December 13, 1998

Up Or Down Vote Will Shape American Justice System

Clinton Perjury and Impeachment

Now that the House Judiciary Committee has recommended impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton -- despite a last-second Rose Garden tug at our heart strings -- the momentous issue moves to the full House for an up-or-down vote.

History will be made by week’s end. Either Clinton becomes only the second U.S. president to face a Senate trial for high crimes and misdemeanors, or the Come Back Kid slips the noose once more.

It is not likely he will be “censured” by a harshly worded resolution and a large fine. Not only would this be unconstitutional, even impeachment firebrands like representatives Bob Barr and Tom Delay say they would vote against it.

Being partly guilty is like being partly pregnant. Either you is or you ain’t.

The prolonged escape campaign by Clinton and his partisans boggles the mind. “Yes, I had immaculate sex with that woman and maybe some others, lied under oath about it -- though not perjury, mind you -- covered it up by sending out my high-ranking friends to shill for me, and wagged my finger at my fellow Americans. But I deserve to be forgiven because I feel your pain and am mighty sorry I got caught.”

The campaign started when Paula Jones was smeared in a magazine article and sought to regain her honor by suing Slick Willie for an apology.

Subsequent character assassination by his apologists is unprecedented.

Jones suit gained momentum with discovery of Lewinsky’s stained dress and Supreme Court assistance. Thereafter, the Friends of Bill defenses crumbled like mud pies in a Florida rain storm.

The rampart was breached last week when the president’s legal team used up its two-day defense to re-try Nixon for Watergate -- rather than refute the many charges against their client.

White House Special Counsel Gregory Craig signaled retreat with such pejorative concessions as “sinful,” “morally wrong” and “profound regret.”

When challenged about Clinton’s deposition in the Paula Jones case, Craig responded: “I am willing to concede that in the Jones deposition, the president’s testimony was evasive, incomplete, misleading, even maddening, but it was not perjury.”

Former Watergate Prosecutor Richard Ben-Veniste acknowledged that “I find Clinton’s testimony extremely troubling. I agree that there has been too much parsing of language in all this.” Even more damaging was Ben-Veniste’s startling admission that he frequently participated in a daily White House conference call coordinating attacks on enemies.

James Hamilton, another Watergate principal, fessed up under questioning: “I find the president’s testimony very troublesome. It was clearly evasive and misleading.”

Democrat Counsel for the Judiciary Committee, Abbe Lowell, summed up the Clinton defense by once more attacking Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr and asserting “perjury about sex” is not impeachable.

Republican Counsel David Schippers, a prominent Democrat lawyer from Chicago, steered away from the “just about sex” mantra. He focused on the constitutional issue of perjury and obstruction of justice in a proper legal suit -- that of Paula Jones for sexual harassment by Clinton.

It should be remembered that Watergate wasn’t about a third-rate burglary. Instead, it was about perjury and subversion of the judicial process in trying to cover up the deed of which President Nixon was ashamed.

Jones enjoyed a measure of vindication in the $850,000 settlement by Clinton. However, the greater issue of perjury and obstruction of justice will not be settled until Congress does it duty -- impeachment by the House and trial by the Senate.

Impeachment means only that there is “probable cause” for a trial. Regardless of Starr’s alleged bias, his evidence was obtained through several grand juries. Facts speak for themselves. Clearly, the president lied, lied and lied. Under the American justice system, accusers can not render judgment. Defendants are innocent until proven guilty by a judicial process requiring “evidence beyond reasonable doubt.”

Thus, the House next week can only indict or not indict. Removal from office or acquittal must be decided by the Senate.

Censure of an impeached president is a new, novel proposal. If imposed it would establish different grades of perjury for different grades of people. Woe be to those without political influence

Partisan Democrats readily admit that Clinton committed perjury. Nonetheless, they insist it “does not rise to the level of impeachment.”

Au contraire, mon ami! Perjury belongs at the head of the other-crimes line. American justice rests first of all on meticulous truth-telling. Clinton knows not the word.

A CNN poll, conducted after Thursday’s summations, supposedly reveals that 72 percent of Americans believe Clinton committed perjury. Strangely, 67 percent do not want him impeached. If this anomaly is truly represented, the Republic is in greater danger than anyone imagines.

By Lindsey Williams, columnist for Sun Coast Media Group newspapers