by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright August 10, 1998
All Rights Reserved.

s president Clinton’s collision course with the grand jury speeds swiftly down the tracks, a growing chorus of voices are calling for his mea culpa. Try to fathom this logic: Members of his party, Congress, and, yes, even his former spinmeister, are encouraging the president to confess to a dalliance he’s denied doing. Can you imagine, these same people are also telling the president that they have the psychic powers to predict the repercussions once he confesses? They’re convinced that the crisis will disappear and all will be forgiven. Wishful thinking to be sure, when you consider that admissions of this kind are rarely taken lightly.

       While the most recent CNN-Gallup poll indicates that 75% of the people think that president Clinton had a sexual liaison with Monica Lewinsky, a nearly equal percentage believe that his private sexual matters shouldn’t be investigated by the office of independent counsel — whether he lied or not. By the same logic, many partisans discount his alleged conduct as inconsequential and unworthy of public debate — certainly not the 40 million dollar price tag placed on Ken Starr’s investigation. But since we’re a nation of laws and not men, violations of the law — regardless of how trivial or irrelevant — have definite consequences. Bristling from this sentiment, former Watergate reporters Woodward and Bernstein have denounced the use of the independent counsel law in the Clinton-Lewinsky matter as an abuse of its authority.

       Despite all the trivializing, the fact that president Clinton says that something isn’t so, doesn’t mean that it is. When something’s in your face, it’s difficult to ignore. Most sane and rational individuals don’t like being lied to — especially when the facts seem so obvious. It’s really not a partisan issue. Regrettably for Mr. Clinton — like a bad credit report which won’t stop following you around — he’s running out of plausible deniability.

       When he denied under oath, in the Paula Corbin Jones matter, any sexual liaison with Monica Lewinsky, he also reversed gears and — for some unknown reason — confessed his old tryst with Gennifer Flowers. With his credibility already taking at hit, another similar confession might not be as easily forgiven.

       With miscellaneous reports surfacing about Monica Lewinsky’s compulsive lying and forgery, president Clinton is clearly in the driver’s seat. Despite his credibility problems, hers are still far worse. He continues to have the luxury of categorical denial to beat this rap. He’s light-years away from mea culpa. Suggesting that he bail out and change his tune at this stage, doesn’t really consider what’s at stake — his credibility and trustworthiness. He simply can’t afford another gyration. After all, why should he? With Ken Starr’s office back on their heels and with Monica Lewinsky denying the obstruction of justice and suborning perjury charge, what does president Clinton have to lose by remaining consistent? Isn’t that really what the public wants? She lied once under oath, why should anyone — other than Ken Starr — believe her now? Whether he admits it or not, his star witness is highly impeachable. Testifying that Linda Tripp wrote the so called ‘talking points’ casts further doubt on Monica’s veracity.

       Without too much amnesia, some people remember last January, another one of Monica’s sullied dresses which was subjected to DNA testing. Guess what? Nothing was found! Despite all the speculation about 'genetic material,' why does anyone believe that this dress is any different? If it were, we would have already seen signs that the White House is hedging its bets. How convenient of Monica to furnish Ken Starr another piece of dramatic evidence. Despite this ‘smoking gun,’ president Clinton hasn’t blinked, suggesting that the latest red herring won’t pan out. Without compelling physical evidence or eye witness reports, it’s still a highly circumstantial case of his word against hers. Now, who would you believe? If the dress is now returned by the FBI without any 'genetic material,' it should provide powerful exculpatory evidence for the president: You see, he didn’t do it! Or, borrowing a memorable slogan, "if it doesn’t fit, you must acquit."

       Although the White House publicly wishes Monica the best, they also have their own agenda — survival. Phase-2 in the White House strategy is discrediting her and the office of the independent counsel. With enough reports of illegal confidential leaks stemming from IC’s office and with various reports surfacing about Monica’s inability to tell the truth, the process of discrediting the messenger is well under way. Borrowing another tired phrase, "you can’t trust the messenger." With the messenger already in trouble, asking president Clinton to engage in mea culpa is like expecting Paul Newman to fold his cards. When you’re winning the game, it’s not time to roll over. Of course, finding a ‘smoking gun’ — if there is one — would result in an abrupt change of strategy.

       While it’s tempting to pull the ripcord before it’s time, the White House knows that the present showdown requires nerves of steel. Bowing to the political pressure during an election year — now or ever — might satisfy someone else’s agenda but certainly not the White House’s. Bailing-out too soon might be a fatal miscalculation. Remaining consistent and continuing his categorical denials — especially if they’re true — to the grand jury or elsewhere faces a much more certain outcome than confessing his indiscretions.

       With the waves of public opinion clearly behind the president, the burden of proof remains squarely with the office of independent counsel. Regardless of the robust economy, many average citizens are still wondering why the independent counsel law was extended to investigating the president’s private sex life. Certainly, no private citizen would ever want to trade places. Questionable investment deals in which people were legitimately fleeced is another matter. Whatever the outcome of president Clinton’s testimony, expecting an eleventh hour reversal in public opinion seems like a fleeting fantasy.

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.

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