 |
 |
|||||
 |
||||||
|
||||||
 |
||||||
| "Winners" Also Lose
by John M. Curtis Copyright January 20, 1999
Why is it OK and not partisan for Democrats to ask for dismissal, but it’s not OK and partisan for Republicans to ask for a complete trial? Does anyone really care about the truth? Clearly, not the ones being polled. Nor, for that matter, some ‘impartial’ Senators now hearing the case before Chief Justice Renquist’s court. Why hear from witnesses? They’ve already heard enough? It won’t affect the final vote? Really. What about the persistent allegations that the OIC’s report was indisputably untrustworthy and biased? Shouldn’t the impeachment ‘court’ want to finally get the facts firsthand? You can’t have it both ways: Denouncing the Starr Report and ignoring all the available evidence. But remember, the White House has already played its hand: (a) acknowledge only the words ‘inappropriate’ or ‘admission,’ (b) refute all allegations of perjury, witness tampering and obstruction of justice, (c) attack the Independent Counsel, (d) impugn the House managers for ‘rushing to judgment’ and ‘over-reaching,’ (e) question the ‘constitutionality’of the articles of impeachment, (f) dispute honest interpretations of ‘. . . other high crimes and misdemeanors,’ and finally, (g) suggest that courts are the best place to assure justice once the president completes his term. With all the insulting denials, what are House managers suppose to do — quit? Strange as it seems, Ms. Seligman and the president’s legal team have made all the same arguments. How many ways are there to shoe a horse? To be sure, even the president’s good friend Senator Dale Bumpers repeatedly made the same points. "What more do they want?," asked Senator Bumpers, "the president is subject to the same laws once he leaves office." Sounding similar tone, White House counselor Charles Ruff admitted to the House Judiciary Committee, "the president’s behavior was maddening, misleading and evasive . . . but he didn’t lie." Like Senator Bumpers, Ms. Seligman and company pose a real dilemma: How can they [the White House legal brigade] dispute all the basic facts and charges against president Clinton, but, simultaneously, suggest that he can be prosecuted after he leaves office? Prosecuted for what? He’s done absolutely nothing criminal? At best, the president was only guilty of a mundane indiscretion. Right? Let’s get real. How can House managers drop their case when the facts are in their faces? True to form, the White House spin machine continues to blow smoke. Since the Senate’s bipartisan fig leaf fell off, the rude awakening remains: The White House damage control strategy has returned to categorical denial. Guess what, with the partisan divisions, the White House is back in the driver’s seat. They certainly know how to count. Republicans will ‘never’ have the two-thirds majority to evict. Not since the discovery of ‘genetic material’ on Monica’s dress, have they had the luxury of categorical denial. Despite Mr. Craig’s overture to answer Senate majority’s questions, the White House abruptly recanted. Guess what, with all bets off, President Clinton no longer has to answer any questions. Now comes the next conundrum: With partisanship now prevailing in the Senate, what’s the exit strategy? We all know the endgame don’t we? The 2000 elections. Republicans can no longer afford to lose the battle and the war. Clearly, Democrats are winning the battle over preserving — at all costs — the Clinton presidency. But Republicans can’t just roll over. While it seems like they’ve been trumped, the truth is that making a complete record helps their cause. If the record is clear and convincing, namely, that president Clinton committed perjury and obstructed justice, the Democrats will be in an oddly precarious position: accepting the so called, ‘he did it, but so what’ defense. On the one hand, Democrats won the impeachment battle, but, on the other, may have lost the war over moral authority. The idea that president Clinton’s behavior ‘doesn’t rise to the level of an impeachable offense,’ no longer flies. If Republicans call witnesses, make their best case and still ‘lose,’ it may be the Democrats having to explain how they could have defended such despicable conduct from their leader. As the trial goes on, the Democrats might be saving a poisoned well. Think about it. Ms. Seligman’s and Senator Bumper’s arguments could come back to bite them. Resignation, not impeachment, was the honorable thing to do, at least according to a number of respected newspapers. Unlike Watergate, without the votes to convict, there’s little place for honor. So much for sparing the country pain and embarrassment. As House manager Lindsey Graham (R-SC) asked: Is my president a criminal? If so, does he have the ‘moral’ authority to lead the nation? The polls only comment about his job approval rating. Some would argue that ‘fitness to serve’ and ‘moral authority’ are two sides of the same coin. ‘Sacred honor,’ as Henry Hyde reminds us, counts for something. Do we really want leaders whose personal or professional conduct is so shameful and possibly criminal? Behavior which ‘doesn’t rise to the level of an impeachable offense’ doesn’t set an acceptable standard for public service. Regardless of the outcome, character will surely play a relevant role in the year 2000. About the Author John M. Curtis is director of a West Los Angeles think tank specializing in human behavior, health care and political research and media consultation. He’s a seminar trainer, columnist and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma. |
||||||
t’s a 'rush to judgment' based on circumstantial evidence," said a persuasive Johnnie Cochran to the jury in the O.J. trial, refuting all the evidence — DNA, blood, hair and fiber matches, shoe prints, blood trail, bloody glove, etc. Sound familar? You know the rest. Don’t forget that the now infamous videotape of Rodney King’s beating was also discounted as ‘circumstantial.’ Now it’s chicly attired, confident White House private attorney Nicole Seligman’s turn to shred all the evidence. "We ask you to end the case now so that the poision arrows of partisanship can be buried . . . ," said Ms. Seligman. Remember, bitter partisanship only stems from Republicans. Hardly.|
Home || Articles || Books || The Teflon Report || Reactions || About Discobolos This site designed, developed and hosted by the experts at ©1999-2000 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc. |
