**OTOTOTOT** And a very LOOOOONG post, to boot.
Perhaps it's a matter of perspective and context:
*Having observed many times how hurtful adulterous conduct is, especially to spouse and family, I cannot help but feel angry
when I learn that anyone, including the president, has engaged in adulterous conduct. However, adultery (or fornication generally), though illegal so far as I know in many states, it is rarely if ever prosecuted. The concern for personal privacy outweighs any public interest in punishing this kind of wrongdoing.
*Anyone familiar with our court system understands the importance of a witness's oath, yet witnesses frequently lie under oath, and are caught in their lies without being prosecuted for perjury, because the courts have enough to do handling substantive disputes without having to deal with a series of ancillary perjury prosecutions every time a case is tried or a deposition is taken. Thus the "materiality" standard which makes prosecution for perjury so unlikely, even in crystal clear cases of lying under oath. Concerns of judicial economy prevail over any interest in punishing people who lie under oath except in cases where the outcome of a case has clearly turned on the false testimony.
*Bill Clinton was being sued for sexual harassment by a former subordinate, Paula Jones, claiming the then Governor of Arkansas made improper sexual advances toward her and then caused her to be treated unfairly in her job when she rebuffed him (I think that is the gist of her claim). Just coincidentally, Clinton had been elected President of the United States, giving her lawsuit an enormous "nuisance value," and making Ms. Jones and her lawsuit a very appealing avenue for Clinton's frustrated political enemies to subject him to public ridicule and maybe sabotage him politically. His sexual proclivities being more or less taken for granted after the Jennifer Flowers disclosures, the muckraking possibilities were obvious. Conveniently, there were still career civil servants in the White House left over from previous administrations, some of whom might be all too happy to be the eyes and ears of Clinton's enemies.
*Enter Linda Tripp. She goes to Special Prosecutor Ken Starr with the exciting news that she may be able to prove Clinton was having sex with a White House intern named Monica Lewinsky. What this has to do with anything Starr is supposed to be investigating I am not sure, but the other witch hunts in which he is engaged are clearly going nowhere, so I suppose any dirt seems worth pursuing at that point. Besides, maybe it could be of some use to Ms. Jones' lawyers, with whom Starr had previously consulted on issues in that case. So, he gives Tripp prosecutorial immunity (from what, again, I am still not sure I know) but, carefully, does not require (as he later would insist with another witness, Ms. L.) that she maintain confidentiality, and sends her off with a wire to try and coax some incriminating statements from Ms. Lewinsky, a task which she
accomplishes. Immediately after that, "on her own," Ms. Tripp heads off to meet with Ms. Jones lawyers and tell them all she could about Monica Lewinsky. She has to move fast because the President's deposition is scheduled to take place the next day, and it is important that the lawyers be able to spring this on Clinton in the deposition and either get an admission to the sexual conduct or, preferably, trap him in a lie (for obvious reasons, adulterers try to hide their adulteries). The latter happens, and EUREKA! A gold mine for Clinton's political enemies, including, by this point, Mr. Starr.
*Forward a bit. The Judge in the Paula Jones lawsuit, fully aware of the evidence that Clinton had some sort of sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky and had given her gifts, at least, nevertheless concludes that, even assuming all factual disputes are resolved in favor of Ms. Jones, her claims do not satisfy the legal standard for sexual harassment. Jones' lawyers appeal but ultimately Ms. Jones settles her claims for less money than she owes her lawyers, i.e. at a loss. No problem, mission accomplished, so no doubt the excess fees will somehow be taken care of, by some kind benefactor or other, and there are always the book deals and the TV appearances...
*It seems pretty clear that the lies under oath (and I expect most people consider at least some of Clinton's statements under oath to be lies) do not meet the standard for materiality because they related to matters that, at most, were only marginally relevant to the issues in the Jones lawsuit, and Clinton admitted enough to make his testimony as useful to Jones' lawyers in any trial as it could be if he had admitted in graphic detail to every incident, cigars and all. The quibbling over specific kinds of sexual contact, whether Bill and Monica were ever "alone," etc., made not a whit of difference, and the Judge in effect so ruled. Moreover, it is hard to see how Ms. Jones was deprived of anything by Clinton's lies. On the contrary, with the aid of Ken Starr and his "cooperating witness," she was handed the golden opportunity to prove at trial that Clinton had lied under oath about other sexual conduct, making any denials by him of improper advances toward her far less credible. Ironically, it's called
"impeachment" of a witness' testimony.
*Impeachment in the sense it is now being considered by the House, however, is another matter. It is, at its core, a political process, not a legal one. It is certainly not the equivalent of a criminal proceeding. The notion that because Clinton has committed a crime (even assuming he has) he must be punished bears on whether he should be prosecuted once he leaves office. The question that the Congress must answer is a different one--whether the conduct of the President makes him so unfit to serve out his term that, in the interest of the Nation, he must be removed from office.
*Viewed in context, although reasonable minds may differ, it seems to me that the public opposition to impeachment is based on a judgment that the damage our country as a whole will suffer from having an otherwise capable, successful President removed from office as a result of the above chain of events far outweighs any interest in punishing Bill Clinton for his adultery and his deceitful efforts to cover up that adultery. That does not mean the public is stupid. It does not mean that the public is more concerned with the all-powerful dollar than with morality and principles. It does mean that the public knows the difference between "Watergate and Peyton Place," as one of the Republican committee members so aptly put it.
*Personally, I am angry at Bill Clinton for his dishonest, immoral conduct, but I am even more angry at the Congressional Republicans for their kowtowing to the the ultra-right, their political opportunism, and their cynical insistence that they are merely fulfilling their constitutional duty. I do so hope, as some have predicted, that it will all backfire on them in 2000. I know I, for one, will not forget.
Sorry this is so long. I've been mulling these thoughts for about a week and decided to spill them out here. Plug in 2 cents and look what comes out!!!
#B~[> |
