Impeach Clinton?
The first time I heard about Bill Clinton was when he gave a long rambling speech at the 1988 Democratic convention. The speech was a disaster. Still, he persisted toward national office. The next time I heard about him was during the early part of the 1992 Presidential primary season. I saw a national TV news report about Governor Clinton addressing people of various interest groups at a large hotel. Clinton moved from suite to suite addressing issues. After the Governor left, people he had addressed generally approved of his performance and thought that he was going to do something specific to meet their needs. The people in some suites had opposing political views to people in other suites. I thought that if Governor Clinton had promised to do something for all of these people, he could not have been telling the truth to at least half of them. That was the moment that Bill Clinton lost my confidence.
Since then, Bill Clinton has had a lot of explaining to do. He has had to explain why he did not serve in the military. Did he smoke marijuana? What happened during his land deal known as White Water? Why were the employees of the White House Travel Office fired? How did Mrs. Clinton's Arkansas law office billing records show up in the White House living quarters when they had been under subpoena? And how come a large number of women say that he has had more than friendly relationships with them?
I have not been amused by explanations from the "lovable rogue." The national news media has for the most part accepted them. That is until the story of Monica Lewinsky hit the television screen. After five years in office the press and the public have heard so many stories and seen so many slippery explanations, they have come to believe that charges of having sex with a 21-year-old and then covering it up could be true. It would seem to be in the nature of the man.
I do not know what the truth is in this case. I'm not sure any of us will know for sure. Even if accusations are true, the President will never admit to this affair. Examine his response to the allegations made by Jennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, and others. He attacks. The attack is on those who bring the charges and those who support them. President Clinton also delays. There is a long public record of waiting until the last possible second before providing information requested by committees of Congress or by the courts. These delays have often led people to believe there is more to a story than if the information had been fully explained early on. The administration blames others. Mrs. Clinton charges that the Lewinsky affair is part of a right wing plot to undo the results of her husband's two elections. James Carville attacks the prosecutor, Kenneth Starr, saying he is a tool of the right.
Bill Clinton is heard on tape telling Jennifer Flowers to deny everything. So why wouldn't the press and the public believe that he told Monica Lewinsky to do the same. I have heard on CNN that during his recent deposition, Mr. Clinton admitted to some kind of sexual involvement with Jennifer Flowers. So why wouldn't the press and the public believe that he and Monica Lewinsky had some "contact?"
If asked to guess about the President's future, I would say that he will complete his term of office. This assumes that there is no hard evidence of a cover-up. Even when the going gets rough and the public and the media have had enough of his half truths, Bill Clinton will not resign. If prominent senior Democrats come to his office (as happened between senior Republicans and Richard Nixon in 1974) and ask him to resign for the good of the party and of the country, he will not. I believe that Bill Clinton would rather pull down his party than to admit to wrong doing. He does not seem much invested in his party with the exception of getting Al Gore elected as the next Democrat in the White House. His wife enjoys the power of his office and would not be inclined to urge him to resign. Where would they go? They do not own a house. What would he do for money? What would anyone pay him to do? He already owes massive legal bills. These will continue to grow even if he resigns.
If the House of Representatives were to vote a Bill of Impeachment, what are the chances of getting sixty-seven votes for conviction in the Senate? Of the 100 members, 45 are Democrats. That means all 55 Republicans and 12 Democrats must vote to convict. Without that hard evidence the Senate would be very reluctant to push out a President.
Some pundits say that the Democrats might be eager to rid themselves of the political problems which Bill Clinton brings to the 1998 elections. Others assert that some Republican Senators might want to keep a weak Democrat President in office. Sixty-seven is a lot of votes. The Constitution makes it very difficult to remove a President.
The writers of the Constitution were aware of how in European politics, political leaders were deposed because the opposition disagreed with a political agenda. Usually that change was accomplished by force of arms. Our Founders did not want that sort of instability in our government process. Change was to come from the ballot box. Impeachment deliberately required overwhelming political support during a political crises. Without overwhelming support the results of a Presidential election should not be overturned.
Most of the time I have disagreed with the policy initiatives of this President. Yet he has been elected twice and is the President. If we want a different political agenda then it is up to us to elect a President who represents our views. It is wrong to rely on Impeachment and conviction unless the allegations prove well founded. To proceed without evidence may be another form of coup d'etat.
This is America, not Europe. Let's act like Americans.
Lee A. Presser
