You can’t handle the truth about Clinton’s impeachment

Monday, January 11, 1999

You can’t handle the truth about Clinton’s impeachment

CLINTON: Obstruction of justice, not perjury, crux of
president’s wrongdoing

By John Strelow

Without overusing the phrase, these are historic times in which
we live. Too bad no one cares, and that everyone is sick to death
of it all. Not that I can blame anyone; after all, beyond the
obvious adulterous sins of Bill Clinton, the issues of impeachment
devolve into a tangled web of "obstruction of justice," filtered
through allegations of jobs offered and threats made with the
intent of silencing the truth.

It is doubtful that anyone can give a direct summary of this
element of the impeachment story, though nearly everyone has been
regaled with accounts of our president’s bedside manner. If the
Senate trial should give us anything, it should be some sense of
clarity.

What the current situation lacks is any sense of a Smoking Gun.
Looking back on Watergate, we can see that it was about a
destructive plot to obstruct federal investigations. But at the
time, Watergate could have been simplified as thus: 18 Minutes of
Blank Tape. In the light of the tape, the cavalcade of names, dates
and campaign finance violations meant nothing.

And no story could adequately explain the absence of the 18 1/2
minutes; Nixon had fought hard to keep the tapes of out Congress’
hands, and now everyone could see why. By God, there must be a
cover-up; there are 18 Minutes of Blank Tape, hence, the Smoking
Gun.

To the America of 1999, the Smoking Stain and the Unsmoked Cigar
are not enough. To most Americans, it is unclear as to why Clinton
has been impeached. Perjury is one thing, and obstruction of
justice is another, so it may be helpful to look at them
separately.

It appears almost certain that Clinton perjured himself. Putting
forward such defenses as "that depends on what your definition of
‘is’ is" and "I never felt truly alone" is the sort of semantic
nonsense which prompted many lawyer jokes in our society, as well
as initiated much hate toward politicians.

The American people are put off by politicians twisting words to
their selfish whims, and Clinton has mastered this skill like no
other. In his afterword to the paperback edition of "The Choice,"
his book-length account of the 1996 presidential campaign and
election, acclaimed journalist Bob Woodward wrote: "It is on …
truth telling … that the Clinton presidency will likely endure or
falter." Even as keen an observer as Woodward could not have
anticipated that not only would Clinton lie and deceive in his
communication with the American people, but that he would do so
under oath during a federal investigation.

Perjury, make no mistake, is a serious matter. A basic principle
of our legal system is that those under oath tell the truth. It
does not matter if the lawsuit is frivolous, it does not matter if
the lawsuit may soon be dismissed, and it does not matter if the
lawsuit is a politically motivated effort; the truth is
required.

Clinton is a lawyer and a well-educated man. He knew this. He
simply declined to care. By doing so, the president of the United
States displayed remarkable contempt for the legal system, contempt
for everyday Americans who are bound by the rules he threw to the
wind, and contempt for the laws he has twice sworn to uphold. When
a president acts in contempt of a fundamental institution of this
country, there is little justification.

Yes, but is perjury, by itself, enough to impeach the man? Does
contempt of the legal system qualify as a high crime or
misdemeanor? Adding confusion to this issue is the disparity of
punishments doled out because of perjury. There are people in this
nation today in jail for committing perjury. There are people in
this nation who are free after paying a $200 fine for committing
perjury. Where does the president fit along this scale? As felonies
go, perjury is a fairly victimless crime. There is no public uproar
over perjury, especially after Clinton finally came clean with the
American people and admitted his affair. Is it reasonable, or even
proper, to impeach the president on an issue where the public
simply does not care? Probably not. Perjury by itself is certainly
worthy of being denounced, but an impeachment conviction may be
going too far.

Obstruction of justice is another story. If President Clinton
knowingly and willingly organized a campaign to bury the truth, if
he instructed advisors and confidants to give Monica Lewinsky jobs
or other perks to just keep her mouth shut, then he has engaged in
a flagrant and inexcusable abuse of his power and an abhorrent
violation of the law. An active campaign to obscure the truth from
a federal investigation is what quite properly chased Nixon out of
town. If Clinton engaged in the same thing, prepare his exit
helicopter immediately.

The question becomes, did Clinton obstruct justice? Quite
frankly, Dr. Watson, I haven’t the foggiest.

I’ve heard more than enough times about the cigar, about the
dress, about Clinton talking with members of Congress on the phone
while simultaneously carrying on his affair. I’ve heard it, and
like you I’m sick of it. Because it really doesn’t matter.
Obstruction of justice should be the key issue, and yet nearly
everyone is ignorant of the issue. Perhaps it’s because Conan
O’Brien can’t fit a joke about Vernon Jordan giving Lewinsky a job
into his monologue. Perhaps it’s because Larry Flynt would rather
dig up dirt on members of Congress than pay attention to
responsible journalism. Perhaps it’s because the issue is too
complex.

We are in need of a Smoking Gun, either proving or disproving
the charges, which is why holding a Senate trial is a good
thing.

Hopefully, they can clarify, simplify and bring a coherent issue
to the American public. People are sick of this issue because
everything they hear is redundant, irrelevant and racy. Before
America cares, America must understand. And it’s desperately
important that America cares. Despite inane complaints of partisan
bickering (I’m all in favor of partisan bickering, for without it
we have tyranny), it seems clear that every member of Congress has
addressed this issue with the utmost sincerity and solemnity. Each
American should do the same.

We are sick of the stain and the cigar because they don’t
matter. What matters is whether or not our president went out of
his way to interfere with and misdirect a federal investigation.
This is what the Senate needs to focus on, and this is what the
Senate needs to focus America on.

And, if in the end the truth is on Clinton’s side, then he shall
be set free from this mess. And if it isn’t, then the Clinton era
must come to an end.

Comments, feedback, problems?

© 1998 ASUCLA Communications Board[Home]