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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (3805)	9/18/1998 11:54:00 PM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

September 18, 1998 Sometimes, Evidence of Guilt Isn't Everything By ELLIOT RICHARDSON ASHINGTON -- The issues raised by Kenneth Starr's report to the House Judiciary Committee are not legal but judgmental and value-related. That does not mean, however, that they cannot be dealt with rationally. When I was United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts from 1959 to 1961 I sometimes decided not to prosecute someone, even in cases where there was clear evidence of guilt. Any one of many factors could lead to this result: the insignificance of the defendant's role in whatever crime had been committed; the absence of serious harm done by him; the preferability of a civil, rather than criminal, remedy. I also had to recommend sentences for all defendants who had been convicted. These instances of prosecutorial discretion were subject to the influence of slight variations of circumstance and small differences of degree. Narrow legalisms had no bearing on the decision I reached. It always came down instead to a matter of judgment. The same was often the case when I served as Massachusetts Attorney General and Attorney General of the United States. All these experiences helped to form my perspective on the unenviable task now thrust upon Congress by Mr. Starr's report. That task, too, calls both for prosecutorial discretion and for the kind of balanced deliberation that should go into the framing of a criminal sentence. To begin with, it will be important for the Judiciary Committee to assess the seriousness of President Clinton's sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky and his subsequent attempts to conceal that relationship. The former was not a crime. It would never have been the subject of investigation by Mr. Starr or any other independent counsel and could not conceivably have been grounds for impeachment. Mr. Clinton's initial misconduct differs markedly from the intertwined abuses of power that characterized Watergate. Richard Nixon faced impeachment for those abuses as well as for covering up the Watergate break-in and defying subpoenas. By contrast, Bill Clinton's attempts to evade and conceal the truth are his only potentially impeachable offenses. That is why his lawyers have labored mightily to show that deliberately misleading statements do not by themselves constitute "perjury." The House of Representatives, however, is not constrained by the technicalities of criminal law when it considers the charges against Mr. Clinton. Given the number, context and persistence of Mr. Clinton's misleading statements, and given whom he was trying to deceive, the House could well conclude that they constitute grounds for impeachment. But there is another, even weightier, question: would the President's removal from office be in the national interest? The Judiciary Committee should now address that question on the assumption that Mr. Starr's accusations are substantially true. If the committee nonetheless concludes that the President's removal from office is not desirable, it can choose not to prosecute. This would open the way to outcomes other than trial and conviction. Removing Mr. Clinton from office might well be an excessive penalty given the noncriminal, nonofficial character of his initial offense as well as this society's disposition to cloak sexual behavior from public exposure. If for these or other reasons the House concludes that the President's removal from office is not required, it can then consider censure. This would be the logical fallback for members who felt that no action at all would be too lenient. On the basis of what I now know, censure would seem to be the appropriate solution. This opinion is shared, apparently, by a wide range of important players in the current crisis. Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who would preside over Mr. Clinton's trial should the House vote to impeach him, is reportedly exploring a "middle way." So is Lloyd Cutler, the former White House counsel, who has been discussing strategy with Presidential aides. And while censure might further diminish the President's effectiveness, it would be only one more factor for Mr. Clinton to deal with as he tries to salvage his leadership. For the country's sake, let's hope that a censure vote will close this ugly chapter and allow us to get on with more important things. Elliot Richardson, a former Attorney General of the United States, served under seven Presidents.