First section

Section 3 of 10 sections

Last section

Previous

Next

Commentary

Go back to the book index page...

Commentary

3-1

"Impeachment Lesson Two", a corollary to Lesson One, is this: Presidential misconduct, even if criminal, is not impeachable if it is "essentially private" and not egregious. As stated in Congressional Quarterly’s Impeachable Offenses regarding Article IV on income tax evasion: "...a majority of the committee, including a number of Democrats, believed that Congress could only impeach for actions against the government and against the political system - in a sense ‘public’ crimes - and that while Nixon might be guilty of the felony of tax evasion or misuse of government funds, these were personal and private crimes, not crimes against the Constitution or the nation." [5] The thesis of this book directly contradicts this conclusion regarding the applicable principle for impeachable offenses. It is here that I think everything went wrong. However, my main concern at this point is not to argue these issues, but simply to suggest that "Impeachment Lesson Two" is one of the key lessons the Clintons drew from the Nixon impeachment proceedings. Based on the committee’s discussion and the vote of 12-26 to disapprove Article IV, the Clintons had strong reasons to conclude that the Nixon proceedings represented a precedent for the conclusion: "essentially private and not egregious = not impeachable". "Impeachment Lesson Two" is a central theme of President Clinton’s defense in the impeachment proceedings against him. Crucially important, there is no direct corollary "Watergate Lesson" for "Impeachment Lesson Two". To people with the legal training and level of involvement of the Clintons, "Impeachment Lesson Two" was a major point. For most voters, "Impeachment Lesson Two" was either never noticed at all, or forgotten. Let me also emphasize as strongly as possible: for the Clintons "Impeachment Lesson Two" was a lesson in how the impeachment process should work. They thought, and almost certainly still think, that "Impeachment Lesson Two" is correct, based on both precedent and reason.

"Impeachment Lesson Three" is this: There are "good guys" and "bad guys" - and we’re the "good guys". I’m not arguing this lesson is correct, or that it is moral to act on a view of the world such as this and with the assumption that we know who the good guys and the bad guys are. I do think the Clintons formed two conclusions shaped by the Nixon impeachment proceedings. Conclusion A: in many respects, people do not act in the world as purely independent individual moral agents. In other words, we may or many not have a "puppet government", but in many ways we live in a "puppet society." It is a sociological truism that people often act as part of a group. These groups do not all have the same moral standing. However, the individuals comprising these groups usually have many things in common, including common values, even if the value for some groups is only "honor among thieves". If you are going to participate in the world of politics, I think you must almost inevitably join one or more groups. Within most group it is typical to tumble towards Conclusion B: we are the "good guys", and there are other groups who are the "bad guys". There are often strong reasons for thinking this.

"Impeachment Lesson Four" is this: Some people in the political world do act on principle, as essentially independent individual moral agents, regardless of the cost. When Nixon fired Cox he did so after both Attorney General Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus refused to do so and were fired. [6] In the course of the Nixon impeachment proceedings there were many examples of people putting principles and duty before their self interest. This includes President Nixon at least some of the time, and maybe far more often than we realize.

"Impeachment Lesson Five" is this: If there are serious impeachment-related questions to be asked, and no good answers to be given, the media can destroy a Presidency when open news conferences are scheduled frequently. President Nixon held regular news conferences. He sparred verbally with reporters he thought were against him, but he didn’t avoid them or duck their questions. Over time, the questions asked by the media shaped the electorate’s eventual conclusion that Nixon should be impeached and removed. If President Clinton had held an open, prime time news conference with the White House press corps about once every month from the time he was elected, he would almost certainly have been removed by either impeachment or election defeat. By not doing so he survived politically, but at the cost of a virtual default of his ability to lead the country.

In retrospect, it seems evident that President Clinton planned to circumvent the White House press corps right from the start. From The President We Deserve, by Martin Walker: "Most frustratingly for the White House press, there were no press conferences with the new president until March 23, although he had held twenty-five sessions with regional press and TV, and appeared again on MTV. Two months into a new administration with no press conference was a record. By contrast, President Kennedy’s first press conference came on his fifth day in office, George Bush’s on his eighth." [7] A page later, Walker writes: "Five days before the first press conference, Clinton made a joke that fell terribly flat. Addressing the annual black-tie dinner of radio and TV correspondents, he said, ‘You know why I can stiff you on the press conferences? Because Larry King liberated me by giving me to the American people directly." [8] By June 1993, David Gergen, who had previous experience in Republican Administrations, had left his position as editor of U.S. News and World Report, and was working for the White House media team. Walker wrote: "Gergen swiftly organized the first prime-time press conference of the Clinton presidency, on June 17, five months after he had been sworn in. It was not a success. He was so diminished that, of the three main networks, only NBC carried it live, and then only for 30 minutes." [9]

"Impeachment Lesson Six" is this: Testimony about serious wrongdoing can be very damaging politically, but physical evidence such as tapes and documents is fatal. Nixon’s downfall was not caused by White House Legal Counsel John Dean’s Senate testimony, even though much of it was rebroadcast during prime time. Even with Dean’s testimony on the record, Nixon may have finished his term had it not been for the tapes. The preliminary House Judiciary Committee proceedings began ten days after Congress received the first of the Nixon tapes. This "lesson" was not lost on Oliver North, who apparently destroyed many documents during Iran-Contra. It appears that many Whitewater and other documents relating to the Clinton scandals are missing. As with Nixon, an impeachment didn’t begin against Clinton until tape recorded evidence emerged.

President Clinton was elected in 1992, with 43% of the vote in a three way, low turn-out race. It wasn’t much of a mandate, but he won. Soon, a new generation of the freshfaced, highly educated, highly intelligent Clinton elite was on parade to Washington, ready to do the People’s Business. President Clinton, flush with power and apparently not one to just talk about the weather when now he could do something about it, proclaimed in his Inaugural address: "We must force the Spring." He promised the most ethical administration in American history.

Giddy days.

The Clinton administration brought a lot of talent to bear to make America better off. President Clinton pushed through his economic plan over united Republican opposition, and in doing so deserves much of the credit (but more to Perot for forcing the issue) for bringing the deficit under control and improving the economy. Hillary’s massive health care effort failed. The new administration made many blunders, most of them forgotten.

Go back to the book index page...

Last section

Previous