Subject:
|
Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 24 Dec 1998 07:28:54 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
beaker@pobox.com&spamcake&
|
Viewed:
|
559 times
|
| |
|
|
A lot of people have been debating the impeachment issue here. I have
an opinion, but because I am lazy, I am going to re-post something that
I wrote for another discussion group. There are a couple of references
to people who are members of that group, but you can get the sense of my
logic regardless. Here it is:
OK, what follows is *long*. If you are going to respond to it I ask
that you at least *read* it first, as part of the problem with this
debate is that the various sides aren't really listening to eachother,
instead hurling ready-made rhetoric back and forth.
To explain why I feel no sympathy for Clinton and why I support the
impeachment effort I need to borrow a phrase that Republicans used quite
a bit last week, but bear with me, I will discuss it a good deal more
intelligently. What follows is essentially a 'rule of law' argument. I
believe all this matters because the President broke an important law
and serious, if subtle, consequences will arise if we allow him to get
away with it.
Let's start with sexual harrassment, since that's really the issue that
ultimately got us here. I do not intend to tell you that Paula Jones is
telling us the truth, because I honestly do not know. I will remind all
of you that neither do you. But I can say this: legal experts who
specialize in sexual harrassment law say that the Jones case is, from a
legal perspective, a much more solid and credible case than what Anita
Hill presented against Clarence Thomas. Like her or not, right-wing
supporters or not, Jones *did* have a case and she deserved her day in
court.
Exactly when that day should have been is a matter of opinion, of
course. Many people feel that a sitting president should be immune from
civil litigation. I'm inclined to agree, although I'm not sure how we
accomodate the issues of the rights of the victim, or the fact that most
cases deteriorate with age, and that asking a plaintiff to wait for
eight years may be tantamount to excusing the president for all civil
wrongs occuring during that period, in practical application if not as a
point of law.
But two things make the Jones case legitimate in my mind. First, the
incident occurred before Clinton was elected, and I do not feel that
becoming president should sheild you from wrongs committed before an
election. I can see the can of worms that opens if you generally allow
this sort of thing, but the Jones case is baggage that he carried with
him into the presidency, even if she did not file until a couple of
months after he took office, or about six months after the incident
occurred. By the way, as sexual-harrassment cases go, that's about
average. It isn't 'waiting forever' to file the claim.
But the thing that really makes the Jones case legitimate is that the
Supreme Court said it was. The finest legal minds in the country, and
certainly the least partisan organ of government, weighed the
constitutional merits of the case and the arguments that it should and
should not go forward, and those legal minds decided that the case
should be heard. Clinton had the finest legal advisors available, and
they were unable to forestall the case.
At that point, normal civil-litigation procedures and points of
sexual-harrassment law apply to Clinton. The investigation into his
sexual backgroud at that point was not special persecution of the
president, but rather standard procedure for cases of this nature.
Because sexual-harrassment lawsuits are often he-said, she-said
scenarios, behavior with others becomes germain and has been ruled
admissable under numerous precedents. What had been a nosy question
from reporters - 'what did you do with the intern?' - became a central
point of the case that Jones' lawyers were entitled to ask, and that
Clinton, having taken an oath to tell the truth, was not just obligated
but legally required to answer truthfully.
He chose not to, and in so doing he violated a law which is central to
the validity and credibilty of our legal system, the idea that all
testimony given under oath is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth. He did so for the selfish reason that he did not wish to
lose the case to Jones, and in so doing he denied her the justice that
she is entitled to as a citizen. It was not his place to decide whether
the question was appropriate; the judge was right there in the room and
overruled his lawyer's objections to it. He had a clear choice, and he
voluntarily and willfully lied under oath.
We can argue the relative merits of current sexual harrassment law, if
you like. I'd be inclined to agree that current law encourages witch-
hunt style prosecution and generally presents a defendant with a no-win
situation, but that argument is irrelevant to the matter at hand.
Poorly written law or not, it was one of the laws that Clinton took an
oath to defend, and in order to defend it he must abide by it.
At this point Starr stepped in. Clinton had finally slipped up, given
Starr something to investigate where the relevant documents - and
relevant garments:) - were public domain and could not be readily hidden
by Clinton. At this point I'll venture slightly beyond what I can prove
and say that I personally feel Clinton - and his wife - is dirty as
hell, and uncommonly good at hiding it. I understand Starr's
frustration, being tantalizingly close to proof on so many things and
just not able to make a case of it. I understand his zeal in pursuing
what by comparison is the least significant of Clinton's faults. Allen
made the comparison to convicting Capone of tax evasion, and I think
it's a good one. Clinton has enormous power and has demonstrated a
talent for emerging from scandal unscathed. If you believe, as I do,
that Clinton is a totally corrupt opportunist, then getting rid of him,
even over comparatively unsatisfying charges, is desirable.
So anyway, back to Starr. Starr was charged by Janet Reno, again hardly
a partisan Clinton hater, to investigate possible perjury and
obstruction of justice charges. You may not like Starr, but
understanding this point puts him in a better light: the reason Starr's
investigation has been so far-ranging, and so expensive, is because
Janet Reno has kept adding to his responsibilities to avoid saddling
Clinton with many special prosecutors. She cannot sheild Clinton
totally, because to deny investigation completely would incite a riot in
Congress, but she can make sure that Clinton has only one target and
that his spin machine can systematically smear that one opponent.
Starr was charged with the responsibility of investigating this
wrong-doing. That means that it had now moved from the realm of civil
litigation to criminal prosecution, and again the question was relevant.
Still, Clinton's power gave him enormous advantages. He was allowed to
give his testimony by closed-circuit television, where he would not have
to face unexpected questions from grand-jury members. He was allowed to
have his lawyers present during his testimony, an advantage virtually
unheard of in grand-jury testimony. And still he could not tell the
truth. The reason why is obvious. We learn it when we are children:
tell one lie and then you have to tell another later on. He couldn't
admit to lying - because it would bring the Jones case back down on his
head - and he couldn't deny the central truth of the affair - because of
the dress - so he resorted to awkward, twisted legalese, calling the
definition of the word 'is' into question. He did this for purely
selfish reasons that flew in the face of his oath - twice taken - to
protect and defend the laws of this country, one of which is telling the
truth while under oath.
The abuse of power/obstruction of justice charges are a bit more murky,
at least the ones having to do with his alleged attempts to influence
testimony, but it's more clear cut if you consider that committing
perjury, for any reason, is by definition an obstruction of justice, in
this case, the justice that Jones was entitled to and that later we all
were entitled to when the affair assumed a criminal dimension.
As I said at the beginning, I believe that Clinton's actions meet the
constitutional standard of 'high crimes and misdemeanors' because of the
awful choice we are faced with if we allow Clinton to get away with it.
If you buy Clinton's argument that his actions should be excused because
the case never should have gone to trial or because the questions were
fresh or whatever, what you are doing is one of two things, equally
unappealing:
On the one hand you are saying that the central principal of our legal
system - testimony under oath must be truthful - is a throw-away issue,
not important at all and subject to the whim of the person under oath.
Taking that step removes any pretense that our legal system has any
validity at all. We put people to death on the strength of that
assumption: murderers have gone to the gas chamber on the strength of
testimony under oath - 'I saw him shoot that man, your honor'. If we do
not ruthlessly defend the validity of that principle, then our ability
to justly prosecute is taken away.
On the other hand, if we are saying that just the president may do this,
we are doing even more harm to our system of government. We are
instituting a new position in government, that of King. We are granting
one man special dispensation to ignore the law at his whim, for his own
selfish gain. I have read the Constitution carefully, and recently,
given special consideration to the description of the position of
president. I see a man charged with great responsibilty, and hence
given great power, but nowhere do I see any mention of special
privelege. If we allow this man to continue in office, if we say this
crime is not a crime in this special case, we have granted an awesome
precedent that can only trickle down to other elected officials. We
open the door to a future where elected officials are not beholden to
the laws they are supposed to enforce. If it annoys you that traffic
cops routinely speed and run traffic lights, just wait.
Bill Clinton's voluntary actions brought us to this sorry point in the
history of our republic. Allowing him to remain in office opens up only
unacceptable choices, in my mind. Removing him, even over seemingly
trivial and insignificant crimes, makes a stand for important principles
of our system of government that would be irrevocably harmed otherwise.
To me, this is more significant than all the opposing arguments, the
muddied waters about private morality versus public duty, the tortured
legal wrangling over definitions, the propriety of the inquiry itself.
The bottom line to me is that there was a right thing to do, and Clinton
chose not to do so for selfish reasons.
Andy, you asked for reasons that I and others hate the man. I cannot
give you one because I do not hate Clinton. I admit that I've never
liked him, never thought he was honest, and despised his politics. But
I do not hate him. I pity him, and I disapprove of his actions, and I
feel now that he has been exposed as a failure in living up to the oath
he took when he assumed office. For that final reason, and that reason
only, I think he should be convicted by the Senate and removed from
office.
If you've made it this far, thanks for reading. I've tried to make this
as clear and reasoned as possible. I want people to know that my
position on this is the result of a lot of thought and consideration,
not a knee-jerk reaction to sexual behavior I disapprove of. Clinton
could have had discreet affairs with mature women who had more to lose
than gain by talking. He could have conducted himself honorably instead
of assuming his political power gave him sexual power to commit crass
acts (I personally believe Jones' story). He could, I suppose, have
been faithful to his wife, although I don't think that its necessary to
do so to be a good leader. He could have done all of these things, but
he did not, and as a result he got into a situation where his
pathological aversion to the truth got him into trouble. My conscience
is clear. Throw the bum out.
<whew><pant><pant>
Jim
/ _ _ / _ _ "National Security" is the root
()(-(//((-/ password to the Constitution -- jwz
============= Jim Baker -- Weather Weasel Extraordinaire ==============
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Clinton: Amoral?
|
| Beaker wrote: <masterful essay, clearly delineating the key points about rule of law> Wow. Great job. Some key points I think need more amplification: - Jim feels, as I do, that the current sexual harassement laws are flawed, but that the president (...) (26 years ago, 24-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
| Beaker wrote: <alot of stuff cut out for obvious reasons> (...) You have more articulately described what I was hoping that I would not have to. I don't think there was a single word I disagreed with, other than the part about your seemingly (...) (26 years ago, 24-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
| Matt Hanson <"mth8358"@NO SPAMwichita.infi.net> > wrote in message ... (...) there (...) Starr (...) until (...) No, any american who listned to the press, which had already tried and convicted him, already new he did the dirty with lewinsky, and (...) (26 years ago, 24-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
118 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
