|
Bill Clinton |
The state of the Clinton Presidency
May 25, 1998
After ten straight defeats in the courts, President Clinton's claim that he is merely defending the presidency against a rogue prosecutor should be wearing thin even among his most loyal defenders. The affect of all this legal dodging and weaving, of course, is precisely the opposite of what he says: each defeat further delimits the presidency.
Clinton's strategy is one of delay, delay, delay in a desperate attempt to make it past the November elections before the rickety structure of his presidency collapses. On top of the chutzpah of blaming Ken Starr for stretching it out, we have the incredible outrage that Clinton is willing to sacrifice the integrity of the presidency itself for short-term political advantage.
The weekend talk shows must be having trouble recruiting among the diminishing number of people willing to defend the administration. Besides Democratic National Chairman Roy Romer, who more or less has to defend Clinton as head of the party, last weekend we had former Clinton White House Counsels Jack Quinn and the ever-present Lanny Davis. Davis is making a career of it, and no outrage is too much for him.
The latest defeat was District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson's refusal to create by judicial fiat a Secret Service privilege against testifying against a president. The wisdom of such a privilege is highly arguable, but in any case there is no excuse for the courts to create it. It is no more than a defensive tactic to preserve the façade of honor that William Jefferson Clinton pretends still exists.
The hypocrisy of the administration's position is evident from the fact that no one suggested such a thing until this came up. If it's such a good idea, why has no one proposed it for legislation by Congress where a thorough and open debate could be conducted? The answer, of course, is that Bill needs it now, and there just isn't time to bother with all that procedural stuff specified in the Constitution.
The administration's position, argued by a pliant Justice Department, was exploded by law professor Jonathan Turley at Georgetown University on ABC's This Week with Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts. In answer to the claim that Secret Service agents should testify only in cases where they witnessed actual crimes, Prof. Turley pointed out that it is the prerogative of the courts, not witnesses, to decide what is and what is not evidence in a criminal case. This bedrock principle exposes the arrogance of Secret Service agents who say that what they may have observed is not a proper subject for them to testify about. Witnesses do not decide those questions; courts do. It is almost as ridiculous as Susan McDougal's position.
The new investigations concerning the attempt by the Chinese government to influence U.S. elections and policy will probably come to naught. Bribery is devilishly difficult to prove because it involves intent, and it will be impossible say whether President Clinton was selling something or simply made a questionable policy decision. As to the loss of technical secrets, I suspect that this will be hedged by so many shades of gray that no one will be able to make a definitive conclusion.
We already know the two important points from this tale:
Such is the state of the Clinton Presidency.
Spin by another name...
April 7, 1998
It wouldn't seem possible for lawyers to have a worse name than they have already, but William Ginsburg, lawyer for Monica Lewinsky, is giving it a good try.
Asked to explain his early reference to President Clinton as a "misogynist" if charges being investigated are true, he said: "We use the press as they use us, and sometimes a statement like that is a warning to another party: 'you trash my client, and I'll trash you; or, if you do something to my client, here's what I can do to you...' "
Now we can understand his apparent nonsensical statements on television and to the press: he was "using" them, and by inference, the rest of us. In this case, the particular use had to do with trashing an opponent, but who knows what other uses he may think up for us in the pursuit of the interests of his client?
Whether it's really in Monica's interest seems a real question. As Stuart Taylor pointed out, the possibility that she would be indicted seemed quite remote when this matter began; now her indictment is being discussed, at least among some commentators, as much more likely. Some accomplishment.
It is an open question whether his "we" meant "we lawyers," or whether other lawyers share his cynicism, but Drudge did describe the audience, the Philadelphia Bar Association, as "sympathetic."
When Ginsburg first appeared on the scene, we heard all about how his client just wanted to tell the truth, blah, blah, blah. No more. Now it's all games like so many others in Washington. Clearly, Ginsburg is getting acclimated to the way things work there. Others call it "spin," but it's the same thing, is it not? What Ginsburg has to learn, and the only thing that separates him from the Blumenthals, et al., is that you just don't spell out how cynical you are in public for all to see.
The book subpoenas
April 4, 1998
This hue and cry about Kenneth Starr's subpoenas of Monica Lewinsky's book purchases is moronic nonsense. Books are held in special awe by liberals as intellectual material, but for the purposes of a criminal investigation they are simply commodities like any other merchandise. Prosecutors routinely subpoena bank records, telephone records, and numerous other things far more intrusive than book purchases.
Avin Mark Domnitz of the American Booksellers Foundation was quoted as saying: "If the 1st Amendment means anything, it means we have a right to purchase books without fear that government will inquire into our reading habits." It would be hard to cram more gratuitous nonsense into one sentence. Starr is not "inquiring into [Monica's] reading habits" willy-nilly; in fact, it's not clear that it has anything to do with her "reading habits" at all but rather the custody history of books given to President Clinton mentioned on the tapes. It is part of an investigation of serious crimes, and if there are any First Amendment implications, it's an amazing new discovery because prosecutors do more intrusive things than this every day.
These people are caught up in the anti-Starr frenzy which is the fashion of the day. It is a mindset that imagines itself a hero for defying authority in a noble cause. They derive a momentary thrill from this, blissfully unaware that the principle datum of the act is how easily they are spun up by the ilk of James Carville and the other attack dogs who spin for the White House.
Kramerbooks and Barnes & Noble, in filing motions to quash the subpoenas, are attempting to capitalize on the unpopularity of Kenneth Starr. I trust Judge Norma Holloway Johnson will tell them what to do with their quash motions.
Judge Wright to Paula Jones: get lost
April 3, 1998
Whatever the truth in the Paula Jones case, Judge Wright's decision certainly doesn't advance the cause of improving the public's perception of sexual harassment law.
First, the credibility of the express or implied threat to a woman taken advantage of by a powerful man that she will pay a heavy price for blowing the whistle ratcheted up a few notches.
Second, men who have been punished for things like having a girly calendar on the wall must be dismayed to learn that dropping your pants is not outrageous or punishable by law, as Judge Wright said.
I have no way of knowing whether her legal reasoning in dismissing the lawsuit is right or wrong, but the fact remains that someone is lying big time. Since there is no legal issue to be resolved, then all the talk about "innocent until proven guilty" is moot, is it not? We have to make up our own minds.
So who lying? Let's look at the facts:
Clinton arranged for Paula to be brought up to the hotel room. Clinton's claim that he doesn't remember is very hard to believe but doesn't really matter because there is plenty of corroboration. His memory failure is just too convenient. If he admitted to the meeting, he'd have to either admit that his intentions were less than honorable or come up with an innocent explanation. No one would believe the latter, and the former is an admission he wants to avoid. So: "I don't remember." Clinton is a womanizer. If you don't know this, you haven't been paying attention. Clinton has lied in other matters.
'Nuff said.
Executive privilege or executive obstruction
March 25, 1998
The troubling question in the president's claim of executive privilege is where privilege ends and obstruction begins.
This administration has laid down a record of foot-dragging, in everything from travelgate to sexgate, that vastly exceeds anything seen before. The current move to claim executive privilege looks like more of the same.
Assume for purposes of discussion that the president and his advisors are guilty of obstructing justice as Kenneth Starr is trying to prove. Is it not only a small step from there to abuse of executive privilege, which is basically the same offense?
In other words, it would be obstruction of justice for the purpose of escaping prosecution for obstruction of justice. Once you've stepped over that line, there is little incentive to stop and every incentive to keep going.
Considering the number of mostly-public-supported lawyers and public relations people (an old term for "spinmeisters") the president has thrown into this fight, he has a good chance of winning.
The legal fine points in the question of executive privilege are another matter. On the surface, the idea that the president is entitled to shield his advisors from answering questions in a criminal investigation seems preposterous on its face. Without knowing precisely what questions Starr is asking, however, it's not possible to make that call. The unpleasant choice Starr faces is between going along with this phony privilege claim or taking the case up to the Supreme Court, where he would probably win, and being pummeled daily with accusations of dragging it out. These will largely originate in the White House, of course, which is exerting itself strenuously to, well, drag it out.
It remains to be seen whether Starr will present a case sufficient to clear the high bar set in our criminal justice system, even higher for a president, and higher still for a president with not the slightest hesitation to use all of the awesome power of the office and every legal device to defend his personal interests. In the meantime, citizens are entitled to draw their own conclusions, and mine is that he's guilty as hell.
Now we get it
March 24, 1998
Many commentators have accused the radical feminist movement of being nothing more than a left-wing pressure group. Now we have it straight from none other than Gloria Steinem.
How else to do you interpret her statement, "if the president had behaved with comparable insensitivity toward environmentalists, and at the same time remained their most crucial champion and bulwark against an anti-environmental Congress, would they be expected to desert him?" Ms. Steinem shrank from putting that directly, so here it is: "If the president behaves with insensitivity toward women, but has the right politics, then feminists should support him."
In other words, the only indispensable thing about their movement is politics.
Ms. Steinem, Patricia Ireland, and Anita Hill, among others, are feverishly constructing rationales to cover this hypocrisy, but it won't wash. For one thing, there are so many different cases that they're running out of excuses. With Paula Jones, it's her right-wing sponsors. With Monica Lewinsky, well, she was willing. With Kathleen Willey, she's trying to profit from a book deal. (As if Anita Hill didn't profit from her notoriety, including several books.) They're really straining.
The high-water mark of her piece is: "Perhaps we have a responsibility to make it OK for politicians to tell the truth -- providing they are respectful of 'no means no; yes means yes' -- and still be able to enter high office, including the presidency." This is no less than a proposal to "define deviancy down," to use Daniel Patrick Moynihan's famous phrase; to simply lower our standards to fit, as long as the man's policies comport with the fashion of the day. Of course, if he's a shade to the right like Clarence Thomas, then it may be necessary to define deviancy back up again. Whatever it takes.
Intimidation is part of it
March 17, 1998
With Kathleen Willey's compelling testimony, it is getting harder and harder for the president's defenders to argue that the president is telling the truth. Clinton's strategy of relying on the stalemate of "he said, she said" eventually has to crack under the weight of the sheer number of "she's" against his one "he."
The mental contortion we're asked to perform to believe the consistency in his statements about Gennifer Flowers is too, too much. (As George Will said, "it gives you mental whiplash.") The logic apparently is that he said the charge that he had a 12-year affair was false because it was only an 11-year affair, or whatever. A lawyerly lie of the kind he's pulled time and again and gotten away with it. That is part of the price Americans pay for their obsession with the law, where adultery and sexual oafishness are OK, and only if the president can be proven guilty of a crime in the rigors of a legal procedure can he be condemned.
One of the arguments they're making has to do with Willey's delay in speaking and the apparent unconcern shown by her letters to the president after the incident. I've heard two or three counters to this argument but not the most plausible in my mind: intimidation.
Is that not a standard part of the scenario? The powerful man has all the cards. Making an accusation instantly ends your career and exposes you to the likelihood (certainty in Clinton's case) of being trashed relentlessly by the junkyard dogs that hover about to do the president's bidding, not to mention his bombast-in-chief, Robert Bennett.
I found Willey's reply to Ed Bradley's question, "Why now?" quite plausible: "It's time for this to come out. There have been too many lies; too many lives ruined." How true.
The Buck Stops (anywhere but) Here
March 9, 1998
In the story about President Clinton's deposition in the Paula Jones case printed last week by the Washington Post, he says that Monica Lewinsky visits to the White House were to see his personal secretary, Betty Currie, and that it was Betty's initiative to help Monica get a job in New York.
This "my secretary did it" strategy is of a cloth with "I didn't inhale." It is the antithesis of President Truman's famous motto: The Buck Stops Here. For the Clintons, the buck stops anywhere but "here," from a "vast right wing conspiracy" to his personal secretary.
We are constantly told that private behavior is not a proper subject of consideration for evaluating a president. That's an arguable point, but what should not be arguable is that it is improper for a president to invoke all the powers of his office to defend himself from the consequences of his personal indiscretions. In so doing, he is not only defaming his antagonists but he is doing serious harm to those loyal to him as well as the presidency itself.
All of that is true even if he didn't actually have sexual relations with Monica. He obviously is hiding something, and the damage flows from the coverup.
Clinton's attempt to claim immunity from the Jones lawsuit resulted in a nine-zip defeat in the Supreme Court, establishing once and for all that the president is not immune from civil suits. Whether one agrees or not with this decision, it has set a precedent that could prove embarrassing for future presidents sued in cases with less credibility than Jones'.
Clinton also managed to establish that discussions of government officials with government lawyers are not subject to attorney-client privilege, in a case affirmed by the Court of Appeals and left alone by the Supreme Court.
Now he appears poised to tighten the boundary for executive privilege by attempting to invoke it to defend himself for prosecution for what his defenders are fond of calling "private behavior." His chance of winning that case if challenged by Starr is negligible.
Clinton's move to rope in Betty Currie is truly disgusting. The outcry about Starr calling Sidney Blumenthal and the alleged mistreatment of Monica Lewinsky's mother are nothing by comparison.
The minimum wage: abolishing jobs
March 3, 1998
Here we go on another round of debate about the minimum wage, which the President has proposed to increase again.
One way to state the minimum wage dictate is:
All jobs which pay less than $(whatever it is) are hereby abolished.
This way of putting it jangles liberals' sense of "compassion," and they insist that the minimum wage forces employers to increase the wage of the lowest rung. The question is whether it does that or cuts them off.
Economists, pliers of the dismal science, argue the point ad nauseam, with the preponderance, I believe, on the side of job elimination in at least some degree. The theoretical case for some elimination of jobs is, however, quite compelling.
The theory is this: Wage earners comprise a continuum of skill levels from the lowest on up, and the market allocates wages in proportion to skill. Workers at or below the proposed higher minimum wage are there because they can't compete for the jobs at the next level. When the minimum is moved up, these workers now have to compete with those at the next level of skill. Some will succeed, and some won't. Those who can't simply lose out.
William Buckley put it well when he said: "The minimum wage provides some workers the satisfaction of knowing that if they could find a job, it would be at that wage."
It is undoubtedly true that introduction of a higher minimum wage causes those who make hamburgers at McDonalds, for example, to get an increase. The question is whether, "in the fullness of time," as they say, the jobs are filled by the bottom-rung workers who are the supposed target of the benefit, or if they have been replaced by those at the next higher skill level.
The most distressing case is the young person looking for that first job with no experience or proven skills. We should try to remember that time when we ourselves were desperate to gain some experience and willing to take a job at any wage to get it. The consequence of liberals' "compassion" turns into cruelty when the answer to a plea to "work for almost nothing" brings the regretful but truthful response: "Sorry, it's against the law."
Sidney's "fine"
March 2, 1998
One of the sound bites put out over the weekend by the White House was a complaint about the $10,000 "fine" imposed on poor Sidney Blumenthal, said to be his lawyer's fee for appearing before the Kenneth Starr's grand jury. That seems a lot for two day's work, especially considering that witnesses are not allowed to have lawyers in the grand jury room. Maybe it included the time his lawyer spent on the weekend talk shows: holding up the appearance of honor and principle for this administration is no easy task.
Changing the subject
February 26, 1998
The White House strategy of changing the subject from President Clinton's sexual indiscretions and coverup to Kenneth Starr's performance has worked extremely well, and many have bought it hook, line and sinker.
The success of this strategy is all the more amazing because the clearest observation to make about all the smoke issuing from the White House is that it tells us how weak the President's position really is.
There's an old saying among lawyers that if the law is in your favor, argue the law; if the facts are in your favor, argue the facts; if you have neither the law nor the facts, pound the table. All of this screeching about Starr is akin to pounding the table.
Actually, it's worse and risky to boot. Hiring investigators to dig up whatever-it-was about Starr's staff and whisper it in the ears of sympathetic reporters comes close if not over the edge of impeding a prosecutor under the definition of 18 USC 1503. In other words, obstruction of justice, which happens to be exactly what they're being investigated for in the first place.
White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry characterized the accusation that they had anything to do with private investigators as "blatant lies," but that statement went the way of many others of his within two days when he admitted that the firm defending the President had hired private investigator Terry Lenzner to investigate Mr. Starr's staff. A misstatement of that kind by their enemies is, of course, a "blatant lie," but for occasions of being caught in that sort of jam, the White House invented the term "inoperative."
The chutzpah of the White House spokesmen is near its pinnacle with their complaints of Starr's illegalities, abuse of power, and being "out of control." The contradiction here is that responsibility for preventing a Special Prosecutor from getting out of control rests with the President and the Attorney General, who have the power and duty to fire a SP in precisely the circumstance they describe.
One would think that cries of being victimized by a too-powerful prosecutor would occasion some skepticism when it issues from someone occupying what is said to be the most powerful office in the world. Clinton is mobilizing every bit of the power of that office in this struggle. The shame is that all this power and energy is being brought to bear to prop up the ramshackle fiction of Clinton's personal veracity, which for all practical purposes has been dead and buried for years.
Immunity agreements and cynicism
February 23, 1998
There's a numbing cynicism in this business of negotiating immunity agreements. When people say that they'll testify to this or that in exchange for some concession from a prosecutor, aren't they simply threatening to commit perjury in one case or the other?
It is especially egregious in the case of Monica Lewinsky. She has nothing to lose by telling the truth, as far as I can see, but further lying and coverup can have a large impact on the country.
The only explanation for all this maneuvering by her windbag attorney, William Ginsburg, is that she is trying to control the outcome of Starr's investigation. Ginsburg has been bleating about her Constitutional rights, but what about the rights of the citizenry to have justice done on the basis of the whole truth?
The likelihood of her being prosecuted at the outset of this business was surely very small. With Ginsburg's help she has managed to work herself in a position where she may be rooming with Susan MacDougal, and richly deserve it.
Smear works
February 23, 1998
Joseph diGenova, a former federal prosecutor, said on Meet the Press on Sunday (Feb. 22) that he was told by reporters that he and his law partner and wife, Victoria Toensing, were being investigated by Terry E. Lenzner. Lenzner heads Investigative Service, Inc. (IGI), which has long-standing ties to Democrats, including the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton White House.
White House press secretary Michael McCurry issued a strong denial the same day, accusing diGenova of repeating "blatant lies."
DiGenova is a Republican and has been critical of Clinton's stance on the Monica Lewinsky affair on numerous talk shows over the past few weeks.
DiGenova was quite angry on the talk show, which also featured former Clinton White House Counsel Lanny Davis. DiGenova contrasted Reagan's reaction to the Iran-Contra investigation with Clinton's to the current scandal. Reagan, he said, waived executive privilege and attorney-client privilege whereas Clinton is hiding behind all possible legal devices. DiGenova, emphasizing that he is a criminal lawyer, said if he was Clinton's lawyer he also would advise Clinton not to say anything and to wait and see what witnesses say before speaking.
The Washington Post on Monday (Feb. 23) reported that Mickey Kantor, who heads President Clinton's private lawyers on the Lewinsky matter, "refused to say whether he has collaborated with Lenzner." However, according to the Post, a reporter speaking with Kantor by phone on Saturday overheard Kantor tell a member of his family that Lenzner was on the other line.
It is alleged that reporters are also targets of IGI's investigation, including Susan Schmidt and Peter Baker, staff writers for the Post and authors of the news story.
This story would not merit attention except for the fact that it is quite plausible. Whether from the White House or more distant allies of the President, negative information has been spread to news organizations about two attorneys working for Kenneth Starr, and many other members of the "vast right-wing conspiracy" have been targeted in a similar manner.
The attack on Starr is particularly egregious and is skirting the line of illegality under 18 USC Sec. 1503, which defines penalties, including prison, for anyone who "endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any ... officer in or of any court...."
Unfortunately, we are faced with the unagreeable conclusion that in all too many cases, smear tactics work.
A pattern of behavior
February 17, 1998
The people who tell us we should overlook President Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky may be waked up by the soon-to-be-released report from the Senate Thompson committee hearings on campaign finance. According to New York Times columnist William Safire, this report contains evidence of espionage, and he concludes from it that "China's spy network succeeded in penetrating the Clinton White House."
Those who downplay the current scandal tell us that Clinton's "private" behavior has nothing to do with his performance as president. They could not be more wrong. The reaction of the Clintons in this case - delays, stonewalling, casting of aspersions on critics, and downright lying - is a pattern which has been repeated over and over.
What's unique about the Lewinsky affair is it's simplicity: He did it and lied about it or he didn't. The others - Whitewater, the Travel Office affair, the funny business during the initial investigation of Vince Foster's suicide, the dishonesty with the federal court about the health care task force (resulting in assessment of $286,000 on Dec. 18, 1997), the FBI files caper, coverup of documents at Commerce after Ron Brown's death, the case of Webster Hubbell, campaign finance abuse in the 1996 elections - are complicated and hard to understand.
Something that's easy to understand is the pattern of behavior of the Clintons to hide the facts in each case.
The Senate report should clarify some of the issues with campaign finance abuse. It states that a "variety of PRC [People's Republic of China] entities were acting to influence U.S. elections." The report makes clear that it's not talking merely about illegal lobbying. This is serious stuff.
The ruckus about soft money is nothing compared to the issue of foreign influence in our elections. Unfortunately, the main evidence for this is in a classified appendix that will not be available to the public.
One of the things we'd like to know, for example, is the contents of the faxes and phone calls John Huang made during frequent visits, reportedly often after CIA intelligence briefings, to Stephens Inc., an ally of Lippo Group, across the street from his office at the Commerce Department. Another is just what he was doing in the 67 visits to the White House while at Commerce but unbeknownst to his colleagues there. Another is how it was that he retained his top secret clearance after going to work for the DNC in September, 1995, a privilege no one else has ever enjoyed.
Making excuses for Clinton's "private sex life" is one thing; overlooking evidence of foreign influence in our elections and espionage is something else. The thing that connects the two is the way the Clintons react in each case. It's a pattern of lies and abuse, and it cannot be excused.
Attack Iraq?
February 9, 1998
There's a far more dangerous "frenzy" afoot in this country than the so-called feeding frenzy of the press over the Lewinsky affair. It is the frenzy we're working ourselves into preparatory to attacking Iraq.
First of all, not only do we have no clearly defined and enunciated objective, but none exists that is both achievable with present resources and worth the cost.
Of the several objectives discussed, only the least can be achieved with bombing only. The president scaled down his talk about it, saying we could reduce Saddam's ability to make and use weapons of mass destruction. That's true, but it's doubtful that we will reduce it much, and the price of making a meaningful reduction will be more than we'll be willing to pay.
The chance of deposing him is slim. In fact, our belligerence provides a rallying cry that permits him to enhance his power and further entrench his position.
The chance of taking him out directly, from what the experts say, is negligible.
Second, a war with Saddam tends to be a contest of how many casualties each side is willing to sustain; the stomach factor. Saddam wins that hands down. The even-trade ratio with the U.S. is probably between 10,000 and 100,000 to one. That is, Saddam is willing to lose that number for each one that we are. We'll never win a war by killing Iraqis, especially in an air war which is bound to be inconclusive, because we just don't have the stomach for it.
The third point is that despite the frenzy we've worked ourselves into, the president hasn't prepared people for the costs in casualties and material. The reasons for this are in large part the Lewinsky affair and the president's transparent and cowardly coverup, which have squandered whatever feeble moral authority he may have had before it began.
The question is: How can a man whose moral sense is so weak that he sees nothing wrong with abusing underlings for his personal gratification ask young men and women to risk their lives for some high purpose?
President Clinton said last week he would never resign over the Lewinsky affair because it would go against everything he "stood for," but the main things for which he'll be remembered standing are the poll of the day before and Monica.
"I'm honoring the rules of the investigation"
February 7, 1998
Those were President Clinton's words in yesterday's news conference. It is pure Clintonese which means ... nothing.
As pointed out by Tim Russert on ABC last night, there are no "rules of the investigation" which prevent him from speaking in any way about Monica Lewinsky. The gag order on the Paula Jones case does not apply to the Starr investigation, and Clinton has no direct knowledge of secret grand jury testimony because he has not testified there.
It is clear to everyone that Clinton is using this as an excuse to cover up the facts of his affair with Lewinsky. As a former law professor, he has to know that it has no validity whatever.
Making statements which the speaker knows to be false is called "lying." Furthermore, this is the worst kind of lie because he repeats it with the knowledge that everyone knows it for what it is.
If there's anyone left in the country who doesn't know Clinton is a liar, you have the proof right here in plain sight.
Public participants in the president's corruption
February 7, 1998
In his column of Feb. 3, George Will made a perceptive point about the Lewinsky affair when he wrote that "Clinton's crisis is in one aspect more menacing to the civic culture than Nixon's was because he must make the public a participant in his corruption."
There seems to be no shortage of such "participants," who are those that generally accept that the president is guilty of the alleged transgressions but say that it doesn't matter what he does in his "private sex life." They are ubiquitous in man-in-the-street interviews on television, (including, in one case, a Lutheran Bishop) and are inveterate letter-writers. Their attitude (not an "argument," since it's based on nothing but bald assertion) seems to be a sign of sophistication in the Nineties, and Clinton is counting on their support to carry the day in the polls.
In addition to the absurdity of characterizing the behavior of a president cavorting with a 22-year-old intern in the Oval Office as "private," this proposition fails for me on two counts, each sufficient by itself. First, the extensive corruption of the Clinton administration is itself a demonstration of the continuum of private and public behavior. Second, the mere fact of the degrading behavior is an indelible stain on the Office of the President that is unacceptable for its own sake.
The disturbing thing about these "sophisticates" of the 90's is their breezy, even eager, acceptance of this depravity. They effectively become co-conspirators with the president in this ugliness and lower the bar for us all, notably including future presidents and all other public figures. It is an example of what Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D., NY) meant when he spoke of "defining deviancy down," the tendency to lower the standard of acceptable behavior.
(Moynihan, by the way, is not a participant: asked last week whether the president should stay in office if the allegations turn out to be true, he said "I think not. If it's so, it's a disorder.")
These "participants in his corruption," who apparently count for a large number in the polls, are the mainspring of President Clinton's strategy to hang onto office. I hope they rethink their position when confronted with the facts.
The leaks
February 6, 1998
The president and his allies, including many sycophants in the press, have made much of the leaks of information from grand jury testimony. They accuse Kenneth Starr's office of being responsible and say also that they are inaccurate.
1. What no one seems to have noticed is that these two assertions are more or less incompatible: There is hardly any reason for someone from Starr's office to exaggerate, and, if that's where they're coming from, they're probably accurate.
2. "Inaccurate leak" is a sort of oxymoron. If it's inaccurate, it should be called a rumor. If someone's going to leak some information, the least they can do is make it accurate.
3. The situation where leaks are the only source of public information is entirely of the president's own making. His repeated statement that he shouldn't comment while an investigation is ongoing and that he wants to get to the truth is plain nonsense: He knows the truth, and the only plausible explanation for his refusal to come clean is that he has been caught in a montrous lie.
4. The denials by the lawyers of some of the witnesses are lawyer-talk in pure form. Lawrence Wechsler, Mrs. Currie's lawyer, for example, dealt only with Mrs. Currie's opinion about what might be "any legal or ethical impropriety," which is, after all, irrelevant. Only the facts count, and the testimony of a witness who is friendly to the president but truthful can be just as damaging, if not more so, than an unfriendly one. The president's spokesmen and most of the press miss this point, treating the lawyer's statement as a denial of the news report, which it is not.
Wechsler's statement comes close what Stuart Taylor calls a "nondenial denial," meaning a carefully crafted statement that seems to be a denial but contains a dodge of some kind. An example is the many-times-repeated statement by Clinton lawyer Robert Bennett, referring to the Paula Jones case, that "the president will not admit to something he did not do." This sounds like a sweeping denial, but is it a tautology? One that calls for the follow-up question: "Will he admit to something he did do?" To which one wonders if the (truthful) answer would be: "Well, that's another question."
The purpose of all this blather about leaks is to divert attention from the main question, which is: Did the president lie to us when he denied a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky? If he did, he should resign. As The Economist put it on the front cover: "If it's true, go."
Monica's duty: tell the whole truth
February 6, 1998
Monica Lewinsky's attorney, William Ginsburg, stated emphatically in one of his early TV appearances that Monica would tell the whole truth, nothing held back, if Starr granted her immunity.
Like a lot of things he's said, he promised Chanel No. 5 and delivered Eau de Toilette.
While I understand the written proffer supplied to Kenneth Starr includes admission of sexual relations with the president, it doesn't give details of her conversations with the president or Vernon Jordan on the subject of her Jones' deposition. More important, it lacks a statement as to the origin of the "talking points," an unsigned paper telling how to lie to the Jones' attorneys that Monica gave to Linda Tripp.
Thursday's Washington Post reported that Starr has given Monica an ultimatum, including a demand to divulge the origin of the "talking points." These are potentially devastating. If Starr is traces them to Vernon Jordan or in any other way to the president, it would be evidence of suborning perjury and obstruction of justice that would be hard to refute. Whoever wrote them - and no one believes that Monica concocted them all by herself - is in serious trouble.
Lewinsky's reluctance to tell all is one of the mystifying things about this affair. Judging from her reported braggadocio to friends about her sexual activities with the president, it certainly isn't reticence about that.
Ginsburg described her as "a doe in the headlights," but it's becoming apparent that she wants to make history by crafting her story to influence the outcome. Whether that derives from a rush of euphoria from being a kingmaker or some sense of mission to protect the president, it is her duty to tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may. She has no right to decide the fate of the country out of some misplaced personal loyalty, or whatever it is, and Kenneth Starr is doing the right thing to demand the whole truth and nothing but.
Monica would be well-advised to accede to Starr's demand to submit to an interview with prosecutors because her bargaining position as well as her credibibility are rapidly eroding. Today's New York Times reports that Clinton personal secretary Betty Currie has been talking to Starr since the story broke and has provided some very damaging testimony. She also turned over some gifts, jewelry and a dress, retrieved from Lewinsky shortly after she met with Clinton. In that meeting, it was reported that Clinton told her that she wouldn't have to surrender gifts subpoenaed by Paula Jones' lawyers if she didn't have them.
We can now perhaps understand Ginsburg's statement that he knew nothing of a dress given to her by the president. It seems likely that this was true because (a) it was in the possession of prosecutors at the time and (b) Monica withheld that information from her own lawyer.
The issue of most importance is not the sex or even the technical violations of law which probably occurred. It is the bald-faced lies to the American people. It will be a long time sorting out how many other lies he has told us.
Clinton's (current) affair
February 4, 1998
The major points of Clinton apologists and my answers -
1. How do you know he's lying? Opinions vary, but to believe that he is, as 53 percent of the public does, is entirely reasonable in the light of the known (albeit partial) evidence, the string of lies he has told over the past six years, his record of dalliances with women, and his current obfuscations. Our first clue was the recording we heard of his voice asking Gennifer Flowers to lie for him in circumstances similar to the present one, and that was just the beginning.
2. It has nothing to do with his ability to run the country. The theory of the bifurcation of public and private morality has been disproven by Clinton himself. Have you not noticed the continual venality from Whitewater to Travelgate to Filegate to campaign finance abuse, to name but a few? Is it not quite reasonable, indeed irresistable, to conclude that the lies and cheating in his private life are ineluctably connected to his lies and cheating in public life?
3. The key is whether he committed perjury and obstruction of justice. These are serious and sufficient to be fatal for his presidency, especially considering that one of his chief responsibilities as president is to uphold the law. However, his standing up, shaking his finger, saying "I want you to listen to me," and then laying a whopper on us on national television overshadows everything else for me. Using the Oval Office as his private bordello is bad enough, but if that sweeping denial was a lie, it should be all over.
One problem in all this is the paradox that a person with the grace to understand a duty to resign in this circumstance wouldn't be in it to begin with. He has decided to brazen it out, and the resulting damage to the presidency and the country are taking second priority to his desire to stay in office.
Part of that damage is the machine-gun slander of anyone in their way, including judges and senators. The women who have complained in the past have been thoroughly trashed, and it's only a matter of time until Monica Lewinsky gets hers. The most serious damage is the precedent for future presidents: the idea that a president can get away with anything as long as it can't be proven in a court of law.
Skewered by Howie Kurtz
February 1, 1998
Howard Kurtz, writer for the Washington Post and a regular on CNN's Reliable Sources, wrote that Lucy Goldberg described herself as a "hero" for her part in bringing the Lewinsky scandal to public attention.
That's not the way I heard it in her television interview. Asked by a reporter if she considered herself a hero, she replied: "No, that would make me look like a jerk."
In a comment to CNN, I suggested that Kurtz should correct himself, say something like: "Lucy Goldberg didn't call herself a hero, but I wish she had because I'd like to paint her as a jerk," or equivalent.
Seems the least he could do, for someone who lectures us on "Reliable" Sources.
Shooting the messenger
January 29, 1998
The reaction of the White House to the ongoing Monica Lewinsky scandal is in the familiar pattern they've used many times before: hunker down, deny, delay, change the subject, and blame the media.
Judging from recent polls, it is working.
Hillary's "vast right-wing conspiracy" charge is rightly the butt of jokes; what amazes is the seriousness with which it was taken to begin with.
The reflexive attack on Ken Starr - changing the subject - is getting much play, and Hillary practically accused him of criminal misconduct. If her accusations were true, it would be grounds for the President to exercise his power to fire him. That won't happen because they know they can't make it stick.
The media are being accused of rumor-mongering in a "feeding frenzy." The situation is of the White House's own making, however, because of the President's refusal to explain anything or to release any information. This leaves reporters with no alternative but to use leaks and scour underground sources for information. The White House could easily avoid this by simply telling the truth, but they can't do that because, as George Will put it, it is "lethal."
The matter of whether the president met as reported with Monica on December 28, when she was agonizing over what to say in her affidavit, is a simple matter to determine from White House entry logs. McCurry's "neither confirm nor deny" answer to this question is a stick in our eye and only leads us to believe that this meeting, highly improper regardless of what was said, did indeed take place.
President Clinton himself, when asked by Jim Lehrer if he talked with Lewinsky about her deposition, simply ducked.
Clinton apologists in the past have criticised the Clintons for withholding information and, as they put it, "acting guilty." The line is that the problems would cause far less gossip and concern if they'd just open up and tell all.
One trouble with that reasoning is that it assumes the Clintons are not very smart. A far better explanation of their behavior is the obvious one: the heat they take from clamming up is not as bad as if they opened up. That is clearly their own opinion, and the record of slow-motion unveiling of rot in past instances gives us every reason to believe that this case is no different.
The excuse that their silence on Monica Lewinsky is necessary because of legal considerations is gratuitous nonsense. This priority of the legal over the political is a jab in the public's eye, telling us that the President values defense of his legal position over the good of the country. It is a symptom of megalomania, where the distinction between his own interest and that of the country is lost in his mind. God help us.
Moral Turpitude
January 26, 1998
Concerning President Clinton's crisis with the allegations of an affair with Monica Lewinsky:
1. He is guilty. That is the only possible explanation for his silence. If he were innocent, he would have explained the relationship before now. With the appearance of corroboration in the form of witnesses to a sexual encounter between Clinton and Lewinsky in the White House, the credibility of his denials, practically non-existent already, is obliterated.
2. He will have to resign, and soon. His moral authority is destroyed, and it will be impossible for him to govern. The precise term for his conduct, as pointed out by George Will on Sunday, is "moral turpitude." It cannot be excused.
3. Whether he committed perjury and/or obstruction of justice is not going to matter.
The great lesson of the Clinton Presidency is that those who say that private morality doesn't matter are wrong. There could be no more complete proof than the trail of feculence his administration has laid down over the past five years. We were put on notice with his lie about Gennifer Flowers in 1992, but we rationalized that it didn't matter. It did and it does.
One of the ironies of the sordid affair known as the Clinton Presidency is that it was not feminists, or Kenneth Starr, or the editors of the Wall Street Journal who brought it down, but a disparate group of brave women: Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Linda Tripp, Lucianne Goldberg, and (I think) Monica Lewinsky. God bless 'em.
The problem is character
January 22, 1998
I think James Carville is the last person in the country who professes to believe in Bill Clinton's virtue. He reminds me of Wiley E. Coyote chasing the Road Runner off a cliff, suspended for a few seconds clawing at the air before plunging to earth.
The press decided a few years ago that extra-marital affairs of politicians was none of the public's business, and they should leave them alone. The trouble with that is that there are always consequences.
The most serious ones have to do with the women after the affairs are over - the cast-offs. They are real people who suffer hurt and disappointment as well as damage to reputations and careers. The natural impulse is to do something for them, out of a sense of duty or a simple matter of survival. As passions cool, all too often this turns sour and the subject turns from carrot to stick to keep the lid on.
Henry Cisneros used the direct method of cash payments. This led to a choice for him between lying to the FBI about it or giving up a cabinet position. He chose to lie and won the position, but it was only a matter of time before that blew up.
Bill Clinton has managed his cast-offs reasonably well with the obvious exception of Paula Jones, and now it appears that Monica Lewinsky is going to be an even more serious problem.
Despite the President's denials, his defenders admit that an encounter of some kind took place between Clinton and Jones in Little Rock. And even if Mr. Clinton didn't expose himself physically as Jones alleges, he should have known that he was taking the chance of exposing himself to the events which followed by arranging the one-on-one meeting in a hotel room. He took a risk and has paid dearly for it.
Clinton's denial of an affair with Lewinsky is getting harder to believe all the time. The Los Angeles Times reported "according to sources" this morning that Lewinsky visited the executive mansion numerous times at night in the months after her internship ended. What are we supposed to think these were for? Pinochle?
Lewinsky is in the familiar pattern of a problem cast-off. She's having second thoughts about protecting her former lover, who attempted to buy her off with job offers. He hasn't applied the stick so far, but her friend, Linda Tripp, has been thoroughly trashed by the president's attorney and chief attack dog, Robert Bennett. If she has any vulnerability, she will undoubtedly be besmirched by the president's people, in the manner of their treatment of Paula Jones.
Mr. Clinton's problems with alleged subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice flow directly from his problems dealing with this "cast-off." But does it matter all that much whether there's a provable violation of the law? The basic problem is character. We had ample notice of Bill Clinton's character before we elected him, and what we're witnessing is a readily-predictable consequence.
Another carload of twinkies
January 14, 1998
All this blather about how to spend the anticipated government surplus is just that. The fact that the government is about to reach balance in cash flow is a detail that doesn't change the basic fact that its rate of expanding bloat proceeds apace.
The president was right when he admonished us that we shouldn't "spend it before we have it," but proceeded without missing a beat to propose exactly that in child care and medicare. He will no doubt have a fig leaf to cover a bow toward fiscal responsibility, but bloat is bloat and what he's talking about is another carload of twinkies.
What goes by the name "public mind" has a very short memory and needs to be reminded that what we hate about government programs is the stupidity, sloth, waste, graft and corruption that each brings with it. These will be no exception.