man who consciously
skated along a thin legal edge, determined to hold onto office at any
cost to the nation he is sworn to serve.
The affair. The narrative at the heart of Starr's report leaves no doubt
that the president knew the stakes for the nation when he started the
affair with Lewinsky. And he had good reason to think the affair might
be uncovered with Paula Jones' attorneys on the prowl for any sexual
mischief as part of their sexual harassment suit. Yet he did it anyway.
And when the Jones team listed Lewinsky as a witness, what can most
charitably be described as an attempt to cover up the affair began. A
lingering job search for Lewinsky gathered steam, with Clinton deeply
involved. That may or may not constitute obstruction of justice, as Starr
charges, but the coverup - taken as a whole - is the action of a
president preoccupied with saving himself while higher duties
presumably are left waiting.
The deposition. The first critical test for Clinton came in January of
this year, when the Jones team, having discovered the Lewinsky affair,
deposed him. Clinton had a choice: continue to cover up the affair with
Lewinsky or admit to it under oath. The latter option would have put all
the facts on the table quickly. Clinton could have apologized, and the
nation could have moved on. But that carried both political and legal
risks for Clinton, so he opted to protect himself. He denied any affair
with Lewinsky, relying on a contorted, legalistic definition of sexual
relations designed to evade the truth while also tiptoeing past a perjury
charge. That's fine for a criminal defendant but not for the president of
the United States.
Yet Clinton didn't stop there. Asked if Lewinsky's sworn affidavit
denying any sexual relations were true, he said yes, allowing false
testimony to be entered into the court record. Even if Clinton could
beat the rap in court, which is far from clear, he at least tried to skirt the
law he has twice sworn to uphold, and for no higher motive than to
save himself.
The denials. Clinton's second great test came in late January.
Published reports of the scandal had hit newsstands, and Clinton's first
tepid denials were proving unconvincing. Again, had Clinton thought
about the nation's well-being, not to mention that of his supporters, he
would simply have told the truth. Instead, he stepped to the podium,
looked the nation in the eye and accusingly asserted, "I did not have
sexual relations with that woman." He proceeded to lie to everyone,
including his Cabinet and top aides, surely knowing many would repeat
those lies before Starr's grand jury, which, according to the report, they
did. Adviser Sidney Blumenthal testified that Clinton told him Lewinsky
tried to force him to have sex and that she might be a stalker. That
broken trust with the public cannot be repaired with a few acts of
contrition.
The investigation. Throughout the Starr investigation, Clinton had the
chance to do the honorable thing, to provide answers "sooner rather
than later," as he once promised. Instead, he stalled with repeated
claims of privilege, and viciously attacked his accusers. This
stall-and-attack plan served only the president's needs, while damaging
the integrity of the judicial process and costing taxpayers millions.
The admission. Even in his Aug. 17 admission of the affair before
Starr's grand jury, Clinton proved dishonorable. As Starr's report
makes clear, Clinton only confessed the affair when cornered by the
retrieval of Lewinsky's dress and the DNA tests that were to prove
Clinton had some kind of sex with her.
And he clung to a ridiculous legal strategy that claimed he was "legally
accurate" in denying the affair under oath back in January. His answers,
White House lawyers now say, were "literally truthful but misleading."
Again, the strategy helps protect Clinton for a perjury charge, but only
at the expense of cheapening his office and the standards of the nation
he leads. As Sen. Bob Kerrey, D-Neb., said on the Senate floor: "I do
not want my children to believe that the only standard of truth to which
they, much less a president of the United States, must aspire is legal
accuracy."
The speech. That night, the president had still another chance to
change course in a direction that might have been difficult for him but
good for the nation. An admission of guilt, a confession of the facts and
a sincere apology could again have ended the matter. He did none of
that. Instead, he again attacked his accusers and listed excuses for his
own behavior, chief among them, "to protect myself from the
embarrassment of my own conduct."
In the end, the legal strategy Clinton pursues today combined with his
apparent repentance may prevail, with the president escaping
impeachment and remaining in office. It would at best be a hollow
victory for someone who has shown himself to be a small man.
A president should be more than that. He should be the extraordinary
person Hamilton foresaw - one who occupies the office with integrity
and who instinctively places honesty and the nation's welfare above
self-interest.
For eight months, continuing to this day, Bill Clinton has given no sign
that he is or can become that kind of person. Now the channel has
narrowed, leaving him no choice but to push ahead or resign.
Bill Clinton should resign.
usatoday.com |
