What about Hillary?
by Alan W. Bock
Copyright 1998, WorldNetDaily.com
Whether the politicians like it or not -- and
they're leery in both parties -- unless a swifter
than expected resolution is devised or the
schedule changes, this November's election is
shaping up to be a something of a
referendum on whether Bill Clinton should
be impeached. It will take more dramatic
shifts in public opinion for the outcome to be
decisive immediately, but one of the things in
voters' minds as they decide on congressional
candidates is bound to be whether Candidate
X or Challenger Y is more likely to vote for
impeachment when and if the matter comes
up.
Given the congressional Republicans' retreat
on the issues -- is an $80-billion tax cut over
five years when the surplus is projected to be
$1 billion or more over the same period really
supposed to give us goose bumps? --
impeachment might be the only issue with
the potential to "nationalize" the election and
give national tea leaf readers something from
which to draw significance in November. To
say this is not to predict how it is likely to go.
For an impeachment move to have much
credibility it cannot arise simply from
electing more Republicans. It has to become
enough of an issue that a significant number
of Democrats at least send out signals
between the lines that they would be willing
to pursue an impeachment inquiry.
I think we should have impeached a
president every 20 years or so just to keep
them from getting too cocky, but we haven't.
Consequently impeachment, especially of a
president, is viewed as a grave and solemn
matter in American politics. Unless
cumulative disgust takes hold more
forcefully, my guess now would be that a
large enough segment of the American
people is not ready to impeach Mr. Clinton to
make it happen. But that could change, and it
could change quickly.
If impeachment does become a live campaign
issue, it would be healthy if discussion
extended beyond the kind of legalistic
infractions stressed by the Starr Report. The
constitutional term "high crimes and
misdemeanors" is a political term of art
meaning in essence that the occupant of an
office has simply done too much to destroy
the bond of trust between the people and a
leader for the people to endure him any
longer. Felonies under the law are not
required to meet the standard; indeed, it
could be argued that looking the American
people in the eye, wagging one's finger and
deliberately lying about "that woman" --
which is not illegal and shouldn't be --
constitutes more of an impeachable offense
than perjury barely proven.
Whether Mr. Starr issues supplementary
reports on the matters or not, therefore,
offenses against political comity like
Whitewater and subsequent coverups,
Troopergate, the inadequate (if not criminal)
investigation into the death of Vincent Foster,
the 900 FBI files, the travel office outrage, the
issuance of Executive Orders to grab power
and implement policies Congress refuses to
enact through the legislative process, the
overall pattern of lying when the truth would
be more palatable and a hundred other
Clinton transgressions all merit vigorous
discussion during the campaign.
Impeachment is the proper constitutional
punishment for abuse of power and of the
privileges of office. Many of us believe that
Clinton has done so to an extent deserving of
the severest punishment, but a consensus has
not yet emerged.
A consensus can only emerge if the abuses
are raised in the public square and discussed
more thoroughly than they have been to date.
If the consensus, finally, is that the abuses do
not merit impeachment, fine. But an
intelligent discussion of the matter should go
well beyond the narrow question of whether
provable felonies have been committed.
It would also be helpful if the national
discussion included a less sentimental and
dewy-eyed consideration of the role of
Hillary Clinton, who has been treated of late
as the innocent, noble victim in all this but
may more accurately be viewed as the Lady
Macbeth of the piece.
The press has concentrated on Hillary's body
language as the couple climb onto helicopters
or jets, musing on the pain and shock that all
these unseemly details have no doubt caused
to an innocent and injured spouse, marveling
that she can appear at public events with such
aplomb, occasionally wondering just how
sincere she is in her current "stand by your
man" mode.
Please.
If anything can be gleaned from the relatively
serious biographical works and magazine
articles on the world's premier power couple,
it is that Hillary is the senior partner. Bill has
been the performer, the front man, the
showman, while Hillary is the organizer, the
driven political ideologue who sought power
relentlessly with serious purposes. She was
the one who screwed up his courage to make
the run for the presidency in 1992 and
participated in the "60 Minutes" charade
when the issue was Gennifer Flowers. She
made her bargain with Bill Clinton long ago,
trading the normal benefits of marriage for
the opportunity to exercise power both
behind the scenes and in her own right. If
anything, Mr. Clinton's peccadilloes gave her
more power, because her willingness to play
the wronged but understanding spouse was
an essential key to keeping the show running.
All this became obvious -- too obvious to
make most Americans and even much of the
courtier press comfortable -- during the first
two years of the Clinton presidency, when
Hillary presided over a task force charged
with socializing health care in the United
States. It was all too much even for a
Congress which was at the time controlled by
the Democrats and contributed to the
Democrats losing their majority in 1994.
Thereafter she retreated into the ceremonial
role of First Lady and worked her way back
into the esteem of at least the professional
political class.
Hillary may well not have known all the
details surrounding "l'Affaire Lewinsky"
before the Starr report and accompanying
documentation, but to imagine that she was
completely in the dark and shocked that her
loving husband could have behaved in such a
fashion is simply beyond belief.
All this does not rule out the possibility that
the Clintons have some genuine affection for
one another. But this is clearly a marriage
with the earmarks of a political partnership.
To top it off, Hillary, as Ambrose
Evans-Pritchard has been reminding readers
of the London Telegraph and those who
access it on the Web, could be facing legal
problems of her own at least as serious as
those that face the president. The statute of
limitations for corruption charges
surrounding the miraculous $100,000 profits
in commodities and the original Whitewater
deal has passed. But if Mrs. Clinton lied
under oath or obstructed justice regarding
her $2,000-a-month retainer from Madison
Guaranty or the "series of flips and fictitious
sales" (as federal regulators put it)
surrounding the Castle Grande real estate
deal, she could face legal liability.
Hillary is also a central figure in two other
scandals still under investigation. There are
strong indications that Craig Livingstone,
who ordered the 900 FBI files delivered to the
White House in the Filegate matter, was hired
at her behest. Former Clinton administrative
chieftain David Watkins has suggested
strongly that Travelgate, in which seven
employees were fired and unjustly accused
of corruption in a caper that involved misuse
of the FBI for political purposes, was
undertaken at her command.
Whether or not Hillary ever faces legal
liability for these scandals, people should be
reminded that the image of the innocent,
injured yet ultimately understanding and
forgiving spouse of a wayward yet charming
rogue is hardly the whole picture.
If the polls are to be believed, the American
people have been amazingly tolerant of the
ways the First Couple has used and abused
power, of the process of converting the White
House into a miasma of political and
personal misbehavior. Whether they will
continue to be so tolerant or whether
cumulative disgust will set in and be
expressed at the polls in November is the tale
still to be told. It is utterly appropriate for the
people to have a larger role in this process of
judging than the political class or the press is
inclined to grant us.
Alan Bock is senior editorial writer at the
Orange County Register and author of
"Ambush at Ruby Ridge." |
