First section

Section 8 of 10 sections

Last section

Previous

Next

Commentary

Go back to the book index page...

Commentary

8-1

1998: A "made-for-Television" Impeachment?

In early January 1998, Washington events were at low ebb, as they typically are in January. However, it was clear that a number of "Clinton scandals" remained as open issues, in various phases of investigation, and in various venues including Congress. Furthermore, several of these investigations related to potential wrongdoing that had both occurred during the Clinton administration, and that arguably involved serious misuse and abuse of institutions of the Federal government. The White House had obtained hundreds of FBI files illegitimately — open questions remained regarding both how and why the files were obtained. The recent Clinton Presidential campaign fund raising violations included the possibility of illegal participation by foreign citizens and/or foreign governments, including China, in the U.S. election process. Additional questions were being raised regarding Chinese access to U.S. technology that could be used for military purposes, including building intercontinental missiles with nuclear warheads that could be used against the U.S. All these areas of investigation potentially involved wrongdoing that was so serious that if President Clinton could be shown to be involved, such wrongdoing would clearly raise the issue of his impeachment.

1998 was an election year. Given the open issues, and a Republican controlled Congress, it was almost certain that Congress would become increasingly persistent and demanding in pursuing several areas of investigation.

For years, Congress has been studied along the line of the consideration Members of Congress give to their political base — and this base is typically seen as the core of either the Republican or the Democratic party. During 1997, Republicans had become angry about the Clinton scandals, and what seemed to have become an almost institutionalized cover-up. Democrats were also frequently angered when the Republican Congress was portrayed to them as favoring the rich, the powerful, and the special interests, and not caring about the average American.

However, in addition to their political bases, the Members of Congress were also closely watching their economic base of campaign contributors. Some elements of this base were ideologically aligned with their political bases. But for all incumbents, Republican and Democrat, a significant element of the economic base of campaign contributors has no ideological agenda, but rather is interested in specific issues before Congress that will affect their own interests. Their concern was maintaining stability, a strong economy, and whatever advantages they had secured through years of lobbying and campaign contributions. As a political question, Members of Congress were interested in meeting the expectations of both their political and their economic bases.

It was apparent that any one of a number of pending investigations could reach a point where impeachment of the President became a possibility. It was also apparent that should an impeachment be based on an issue as potentially explosive as national security, or campaign finance, political divisions could become even sharper. Washington's political forecast in early 1998 was something like: Low-hanging, over-saturated clouds of political conflict, widely scattered scandals, pollution at toxic levels — impeachment possible. In a way, the real question was: which investigation storm front would open up first?

Given this dangerous, volatile situation, many people in Washington must have wondered if there was any way to clear the air, to release the electric charge that had built up between the two political bases. During 1997 and up to early 1998, the Clintons might have wished that if they did have to face an impeachment, it would be one where the alleged wrongdoing was relatively minor, and posed no immediate, obvious threat to the nation. As we have seen, they must have believed they had good prospects for defeating that kind of impeachment on Constitutional grounds. The worst danger was of a sudden, out-of-control impeachment proceeding, possibly involving national security, that could be impossible to predict regarding the outcome or the effect. From the Clintons point of view, the preferable option might have been to have some kind of drawn out, year long process, even possibly one that resulted in an impeachment, but on grounds that were so difficult and murky that the prospect of a Senate conviction would be highly unlikely. It would be even better if the course of events left everyone thoroughly sick of the whole idea of impeachment and scandal.

Amazingly enough, that’s exactly what happened.

In late January 1998, just before President Clinton’s State of the Union address, televisions, front pages and cover articles reported that the President had been involved in an improper relationship with Monica Lewinski, who had been a White House intern. It was reported that President Clinton may have perjured himself in his deposition testimony on the relationship, conducted as part of the Paula Jones sexual harassment case. Coverage of this story was the number one media event of the year.

Meanwhile, on March 9, 1998, U.S. News and World Report published a short "In brief" blurb titled: "Campaign finance reform dies." [54]

On January 16, 1998, the day Lewinski was detained by Starr's investigators, Lewinski's mother, Marcia Lewis, came to Washington to be with her daughter. On February 23, 1998, Newsweek reported that Lewinski was reported to have "told her mother that the prosecutors had laid down a threat: unless Monica agreed to wear a secret recording device to entrap Clinton and his friend Vernon Jordan that night, she was 'going to jail.'" [55] On February 9, 1998 Time reported on an unusual aspect to the case: Lewinski's mother was engaged to "R. Peter Straus, an opera buff who met Lewis at one of her book signings." [56] Time reported: "Straus is also a close family friend of Vernon Jordan's. 'I feel like I've known Vernon forever,' he says, 'and I honestly cannot identify when and where we first met.'" Straus denied ever having a conversation about Lewinski or Lewis with Vernon Jordan. On February 23, 1998 Newsweek reported that when Lewis was required by Starr to testify to a grand jury about her daughter "Lewis was so upset about the experience that a nurse had to be summoned and her interrogation stopped. 'It was disgusting what they did to her,' Monica's lawyer, William Ginsburg, told Newsweek." [57] On May 11, 1998 US News published a two page article on the marriage of Straus and Lewis.The article noted: "As a matter of law, the marriage would enable Straus and Lewis to invoke spousal privilege if either were called upon to testify against the other..." US News reported: "[A] source close to the Clinton administration who has spoken with Straus has told U.S. News that Straus — a one time protege of Edward Bernays, the father of American public relations — has played a significant role in at least some parts of Lewinski’s case. According to that source, Straus was, for instance, the strategist who advised Lewinski to stick to her original affidavit denying a sexual relationship with Clinton..." US News reported: "Despite his extensive contact with Lewis, and the close bond she shares with her daughter, Straus says he has only met Lewinsky ‘maybe three times in my life’ — all of them last fall when she was in New York for job interviews." [58]

Go back to the book index page...

Last section

Previous