High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton (41 page)

Read High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton Online

Authors: Ann Coulter

BOOK: High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton
3.97Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
Invoking Executive Privilege As Obstruction of Justice
 
If the legal talents of
Hillary Rodham and Bernie Nussbaum are to be credited, impeachment for invoking executive privilege to thwart congressional subpoenas is an impeachable offense. The entire third article of impeachment against Nixon was based solely on the fact that he had “failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives….”
This was for a somewhat legitimate invocation of executive privilege, being appealed through the courts. Ultimately, of course, the Supreme Court did recognize the existence of executive privilege, and created a new privilege. But the new privilege did not cover all presidential communications, as Nixon had argued. So the court ordered Nixon to hand over the tapes. Nixon, by the way, at least admitted he was the one invoking executive privilege.
Flash forward twenty-five years: the nation’s chief executive, Bill Clinton, was asked about the invocation of executive privilege to shield high-level conversations about Monica, such as those his wife had with communications adviser Sidney Blumenthal. Executive privilege, of course, is the privilege of the executive; he’s the executive, and only he can assert or waive the privilege. The response from the president of the United States was this: “That’s a question that’s being asked and answered back home by the people who are responsible to do that…. All I know is, I saw an article about it in the papers today.”
112
In trying to pawn off the executive privilege gambit on his subordinates, Clinton was reversing the whole idea of a single executive held accountable for his subordinates through impeachment. The Constitution makes the president responsible for the actions of his subordinates precisely in order to prevent him from saying, “Well, I just appointed them but now it’s on their heads.” Here, Clinton was saying, “I like that dodge so much I’ll double it.” He made his subordinates take the rap for invoking executive privilege, even though they legally, constitutionally,
cannot
invoke executive privilege. By no stretch of the law can this be anyone’s decision but the president’s. Nixon did it once and had an article of impeachment voted against him for it.
The framers explicitly posited obstruction of justice as an impeachable offense. Interestingly, though, the framers did not contemplate that the obstruction would be actually be committed by the president himself, but assumed it would be committed by persons with whom the president was connected. “Those who adopted the Constitution,” as the Rodino Report calls the framers, expressly stated that the president could be impeached if “there be grounds to believe he will shelter” any person who has broken the law.
113
One chance in 1,024, that the president himself has not committed perjury.
IMPEACHMENT OF A PRESIDENT FOR LYING
 
The Issue
 
Lying to the American people
may not be a criminal offense, but it is a breach of trust by the president. It is a “high crime or misdemeanor.” It is unquestionably an impeachable offense. As Hamilton suggested, the president could be impeached for acts that make him “unworthy of being any longer trusted,” even if immune from “legal punishment.”
The idea that the nation has a right to expect the truth from the president has become a quaint anachronism. Since he is just a politician, no one believes him anyway. His words are treated as mere pleasantries. But there is a chance that the president will have to, for example, send men into battle. He has to be able to tell the country that we really need to do this and not have people assume it’s just some political stunt.
It is roundly assumed that Clinton is lying. His partisans are only waiting to see if there is criminal proof that he lied under oath about something they deem important.
The Precedent
 
It wasn’t always this way.
One president was almost impeached for lying—lying on one single narrow point that had nothing to do with his own misconduct. The first article of impeachment voted against President Nixon included—as a separate and independent ground—that he had lied to the American people. He was accused of “making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States….”
114
It wasn’t under oath, and it was enough.
As Nixon’s first special prosecutor, Archibald Cox, explained:
The President is not merely the only active government official elected in America by all the people; he is the nation’s image of itself, the symbol of the nation… Woe betide him who sullies the nation’s image of itself. In my view, Watergate proved the conscience of the nation as well as the ability of a self-governing people to vindicate, by the processes of open government, their own moral sense….
115
 
The president as “symbol of the nation,” “sully[ing] the nation’s image of itself,” the people vindicating “their own moral sense”—and Nixon wasn’t even getting oral sex from an intern. He wasn’t even the one wearing latex gloves in the Watergate Hotel.
Nixon’s second special prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, summarized the “infamy and disgrace” of President Nixon: “What sank him was his lying…. People can tolerate a great deal in their public officials. If a person is big enough to say ‘I did it,’ he’ll be forgiven.”
116
In a prediction that later events would sadly disprove, Jaworski exulted that the Watergate scandal had made “tremendous” strides for “better government”:
Those who seek office know there’s a very high standard expected of them…. There aren’t many who now think they can depart from the straight line. There’ll be less use of influence. The attention given to this case will give its results a more lasting effect. It has made its impressions deep-rooted. The good that comes out of it won’t be a passing fancy.
117
 
Elliot Richardson, the attorney general who resigned during Nixon’s “Saturday Night Massacre,” similarly described Watergate as a shot over the bow for politicians ambivalent about the truth: “[T]hey can’t risk cutting corners or hoarding dirty little secrets, if only because they’ve learned that honesty is the best politics—whether or not there is a real regeneration of morality.”
118
(Sam Ervin, chairman of the Senate Watergate Committee, was more subdued in his estimate of the salubrious effect of Watergate on other politicians, saying that it would be “up to the media to keep reminding people.”)
119
Some “better government” we got. President Clinton has announced to the American people: “[L]isten to me. I’m going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman—Miss Lewinsky.”
120
More than twenty hours of taped conversations of an unsuspecting witness, thirty-seven Lewinsky visits to the White House, Betty Currie’s testimony, a dress, a brooch, a hat pin, and much additional evidence say otherwise.
A few days after the Lewinsky story broke on January 21, 1998, Ben Bradlee, who had been editor of the
Washington Post
during Watergate, ticked off some of the “eerie” comparisons with Nixon during Watergate: “You have a president lying. You have a president wounded and hurt by trying to cover it up. What will the consequences be? Well, it’s going to be very difficult for Clinton to get out of this.”
121
Clinton’s Friends Say He Is Lying
 
Clinton’s flacks defend their
man with these points: (1) even if Clinton is lying, it has to do with sex; (2) even if Clinton is lying, the vast right-wing conspiracy is out to get him; (3) even if Clinton is lying, Starr is a really, deeply evil man; (4) even if Clinton is lying, his poll numbers are high; and so on. But no one denies that he is lying (except Eleanor Clift and the first lady, going beyond the call of duty to earn their presidential kneepads).
Oddly, even his paid White House defenders openly acknowledge that the president is lying. One “adviser” gave the
Washington Post
this spin to Kathleen Willey’s groping allegation: “Clinton’s not a coercive guy; he’s very subtle…. Were they together? Yes. Did something happen? Possibly…. I think she is lying about how she felt about it.” But his boss says unequivocally that he didn’t grope her—not that he did it but she liked it.
122
Leon Panetta, Clinton’s former chief of staff, said of Clinton: “At some point he’s going to have to tell the American people what the truth of that relationship was.”
123
And, of course, George Stephanopoulos, former senior Clinton aide, said of the Lewinsky affair: “These are probably the most serious allegations yet leveled against the president. There’s no question that… if they’re true, they’re not only politically damaging but it could lead to impeachment proceedings.” He elaborated later, saying Clinton had violated a “loyalty contract” with the American people by asking people to lie:
I don’t think a president is loyal to his people if he either knowingly asks them to lie or asks them to say things which he realizes are not very credible, asks them to take him on his word without giving them reasons to take him at his word. And I think that is the trap that the president has set right now.
124
 
Press Secretary Mike McCurry: “If it turns out what the president has said has not been fair and square with the American people, that has enormous implications.”
125
Albert Eisele, who served as press secretary to Vice President Walter Mondale, pointed out another trap Clinton has set for himself, and this one is unavoidable. In an editorial for
The Hill
, Eisele wrote that Clinton “has disgraced and degraded the presidency and betrayed his family and friends, his party and his country.” (Meanwhile, Republican Senators Trent Lott and Arlen Specter were calling on Ken Starr to wrap up his investigation.) Eisele continued, “Americans are willing to forgive their elected officials almost anything as long as they tell the truth.” But, he continued, “We do not believe that Clinton has done that in the present case, and we don’t know if he will,
or is even able to, without exposing himself to charges of perjury
” (emphasis added). For the president to come clean now, he would have to admit that he has already committed a felony.
At least one recent Democratic presidential candidate considered the trustworthiness of the president a matter of public concern:
Every time [the president] talks about trust it makes chills run up and down my spine. The very idea that the word “trust” could ever come out of [his] mouth after what he has done to this country and the way he is trampled on the truth is a travesty of the American political system.
126
 
There’s just no such thing as truth when it comes to him…. He just says whatever sounds good and worries about it after the election.
127
That was what candidate Bill Clinton had to say about President Bush during the 1992 campaign.
Lying “About Sex”
 
Ironically, the argument that
Clinton’s relationship with Lewinsky is a “personal” matter—only “about sex”—has effectively deprived Clinton of any possible defense if he is lying. Probably the only defense the president of the United States could pony up to a charge of lying to the American people would be that the lie was required by his duty as the chief executive—something like a secret military maneuver, troop movements in a war zone, or an impending sting operation against domestic terrorists. Obviously, even a presidential lie told to save lives is problematic in a democracy. Lying about oral sex with a White House intern cannot possibly have anything to do with saving American lives or any other official presidential duties.
128
As Ben Bradlee said, “[I]t’s going to be very difficult for Clinton to get out of this.”

Other books

Extreme Love Makeover by Barbara Witek
First Ride by Tara Oakes
Salby Damned by Ian D. Moore
Coyote by Rhonda Roberts
Inflame (Explosive) by Teevan, Tessa
Dead Man Walking by Paul Finch
Fate and Fortune by Shirley McKay