A headline from NBC: “Investigation Of Lewinsky Bad Idea, Starr Says”. — OK, it turns out that what he actually said was that someone else should have done the investigation so as not to give the impression that it was connected to his previous investigation of Whitewater, but the headline was too delicious to pass up.
Since Starr says that the investigation was important since “it reinforced the proposition that all of us are subject to the law, no matter how high our station”, I append a letter I sent to Clinton on this topic at the time, below the fold.
Dear President Clinton,
Now that the House seems to have given up on the idea of accepting some form of censure as a substitute for impeachment, you and your advisors are, I assume, trying to think of some other sort of compromise that might work. Here’s an idea: is there any way in which you could ensure that you will be prosecuted for some or all of the charges laid out in the Starr report after you leave office? If there is, it would be worth offering to do this for the following reasons:
a) It would meet the concerns of those Representatives who plan to vote for impeachment to show that no one is above the law, and in so doing would deprive them of this argument for impeachment.
b) It would also make it clearer than it has been thus far that impeachment is not the legal punishment for perjury, and that it is not required to uphold the rule of law. Greater clarity on this point is desirable in itself, and could only help you. Moreover,
c) You would make this extremely important point, which badly needs making, not verbally (i.e., in terms your opponents would characterize as ‘legalese’), but in a way that would be comprehensible to people with no legal training, and no patience for legal arguments.
d) You would be guaranteeing that you would be prosecuted for an offense that might not be prosecuted had anyone else seemed to commit it, and this would cost you money and lay you open to serious penalties. For this reason, making such an offer would make it difficult for your opponents to characterize you as someone who tries to wriggle out of any mess he gets into without paying any price at all. (After all, there you would be, offering to ensure that those consequences are visited on you.) Since the thought of you always trying to get away with things seems to be part of what motivates some of your opponents, offering to ensure that you will be prosecuted once you leave office might help. Unless, of course, they are worried by the thought that
e) You might be acquitted. You can take some comfort in this. However, Republicans could not argue against this proposal on these grounds without making certain aspects of their hypocrisy plain.
f) It is one of the few proposals I can think of that would allow you to seize the initiative, and that would not look like a belated attempt to avoid punishment. The reason for this is that:
g) It is the right thing to do. Whatever one thinks of the Republicans’ motives, many of their general claims are valid: that no one is above the law, that no one should perjure himself and get away with it, and so forth. If you can ensure that you are prosecuted, and if you were to do so, you would fully concede these general claims, and recognize, moreover, that Presidents should be held to stricter standards than others. (That is why you would, and I would argue should, be prosecuted for making the statements you did, while I would probably not be.) And accepting these claims is the right thing to do. But you would accept them in a way that shows that they do not obviously entail that you should be impeached. You would thereby shift the argument from the question whether you should be above the law to the question whether the idea that you should not be requires that you be impeached. Forcing a distinction between these two points would be a great service to future congresses and Presidents. It would also change the terms of the argument in such a way that you might actually win it.
Just a thought. Best wishes,
(hilzoy)
Man, and I thought I wrote quixotic letters to elected officials. (I’m pretty sure I’m in John Kerry’s spam filter by now.) 😉
Remember, short and pithy. Name and town, name and town, name and town.
However, Republicans could not argue against this proposal on these grounds without making certain aspects of their hypocrisy plain.
Santa Claus is coming to town….and soon the Easter Bunny will appear at our doorsteps bearing baskets of caramel-filled Cadbury chocolate eggs.
Katherine: this is the second letter I wrote to Clinton. You should see the first. Now I think: clearly, I should have had a blog. Blogbudsman — I did write my name and address (the only change I made in this was replacing them with ‘hilzoy’, hence the parentheses). But since, as Katherine says, it was quixotic, I thought I could abandon the ‘short’ part. — It’s also true, though, that people pay more attention to letters if they think you wrote them yourself, as opposed to just hitting the ‘send’ button on some activist group’s website, which conflicts a bit with the ‘short’ part.
Sigh. But this e-mail keeps telling Clinton that it’s his fault he was being impeached or censured. That the responsibility for ending it lay with him and not at the feet of the Republicans who were misusing the Constitutional process or with Ken Starr who was abusing his authority.
No one is above the law. Clinton made false statements in a civil suit in the state of Arkansas as a private citizen. The appropriate thing would be for the state judge *in that case* to assess a penalty. Which is what finally happened. He had to pay a fine and lose his state license for a period of time. Absolutely appropriate penalty. But the judge felt she had to wait until all the other stuff played out before doint it.
All the extra-constitutional gameplaying was a distraction, and way out of proporation to the infraction.
Would the Paula Jones case have been brought if Clinton had not been President?
Would the Paula Jones case have gone forward if it hadn’t been pushed and funded by people who were just out to get Clinton (and had no particular truck with Paula Jones)?
Would the Paula Jones case even have stood up in court?
Was it appropriate for Ken Starr to reach over from his Whitewater investigation into a private civil suit?
Did the Supreme Court really believe that Clinton could be sued in state court for something that occurred years before without it affecting his ability to do his job?
I agree with the penalty that was ascribed to Clinton and I believe in the rule of law. But he was backed into a corner by the intersection of two separate partisan investigations that had no weight in and of themselves.
If you wanna see Don Quixote and the Easter Bunny all in one mad dash across your backyard, change just a few relevant words in this letter and mail it to every member of the Bush Administration and in duplicate to Tom Delay.
See if you get any eggs or a coupon for a new windmill.
:+)
Apropos of nothing, I always enjoy John Thullen‘s comments. Also, could the powers-that-be make the equivalent plot for ObWi?
I live to serve.
(it wasn’t hard–it’s one of the standard plots in the SiteMeter. Look under “WhatNot,” where it says “303,800” (or whatever) visitors since…& click on the #.)
Thanks, Katherine. I think one needs to be registered there to navigate the site or more persistent than I am.
Anyway, interesting that people at this blog use MS browsers less than dKossians.
“But this e-mail keeps telling Clinton that it’s his fault he was being impeached or censured.”
In “All Too Human”, George Stephanopoulos talks about the time Clinton got a haircut on Air Force One. The accusations by the Republicans of delays and inconvenience to other passengers, he says, were sheer nonsense. The haircut was just a convenient stick to bash Clinton with. But George was still absolutely livid at Clinton for handing his opponents such an easy target. It was his responsibility to think about the political consequences of his decision.
And the same goes for Lewinskygate. Yes, the Republicans were frothing at the mouth. Yes, they were hypocrites. Yes, there was a pretty feeble legal basis. But, in a world very close to this one, Clinton actually thought about the consequences of comitting adultery with a twentysomething intern. You’d like that world: Al Gore has just been re-elected.
“This e-mail keeps telling Clinton that it’s his fault he was being impeached or censured”
No, it doesn’t. It is a letter I wrote to Clinton, containing (unsolicited) advice. Since I wrote it to him, it focusses on things he could do. Had I been writing to Ken Starr, I would have focussed on what he could do. The fact that it never crossed my mind to write to Ken Starr but did write to Clinton is, in an odd way, a sign of respect for Clinton: leaving aside the obvious fact that he would never actually read this letter, it seemed to me that if he had, it was not entirely inconceivable that it might have some effect. I didn’t think that about Starr.
All that said, I agree with Gareth Wilson. Of course the Republican leadership was after Clinton. Of course they had just spent millions of dollars of our money investigating baseless allegations. And of course that was wrong. But that just makes it harder for me to understand why, knowing that, Clinton decided to risk everything — where “everything” includes not just his political future but his ability to govern effectively for an entire year — for the dubious charms of Monica Lewinsky.
Let’s assume I live in a neighborhood where crime is high. I leave my front door unlocked each day. I return home one day to find most of my possessions missing.
The lesson: yes, I am foolish for leaving my door unlocked. But where does the blame for the crime really lie?
That’s the problem with Hilzoy’s and Gareth’s commentary; it places the blame on the victim. Once you do that, it pretty much gives the criminal element license to continue unimpeded.
So, even if I deadbolt my door, put locks on my windows, install an alarm system–the bad guys are just going to keep on coming up with ways to try and rob me. Until the root problem is addressed, treating the symptoms is a pretty useless exercise.
Gareth: You’d like that world: Al Gore has just been re-elected.
*sigh* No. The Republican war machine was geared up to find fault with any Democratic candidate: no matter what Clinton had done, or Al Gore had done, they would have torn it to shreds. Look at the contumely that was heaped on John Kerry – a honorable and competent man with a sterling record. Kerry was vilified for his excellent service in Vietnam, for his integrity in testifying to Congress against atrocities committed in Vietnam, for his political courage in working against Reagan’s pro-terrorist policies in South America. No Republican who supported Bush showed the slightest sense of shame or even of feeling the incongruity of vilifying Kerry for being anti-terrorist, anti-atrocity, and a heroic soldier. The consistent attacks on Kerry and consistent defense of Bush’s lies, crimes, and other failings proved the point: it doesn’t matter, to a loyal Republican, how good the Democratic candidate is, or how vile the Republican candidate is. Clinton, Gore, and Kerry were vilified because they were Democratic candidates for President, and for no other reason.
Once again: I wasn’t blaming anyone.
That’s the problem with Hilzoy’s and Gareth’s commentary; it places the blame on the victim.
Clinton didn’t schtupp Lewinsky?
Look, I think he got reamed by the Republicans for no greater sin than being someone they hated — and boy, did they hate him — but he’s not blameless here nor even guilty of just being lazy/foolish as in your above example. Yes, Whitewater was stupid; yes, the investigation should not have spread to Clinton’s personal life; yes, the Republicans would probably have manufactured a scandal to screw him (as they somewhat did); but all this talk about Clinton’s victimhood neglects the fact that he really was to blame for his affair and he really was to blame for lying about it.
“Punished disproportionate to his crimes” </Geoffrey Rush>, but blameworthy nonetheless.
Clinton didn’t schtupp Lewinsky?
Schtupping might be a crime now, but it wasn’t then.
Hilzoy’s argument is reasonable as a political strategy – if Clinton is prepared to take responsibility for schtupping Lewinsky, shouldn’t Bush take responsibility for the crimes he’s committed already in his term of office? – but it’s only theoretically reasonable: we know that Bush will never be impeached or put on trial for his crimes, not even, sadly enough, in Canada.
On a moral level, Hilzoy’s right: for even a minor peccadillo, it’s better for an elected official to stand up, admit it, acknowledge responsibility. Would that George W. Bush were made of that caliber: but even his supporters must acknowledge that he’s not.
(Okay, that latter post was mainly an excuse to drop in the CNN link, which I find morbidly and mordantly funny.)
Let’s see: FDR cheated on his wife, Eisenhower in all probability did, JFK f@cked around like nothing else. Mitterand lived something like an open marriage and Kohl had by all accounts a long-term affair with his personal assistant.
Many people knew about this, yet nobody ever made a fuss. Everything else being equal, this leads me to the conclusion that the resonsibility for the all the agony caused by the “Clinton scandals” lies solely with the hypocritical Republicans, who decided that investigating this topic was a worthwhile undertaking, a press corps gone mad and the lecherous and/or bigotted parts of the American public that relished every new bit of sleaze Ken Starr would throw at them.
Schtupping might be a crime now, but it wasn’t then.
I didn’t say it was. What I said was that Clinton’s victimhood does not absolve him of the blame he deserves for having an affair and then lying about it. As it happens, I don’t particularly care whether a President has an affair and lies about it (provided he’s not campaigning on “sanctity of marriage” or some equivalent) but that’s another matter.
Wrong, he should never have been forced to talk about his affair for the simple reason that it was nobody else’s godd@amn business. You didn’t care, I didn’t care and everybody else shouldn’t have cared.
What I said was that Clinton’s victimhood does not absolve him of the blame he deserves for having an affair and then lying about it.
Blame, yes. Crime, no.
Let’s remember this was about high crimes and misdemeanors. It was about something the GOP claimed warranted–indeed, required–the removal from office the elected (not appointed) President of the US.
And I’d remind you, if it weren’t Clinton schtupping Lewinsky, it would have been something else. Remember the cocaine smuggling at Mena? The Clinton Body Count? The fact Clinton was a Red Chinese agent? Vince Foster murdered in Hillary’s secret Lesbian hideaway? The list of conspiracies and bulls%#t goes on and on and on.
Well, you don’t accommodate that kind of crap unless you want more of it. Frankly, Hilzoy’s advice to Clinton is akin to trying to insist to an assailant holding a knife in a dark alley that he follow Marquis of Queensbury rules.
Clinton’s victimhood does not absolve him of the blame he deserves for having an affair and then lying about it.
Nobody has ever tried to absolve him of the blame he deserves for that. He did indeed have an affair, and lie about it. There. I just blamed him, to the exact extent that he deserves.
OTOH, if we’re talking about people who do things and lie about them, and the blame they deserve…
FDr, Eisenhower, Kennedy, etc.
Hey, remember when Jimmy Carter said that he “lusted in his heart”? Everytime I see a list like that, that phrase always pops up.
Jesurgislac,
“OTOH, if we’re talking about people who do things and lie about them, and the blame they deserve…”
I can only assume you are unfamiliar with American politics. Do you know what the State of the Union address is? I suggest you go read Bush’s from 2003.
Just a sample…
“Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.”
Jadegold: Blame, yes. Crime, no.
I agree. And said as much.
Let’s remember this was about high crimes and misdemeanors. It was about something the GOP claimed warranted–indeed, required–the removal from office the elected (not appointed) President of the US.
I agree. And said as much.
[Except about the whole “appointed” President schtick. Frustrating as it may be — and believe me, I understand — it’s really beyond time to let that go, Jadegold.]
And I’d remind you, if it weren’t Clinton schtupping Lewinsky, it would have been something else. Remember the cocaine smuggling at Mena? The Clinton Body Count? The fact Clinton was a Red Chinese agent? Vince Foster murdered in Hillary’s secret Lesbian hideaway? The list of conspiracies and bulls%#t goes on and on and on.
I agree. And said as much. Although I didn’t repeatedly italicize “schtupp”.
Sometimes I wonder why I bother…
Jesurgislac: Nobody has ever tried to absolve him of the blame he deserves for that.
Actually, many people have. I did too for a time; still do on occasion, although I try to be more careful in my phrasing. It’s usually some variation on the “All Presidents do it” motif, coupled with the “If you spent that much time looking at someone you’d find *something* to screw them with” and the slightly bizarre “The Republicans drove him to it!” It happens and I generally find it irritating because it tends to devolve into portraying him as the innocent naif crucified by the meannasty Republicans — “Gosh darn it, ma, I just left the door open for a few minutes!” — instead of the slightly-too-slick-for-his-own-good overgrown-schoolboy President of the United States crucified by the meannasty Republicans that he was.
OTOH, if we’re talking about people who do things and lie about them, and the blame they deserve…
Strangely enough, I wasn’t. I mean, I more or less agree with your post — as you should know since, well, we’ve been on the same side of this argument more times than I care to count — but I was just trying to make a point about Clinton. That’s all. Nothing more.
As a general note: If it’s not too much to ask, would it be OK for people to actually address what I said and not go into recitation mode to address arguments I didn’t make? I’m sure you can find plenty not to like in what I say, but this whole “pretending to be someone I’m not so I can respond as the person you think I ought to be” is getting pretty damn tiring…
Eh. I’ve just reread my addendum and it comes across as a lot pissier than I’d intended it. Sorry about that, folks.