by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright May 24, 2000
All Rights Reserved.

unning for president Clinton’s law license, an Arkansas Supreme Court ethics panel recommended disbarment for "serious misconduct" during his testimony before the grand jury in the Paula Corbin Jones case. "The president responded by giving false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process," declared U.S. District Court Judge Susan Weber Wright who dismissed Paula Corbin Jones’ sexual harassment suit against president Clinton. Slapping president Clinton with a $90,000 fine last July, Judge Wright concluded that president Clinton "undermined the integrity of the judicial system." Coming back to roost, president Clinton’s legal strategy before and during his impeachment trial was that his offenses 'didn’t rise to the level of an impeachable offense.' While the Senate’s eventual verdict proved this point, his acquittal didn’t erase all the possible legal repercussions—including facing criminal charges or losing his law license.

       "What more do they want," [referring to the fact that the president was already impeached] asked retired Sen. Dale Bumpers (D-Ark.) during the impeachment trial. Begging for fairness and mercy, Bumpers pleaded,"The president is subject to the same laws once he leaves office," arguing passionately that removal didn’t fit the crime. Supporting his logic, but taking a slightly more exculpatory tack, White House Counsel Charles Ruff asserted, "The president’s behavior was maddening, misleading and evasive . . . but he didn’t lie," uncertain, at that point, whether lying under oath constituted 'high crimes and misdemeanors,' warranting eviction from office. Even persuasive White House Counsel Nicole Seligman begged the Senate impeachment court to "end the poison arrows of partisanship" and allow justice to take its course once the president finished his term.

       Forcefully defending the president, partisans like Reps. Charles Rangel (D-NY), Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Robert Wexler (D-Fl.) may have inadvertently hurt the president’s cause by pushing the "he did it, but so what" defense. Leaving him an out, "it" is still subject to interpretation, though most people infer a reference to the hanky panky with Monica Lewinsky and not lying under oath. Taking a tougher stance, the president’s personal attorney David E. Kendall flat-out rejected any notion of wrongdoing, asserting that "the president’s answers were legally correct." Reacting to the Arkansas panel, Kendall promised that Clinton will "vigorously dispute" the panel’s recommendation as "wrong and clearly contradicted by precedent." Already tipping his hand, Kendall’s defense hinges on president Clinton’s clever parsing of words, including his now famous line, "I did not have 'sexual relations' with that woman."

       So far, the Arkansas ethics committee hasn’t bought president Clinton’s story, including his definition of 'sexual relations.' Like federal judge Wright, they concluded that the president was not forthcoming or honest when asked about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Denying under oath being alone with Ms. Lewinsky or engaging in 'sexual relations,' president Clinton set himself up for his current dilemma. Had he simply taken the 5th, he wouldn’t have uttered statements considered by many people as perjurious. Following his spin-meisters, he opted to give misleading answers under oath. Much the same way Mark Furman lied about using the "N-word," Clinton thought that categorical denial was his best strategy, when invoking the 5th might have done the trick. Sure eyebrows would be raised, but certainly Sidney Blumenthal & Co. could have explained it away. What’s worse—lying under oath or dealing with the fallout from taking the 5th?

       "I have no regrets about being impeached," said Clinton, blaming his impeachment on partisan zealots in the House of Representatives, no doubt part of Hillary’s vast right wing conspiracy. When he had his cabinet step up to the microphone in the White House rose garden and vouch for him, what was he thinking? It’s one thing to have your private attorney Bob Bennett tell media that "he smelled a rat," it’s still another to shame and embarrass loyal employees. Waiving his finger and buffaloing PBS’s Jim Lehr on national television opened up a can of worms leading to his now unforgettable grand jury testimony. You can’t be impeached or disbarred for fibbing to the media. Pulling these stunts under oath in court crossed a different line.

       Commenting about the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee’s ruling, "The American Bar Association has published recommended standards for discipline, and basically misrepresenting oneself under oath—even when not acting in your capacity as a lawyer—would be grounds for disbarment, so this would fall in line with that," said University of Illinois law professor Ronald D. Rotunda. Yet some people feel that the Arkansas’ recommendation adds insult to injury. Hasn’t president Clinton suffered enough? Apparently not because they’re following up on the suggestions of his defense team who urged that legal action be taken once the president leaves office. Making good on the promise, they’ve simply moved up the timetable by a few months. Whether Robert W. Ray, Ken Starr’s successor, actually seeks a criminal indictment is anyone’s guess. President Clinton has already ruled out a pardon should he be convicted of perjury, witness tampering or obstruction of justice—all highly unlikely.

       While most Americans agreed with the Senate’s acquittal, there’s a growing consensus that losing his law license isn’t pouring it on because no one really expects president Clinton to practice law. Most people probably can’t stomach the thought of a criminal indictment for lying about sex—in court or elsewhere. What saddens so many people is how a person so gifted can administer such painful self-inflicted wounds. What was so terrible about admitting that he played around with Monica Lewinsky? Like so many other Americans—in or out of government—few people would have cast the first stone. Without admitting anything, was taking the 5th really such a bad thing? Having played out his hand, it’s now time to face the consequences.

About the Author

John M. Curtis is editor of OnlineColumnist.com and columnist for The Los Angeles Daily Journal. He’s director of a Los Angeles think tank specializing in human behavior, health care, political research and media consultation. He’s the author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2000 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.