I recently got into an argument with a family member about the Clinton scandal and was somewhat disturbed about one of his positions. He maintained that the key point in all this was not the President's guilt or innocence, but the fact that all this money was being funnelled into lawyers fees with no real hope of any significant return by politically motivated individuals in an effort to embarrass and cripple the Presidency. I have no real counter argument to the fact that Paula Jones' lawyers were being paid by others, and that there was no hope of any substantive financial judgement, but I do take issue with the contention that this was the key point to the whole thing. Not to put too fine a point on it, but do the motives of the whistle blower really matter more than the facts of the allegations? What difference does it make that evidence comes to light out of spite as long as it is not fabricated? If you wish to impugn the credibility of witnesses based on their self-interest that is one thing, but don't knock the evidence because a non-testifying financial backer has an agenda. Quite frankly, it isn't relevant.
If we were to maintain that every case that is motivated by self-interest is automatically made not credible then we've just eliminated the civil trial. "Your honor, I move that the case be dismissed because the plaintiff is clearly trying to seek financial compensation for the injuries he sustained due to my client's alleged negligence." "So ordered, case dismissed." Granted, not too many civil defendants or non-litigants would mourn the death of the civil code, but would it stop there? How long would it be before such notions crept into the criminal justice system?
"Your honor, at this time, we request immediate dismissal of all charges because our office has just learned that the prosecutor has aspirations to elected office and wishes to take advantage of a high conviction rate." "Does the State wish to reply?" "Your honor, at this time I wish to assert my fifth amendment rights to avoid self-incrimination." "I'll take that as a 'no.' Case dismissed." Sounds like a premise for an episode of "Sliders," doesn't it ("same Earth, different dimension")? It makes for great hyperbole and something of a light read, but the point that I'm trying to make is that essentially anyone who testifies for any reason other than forcibly under subpoena would immediately have their credibility shattered. A widow would be unable to testify because she wanted to see her husband's killer punished. A patrol officer would be disqualified for wanting a good arrest record as a means to securing a promotion. The next door neighbor couldn't testify that he saw the accused butcher his wife with an ax because he wants to be able to sleep at night without worrying he's next. Give me a break. What's next, discounting the testimony of a police detective because he made racist remarks..? Oops.
Now that we've taken it to its logical extreme, let's deal with the illogical reality. I will be the first to admit I'm not a big Bill Clinton fan (of course, now I've just thrown my credibility out the window), however, among non-fans, I feel I represent a moderate (no irony intended) point of view. Personally, I could give two craps about his marital infidelity; that is a matter between his wife, whichever deity to whom he sold his soul to get this job (I think it was Carville), and him. Where I do take umbrage is the misuse of government workers to procure his evening's entertainment, and deliberate acts of witness tampering. If the allegations are true, for a man sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, he sure is taking a lot of liberties with it. I think the irony here is that, allegedly, he committed an impeachable offense to cover up a non-impeachable offense, witness tampering to cover up infidelity. It wouldn't surprise me if it were true. The man has put so much stock in public opinion he's now the majority shareholder, and truth be told, I think a preponderance of the population has a greater tolerance for a President abusing the Constitution than his marital vows. Unfortunately for him, that may not be the way the arbiters of such issues see it. Were impeachment proceedings to go forward based on infidelity, I believe the Supreme Court would have thrown it out with little more than a cursory glance. Cheating on your wife is almost as old an institution as marriage, and while it may offend more evolved sensibilities, it hasn't been accorded the same prohibitions as cheating the scales of justice. If that indeed did occur, Clinton may have handed his detractors the smoking gun they would have otherwise lacked, which brings us to the point.
Whatever their motivations might be, Clinton's detractors, to the best of my knowledge, have not violated the law. Last time I checked, throwing your money away on a lawsuit of dubious compensatory damage potential out of some misguided notion of furthering your hidden agenda was not prohibited under any statute currently included in the criminal justice code. Again, as long as testimony and evidence remain unaltered, and no one, not even the President has offered any proof that Paula Jones, in any way, changed anything but her hairstyle since the money men came along, what possible difference could it make who's funding this little expedition? Their motives have had no bearing on the presentation of the case, allegedly, Bill Clinton's have. What we have here is the latest example of an old American tradition of doing the right thing for the wrong reason.
As you may recall from the days of your elementary education, this country was founded on this tradition. America did become the greatest nation on the face of the Earth by accident. Ostensibly, the colonies went to war because they did not want to pay for a war fought on their behalf. Granted, the battle cry was sounded over "taxation without representation," but there was no great complaint when the British soldiers were over here dying to protect our soil during the French and Indian War. Despite our "noble aspirations" we almost assuredly would have failed were it not for the intervention of France. You may hold whatever illusions you will about our Founding Fathers, but I defy you to argue the French had in mind the foundation of a fledgling democratic republic when they entered the war, and keep a straight face. Despite the great debt (which they collected by the way) we owe France, I feel no great compunction to deny the fact that they were less interested in the fate of the North American continent than in sticking it to the British. Do these facts in any way diminish the accomplishments of this nation since then? Should we "throw out" the American Revolution because some of the combatants had less than honorable motives? And what of other accomplishments? Would you have advances in medicine ignored if you found out the researcher only did it for money and chicks? If that's the case, wipe out half the advances of the twentieth century right now.
So, are motives important? I'd like to think so, but I have been faced with the reality that they are nowhere near as important as actions. In criminal proceedings, a motive without an action is an absolutely meaningless thing. I'm certain, at one time or another, almost all of us have heard a moving speech from a commencement address, a religious sermon, a political rally, or (God forbid) a Presidential address (i.e. "ask not what your country can do for you). I'm equally certain most of us have given thought to doing something for those less fortunate. Now I hate to ask this next question, if that's as far as it went, how much did your honorable motives help? How much did you accomplish, compared to the entrepreneur who donated time or money to help his corporate image, or tax situation? As much as I hate to admit it, I've probably done more by buying his products than all the noble thinking I've ever done.
