Clinton Impeachment

The beginning of 1999 brought the end of the tawdry Clinton/Monica Lewinsky sex scandal via a constitutional process that only occurred but once before -- namely the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson over a century before. The result was somewhat similar in that the President on trial escaped a conviction (or in Clinton's case a majority in favor of removal) by means of some senators crossing party lines, but still was severely hurt by the process, which in both cases was called partisan witch hunts based more on opposition to the man and his politics than the facts themselves. Well, my purpose here is to suggest that in President Clinton's case at least, this is at least partly a misguided view. The process was botched, the case had problems with it all over the place, but I for one feel it was good that the impeachment finally took place, and that he might very well deserved to be removed. I added some links and resources at the end of this piece that influenced my views and/or will help understand them and the situation better.

I am in the minority in holding this view, though I have met many online who agree with me, as opposed to most of my face to face acquaintances. A bit of disclosure to address possible bias should be dealt with since this is at least in part an opinion piece. I am not a conservative Republican, I am a registered Democrat. Nonetheless, I have many problems with President Clinton, way back to before he was elected, though in some respects he was a good president. As a president, official acts and all by themselves, he left something to be desired. He had many conservative decisions on criminal justice, welfare reform, and personal liberty matters that upset me. This left me wondering why so many Democrats and liberals supported him so vehemently -- apparently, he was the best they had (how sad). Finally, his ethics and deeds in such matters as campaign finance, treatment of private records, business deals and the like are suspect, so bad some suggested they alone were grounds for impeachment. [Another allegedly impeachable offense was his call for armed attacks on Sudan because of questionable evidence of their support of terrorist acts, and perhaps other questionable use of military force as well.]

Such a laundry list of problems might cause one to suspect my views put forth below, but I think they are important to keep in mind. Matters completely separate from the particular acts involved in the impeachment charges are very important to understanding the process. For instance, if one combines Clinton's ethical lapses with his sexual escapades, one is far from surprised that the conservatives in Congress grew to really dislike the guy -- moral dislike should not color one's views when you are deciding whether or not to convict someone, but it surely helps to cause you to lose sympathy, especially when people keep on telling you the person really did not do anything wrong. On the other hand, the fact such moral dislike and difference of political views, led the other side to put aside possible evidence, since they felt it was the morals and politics, not the facts that were leading the whole process. This is unfortunate since it clouded the truth and made the process quite messy and more soap opera than a serious examination of the facts.

The facts are tawdry, but this very fact was used to denounce the investigation and the impeachment itself. It is all about sex they said, a private wrong that should never had been brought out in the open by Kenneth Starr and Congress. The misguided nature of this central argument annoyed me to no end. There are any number of situations where sex, even tawdry sex, becomes a matter of public civil and criminal concern (impeachment is not considered criminal; it only is concerned with removal from office and perhaps inability to be in office again): sexual harassment, divorce, rape, and public indecency cases are the main examples. Oh, and anything that arises from such acts, such as perjury and obstruction of justice in proceedings dealing with such things. This horror at accepting sex as part of the mix in appropriate situations is one of the worst parts of this whole fiasco. Would similar acts for monetary ends be less acceptable? Money and sex are both time old reasons to breach accepted norms and procedures, as well as laws themselves.

Sexual harassment was basically what was issue at here; I say basically, since really the charges were slightly different. Paula Jones accused President Clinton of violating her constitutional rights in a matter arising from a visit to his hotel room while he was governor of Arkansas. The charges were rather flimsy on various legal grounds, but not the accusation that happened -- Clinton's history with women is well known. [the article link supplied above merits reading for further information on these points] Furthermore, suggestion that refusal to be involved with him might affect one's job had merit too, though the facts here are a tad bit more cloudy since Clinton did a good job of hiding such activities. Nonetheless, it is pretty clear that several women he was involved with were treated shabbily, bad-mouthed and even threatened in some way (little concern with their privacy). Also, those who consented in some way got things in return. Finally, there is clear evidence he made advances on one or more women who did not want such attention. The public knew some of this when they voted him as President twice, but not all of it. Furthermore, their acceptance did not justify his actions or those in particularly involved here.

For one thing, the public did not know of his relationship with a young intern (and later employee) by the name of Monica Lewinsky, while President and while in the Oval Office itself. It is to be noted that while he was involved sexually (if I'm allowed to call it that, see below) with Ms Lewinsky, he was being sued for acts arising for suggesting sexual acts of the same nature he was now taking part in! This takes a certain amount of gall. At any rate, after the affair was over, Lewinsky asked for help to get a private sector job. Such aid suddenly became quite direct (including calls to companies by his aid Vernon Jordan) only after Lewinsky was named as a possible witness in the Paula Jones case. She was clearly a valid witness -- a government employee, possible benefits from sexual involvement with her boss, an affair that took place in the Oval office (if there, why not outrageous conduct in a hotel room?), and involving similar sexual acts as involved in the suit. Nor surely was Lewinsky the only woman the President was involved in a sexual way, though the details here are more open to debate.

A few things should be said to add further background to these events. First, a Supreme Court case was earlier announced that unanimously held that a sitting President (Clinton) could be sued in a civil suit for actions before he was in office -- that is, he was not above the law nor could the person be forced to wait years for him to leave office. Second, President Clinton and his Justice Department supported sexual harassment laws and suits not involving himself, including many as flimsy or cloudy as his. Finally, by the time the events discussed here began to take place (1997- 1998), President Clinton already was attacked for many ethical lapses, putting in place a type of siege mentality that would only worsen as time went on. The fact that Paula Jones got helped from people clearly out to get Clinton (again both for moral/political opposition and because they truly felt he broke the law) did not make things any less messy.

At any rate, besides helping Lewinsky get a job [as an aside, if this was to influence her testimony, it comes pretty close to bribery, which is explicitly included in the Constitution as an impeachable offense; also there was a connection here to Webb Hubbell under investigation by Kenneth Starr], President Clinton did other questionable things as the Paula Jones / Lewinsky matter went on. He called up Lewinsky right about the time she was put on the witness list to ask her to keep quiet about their affair, and seemingly suggesting she lie if asked about it. His secretary helped Lewinsky hide gifts they had exchanged, gifts mentioned as evidence in the discovery process (wherein lawyers try to find out about the case before trial) by Jones' lawyers. Clinton himself was questioned by Jones' lawyers, and he said he did not have 'sex' with Monica Lewinsky nor was he ever 'alone' with her. After the testimony, he called his secretary up to 'help his memory' by telling her his version of the facts, as well as again after she was definitely a witness in the lawsuit; both times it appears he was coaching her to lie when questioned by Jones' attorneys. He also told his aides (and the public) that he never had an inappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky and that he was the true victim here. Finally, later in the year he answered some questions put forth by Congress, in part saying he did not commit perjury when questioned by Paula Jones' lawyers.

This is the briefest of summaries of all these events, but note what was involved here, and what turned out to be the two counts of impeachment against the President -- perjury and obstruction of justice. His affair with Monica Lewinsky (which unlike his previous affairs, the public did not know about when they elected him a second time; in fact, he promised never to be involved in such affairs again when he first was elected as President. This is important since his re-election was used in his defense) clearly involved matters that were relevant in the Paula Jones suit. The Supreme Court held he was not above the law, he had to support Jones' right to sue, even if the suit would later be held to be weak (this too was used in his defense, like someone can not be held liable for perjury in a suit wherein the person is found not guilty). He had the right to defend himself, but not by illegitimate means, means he clearly did use. This was not really in dispute, even by many of those who opposed the impeachment. Some of the events involved are open to various interpretations, but taking everything into account, it seems clear he did in various cases commit perjury or at least obstruct justice (his attempt to define words narrowly, e.g. 'sex', is legend, but even if something is not technically perjury, it can obstruct justice when one lies during a deposition etc).

So, we had a President of the United States, the person elected with the job to faithfully uphold the law, who instead committed perjury and obstructed justice not once but many times over a length of time. We are supposed to not hold him legally accountable, except many a fine or something.* Why? Well, it was all about a private sex matter etc., a moral and ethical lapse, not a criminal matter. This was true even when he blatantly lied under oath or to the public for political and personal reasons, when he could have remained silent. Well, this is false. The lawsuit made it a public matter, and Clinton's actions threatened the sanctity of lawsuits (if the chief executive need not respect the law, umm who should?) that admittedly involved sensitive matters (fair about is turn play say opponents to broadly worded sexual harassment laws), especially if a disfavored person was involved in it. This is important too -- the legal rights of those we do not like much are important too, more so in many cases since their unpopularity leaves them in a precarious position. These are the "high crime or misdemeanors" or impeachable offense Clinton deservably was charged with, not simply lying about an affair.

The President's troubles have been used to show the fragility of privacy in the current age, but I question using him as a martyr for the cause of privacy. President Clinton has made intimacy with the public a calling card of his politics, even before he went on national television to talk about his affairs before he became President. The "private" actions being investigated often involved him in a public role (a governor using government employees and his office for personal ends, a President abusing his office for personal and political ends) and in basically public places (the Oval Office). The nature of the accusations and his stonewalling added to the need to examine areas generally off limits. Finally, his support of sexual harassment laws (though not his treatment of former lovers) means he is generally in favor of similar investigations when he isn't the one being investigated. I do not doubt things could have been done differently, but an argument can be said that the President was often his worst enemy, especially given his overall recklessness and disrespect of both the law and the public in general.

While the privacy of Clinton was defended, the women he had various types of sexual relations with generally were treated badly, often held in contempt even by those who opposed Clinton (e.g. Ann Coutler and her 'presidential kneepads' comments). Clinton does seem to have a certain lack of respect of these women (who include a former beauty queen), as well as choosing many who are easy to stereotype. This was helped by those (many who clearly felt mistreated) who tried to cash in, including a recent move by Paula Jones to pose nude, after getting very little even after settling out of court. Nonetheless, it is rather outrageous to blame the victims here (and victims they were to some extent, even those who clearly consented), including Monica Lewinsky, apparently a vivacious charming (as seen in a Tom Green special) young woman, who is pretty if full figured (FHM magazine chose her as one of the top 100 most beautiful), if clearly a bit immature in some ways.** Some similar things can be said about Paula Jones, married with a family while the lawsuit went on, daughter of a preacher. The bad treatment of these women is one of the worst parts of this whole mess.

The cheapening of the legal system is a dangerous undertaking in that extralegal methods often cause many problems, as does the idea that popular powerful people deserve more chances and lesser punishment (the President looks bad these days, but could have got thirty months in jail under one estimate) than others. The impeachment, a formal legal and political proceeding, was good in that it brought the evidence out in the open and brought Clinton the disgrace he deserved. It was not handled that well, but it was better than the alternative suggested by those who opposed it. The idea appears to be when things such as perjury, obstruction of justice or the like arises from a sensitive matter that touches upon a popular person, especially if the opposition involves people we don't like, it does not really matter. This led to all the Democrats in Congress, even those who clearly felt President Clinton seriously broke the law, to oppose impeachment and make the whole process look like a Republican plot. The failure of not even one Democrat to vote to convict him, even if the votes for removal (2/3 of the Senate) were not present, added insult to injury.

The opponents of impeachment and supporters of Clinton validly said that the other side was at least partly influenced by their opposition to Clinton's politics and the ethics that his acts symbolized. Nonetheless, his actions went much further than private wrongs that truly are not matters of the courts -- he was not impeached for having an affair with Monica Lewinsky, he was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice in attempting to hide said affair. The lengths he took to obstruct justice, including lying to Congress and the public when no one believed him any more not only drove many in Congress over the edge to impeachment, but also adds to its justification -- a leader who we can trust so little that people think personal reasons influenced his foreign policy and attacks on foreign soil is a leader whose legitimacy is in trouble.

We many oppose sexual harassment suits or any number of cases where our privacy is violated, but we have a responsibility to follow the law, even if we do not agree with it. We do not do the cause of privacy and individual freedom any good by breaching the rights of others in order to uphold it; the reverse is actually true. This and the fact that the rights of the unpopular were ignored by those who say they support those shunned by society may be the saddest part of this whole matter. This and the fact the President of the United States let his personal reputation and success supercede his duty to uphold the law, even after it became quite clear he was in the wrong. The result was a cheapening of the law and the worsening of a political breakdown caused by the distrust between the Republican Congress and the President that continues to this very day.

* Update: Senate Democrats supported a public censure (though one that waters down the charges) of the President, a type of official reprimand of questionable constitutional validity. For instance, is this a type of penalty without a trial? And is an official "bad boy," especially for Clinton, really much of a penalty? President Clinton ultimately (on the last full day of office) agreed to a type of plea bargain with the independant counsel in which he agreed to a twenty five thousand dollar fine (for attorney expenses) and a suspension of his Arkansas law license for five years. In return, the Arkansas Supreme Court's Committee of Profession Conduct agreed to end its disbarment proceedings. I personally agree with others who suggest disbarment would be a more suitable penalty, also arguably the current norm in Arkansas in cases of public figures committing perjury or obstruction justice. Since Clinton is probably not going to use his Arkansas law license any time soon, the penalty is more symbolic (as surely is the timing) than anything else, but it's better than nothing.

**Besides making fun of her figure (her failure on Jenny Craig didn't help here), some are disgusted with her keeping the semen stained dress. The Michael Isikoff book (see below) informs us that actually she originally was going to actually clean the dress, but Linda Tripp helped her to keep it in its damning state. Regardless, many men also like to keep proof of their sexual relations, including panties. When the partner involved is the President of the United States, keeping a memento is even less surprising.

Some interesting books on impeachment and the impeachment of President Clinton in particular: