Chapter One - Part A The Nixon-Clinton Impeachment Tragedy |
Impeachment is not an abstract idea that lives in a vacuum, a dictionary, or a dusty document. Impeachment is ultimately rooted in history and current events, as well as in the provisions of our Constitution. In this chapter, the Nixon and Clinton impeachment proceedings are examined together — and treated as one continuous historical event. If you don’t know a great deal about impeachment, you will find the background information and historical context of this chapter especially helpful. But this chapter is really a prelude to the thesis of the book. Chapters Two and Three present both essential supporting background information and an exposition of a new Constitutional theory regarding impeachment and removal of the President, Vice President and other Federal civil officers. The Constitutional theory of Chapter Three is the main thesis of this book. I know that busy people sometimes skip around in books before deciding to read a book in its entirety. If you decide to do this, you may want to start with Chapter Two, but don’t start with Chapter Three. While Chapter One is helpful background, the information and background from Chapter Two is required to understand the arguments presented in Chapter Three.
If you followed the impeachment story closely, somewhere along the line you probably picked up the fact the Hillary Clinton was on the Congressional staff of the House Judiciary Committee that conducted the Nixon impeachment proceedings. This may have been presented as a kind of trivia game answer-in-waiting for political junkies. I haven’t seen or heard it presented anywhere as a major theme, but I think it is exactly that. From the Nixon impeachment proceedings, a tragic flaw was introduced into the lives of the Clintons. The flaw is this: since the Nixon Watergate impeachment, both President Clinton and Mrs. Clinton have believed that wrongdoing, even criminal acts, is not a basis for impeachment if the wrongdoing was not egregious, and if it could be characterized as "essentially private." As we review the Nixon impeachment proceeding, you will see how and why this idea took root with them.
Everyone learns from history — but sometimes different people and different groups learn different things. I hope to show that due to a fundamental difference between what I call the "Watergate Lessons" drawn by the electorate at large, and the Nixon "Impeachment Lessons" learned by the Clintons in particular, the Clinton administration was probably doomed from day one to either some kind of an impeachment proceeding or to re-election defeat. This chapter presents a view of the Nixon and Clinton Impeachments as a kind of single, continuous, Greek tragedy, in four acts: 1) Nixon Being Impeached, 2) No One Being Impeached, 3) Clinton Wounded, and 4) Clinton Being Impeached.
Hillary Clinton and the public "Watergate Lessons"
Hillary Clinton’s opponents and supporters alike will probably find it fair to stipulate that when recently graduated from law school, at the beginning of her professional career, Hillary Rodham was still impressionable. She was to be indelibly stamped and shaped in her view of the political and legal world by the proceedings, deliberations, conclusions and results of the House Judiciary Committee’s impeachment proceedings against President Nixon.
What were these deliberations, conclusions, and results? Equally important, did the electorate distill significantly different "Watergate Lessons" than the "Impeachment Lessons" drawn by Hillary Clinton and her husband?
Let’s consider these questions — first from the point of view of the electorate. We'll start with a two paragraph summary, of both events leading up to the Nixon impeachment proceedings, and the actions and conclusions of the House Judiciary Committee. [1]
The Watergate break-in occurred June 17, 1972. As subsequent evidence indicated, Nixon’s involvement in the coverup began a few days later. Although the House Banking and Currency Committee investigated and issued a report days before the 1972 Presidential election that accused the White House of "...erecting a ‘curtain of secrecy’ over the president’s reelection committee, the White House, and the break-in", [2] the break-in was not a major issue in the 1972 election. By the Spring of 1973 Watergate was being investigated by both law Professor Archibald Cox, who was appointed by Attorney General Elliott Richardson, and by a Senate Committee chaired by Senator Sam Ervin. Nixon fired four of his senior staff April 30, 1973, including White House Counsel John Dean. Nixon claimed in May 1973 that all four had been involved in a coverup. Dean accused President Nixon of deep involvement in Watergate in four days of televised testimony to the Ervin Committee, from June 25th to June 29th of 1973. In July, White House aide Alexander Butterfield revealed the existence of Nixon’s tapes and taping system in deposition answers. Cox subpoenaed tapes October 20, 1973, and was fired by the third person in command, Acting Attorney General Robert Bork after his superiors Attorney General Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus resigned rather than obey Nixon’s order to fire Cox. Nixon agreed reluctantly to turn over some tapes to Judge Sirica, who supervised the Watergate Grand Jury. Two tapes were missing and one had an 18 minute gap. Ten days after Cox was fired, the House Judiciary Committee began a preliminary inquiry into Watergate, that was to lead to impeachment hearings in April of 1974.
On July 24, 1974, a unanimous Supreme Court ordered President Nixon to turn over more tapes to the Judiciary Committee. On July 27th the House Judiciary Committee approved three Articles of Impeachment against President Nixon. Article I, concerning Nixon’s alleged "...course of conduct... designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation..." of the Watergate breakin, was approved 27-11, with twenty-one Democrats and six Republicans voting to impeach. Article II alleged abuse of power in that Nixon "...engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens,..." including interfering with or misusing the IRS, the FBI, the CIA, and other agencies and personnel to harass and harm his enemies — this was approved 28-10, with twenty-one Democrats and seven Republicans voting to impeach. Article III, alleging contempt of Congress in disobeying Congressional subpoenas, was approved 21-17. Two other impeachment articles were considered but not approved by the Judiciary Committee. Article IV, concerning alleged income tax evasion, was disapproved 12-26. Article V concerning the Viet Nam war bombing of Cambodia was also disapproved 12-26. On August 5th, Nixon released more tapes, including the "smoking gun" showing Nixon was definitely involved in the Watergate coverup. With both Congressional and Senate opinion moving decisively against him, and with public opinion shown to favor impeachment, President Nixon resigned four days later. [3]
There you have it, in two paragraphs, the incredible shrinking history of the Nixon impeachment proceeding.
In the immediate wake of Watergate, many people were loaded up with all the details. However, for most people history really does have a way of shrinking. At one point our mind is full of the details. As time goes on, we tend to retain only a few of the most salient facts, and a theory, in summary form, of "what it was all about." Our retention is selective — as our summary emerges, we tend to forget the facts that don’t fit into the summary.
The Public’s "Watergate Lessons" vs the Clinton’s "Impeachment Lessons"
As Watergate moved into the past, and into the school backpacks of the next generation, we moved to the extended "No One Being Impeached" phase of the Nixon-Clinton impeachment tragedy. In this "No One Being Impeached" phase, what summary theory and what facts were in the minds of most people about the "Nixon Being Impeached" phase?
As an unscientific answer to this question, I would venture that during the "No One Being Impeached" phase three main historical lessons remained in most voters minds concerning the Nixon impeachment. These three lessons have been passed along to the younger voters to whom Watergate is history. "Watergate Lesson One", the simplest, is this: a President can be impeached and removed from office, or forced to resign, for serious wrongdoing. "Watergate Lesson Two", with a little more nuance, is this: Nixon’s downfall happened because he committed serious crimes and abuses of power related to his work as President. According to "Watergate Lesson Two", for a President, a serious breach of the public trust, or a serious abuse of power, can be an impeachable offense. "Watergate Lesson Three" is the refrain of the Greek Chorus: The cover up is worse than the crime. According to "Watergate Lesson Three", if Nixon hadn’t acted to cover up a dumb break-in, the American people may never have demanded his removal.
The three "Watergate Lessons", and six "Impeachment Lessons" that I think were drawn by the Clintons, are summarized on the opposite page (NOTE: THIS CHART NOT AVAILABLE IN ONLINE BOOK - HOWEVER, IT'S JUST A SUMMARY OF MATERIAL PRESENTED IN THE TEXT).
Sometime in 1998, when we moved from the "Clinton Wounded" phase to the "Clinton Being Impeached" phase, people started getting refresher courses in the Nixon impeachment. My main concern here is with the time before the "Clinton Being Impeached" phase. As you consider the three "Watergate Lessons" stated above, please ask yourself: Is this a reasonable characterization about what people thought during the 1970’s or 1980’s and up to early 1998?
One final point before we move to the question of what "Impeachment Lessons" the Clintons derived from the Nixon impeachment proceedings. I would venture to say that during the "No One Being Impeached" and "Clinton Wounded" phases, a definition of the legal grounds for impeachment based on the Watergate history would be pretty fuzzy for most people. Even among those who recalled the basic charges and therefore knew "Watergate Lesson Two", most would probably recount their knowledge as something like: "A President can be impeached for..." rather than "The grounds for impeaching a President...". Finally, and fundamentally, I think even fewer people would have stated grounds for impeachment that made any kind of distinction between "public crimes" and "private crimes" without prompting.
Now let’s consider six Nixon "Impeachment Lessons", conclusions that I think the Clintons can reasonably be supposed to have drawn from the Nixon impeachment proceedings. When we compare and contrast these "Impeachment Lessons" with the three "Watergate Lessons", and consider what we know about the Clintons' background before 1992, we will be well on our way to understanding why the Nixon-Clinton impeachment really is one continuous tragedy instead of two essentially unrelated historical events twenty five years apart.
Both President and Mrs. Clinton are exceptionally intelligent people. They were both educated as lawyers. They have both spent their entire adult lives moving in elite circles of other highly intelligent, highly educated people. I think it’s also fair to stipulate that, as with many if not almost all young people, the young Clintons were idealistic. Of the two, Hillary’s knowledge of impeachment was almost certainly broader and deeper than President Clinton’s, because of her work on the Judiciary Committee staff considering the Nixon impeachment. Finally, let’s assume that Hillary told Bill, in detail, all about her experiences and impressions regarding the Nixon impeachment proceedings. What can we reasonably conjecture as to the formation and content of the "Impeachment Lessons" the Clintons learned from this time?
First, it’s obvious that the experiences and impressions of the Clintons regarding impeachment are going to be far more in-depth, detailed, and technical than the "Watergate Lessons" learned by most people.
Second, the "Impeachment Lessons" learned by the Clintons during and immediately after the "Nixon Being Impeached" phase were brain-and-gut issues — they were heartfelt and emotional as well as intellectual. This was a time of bitter partisanship. As young, idealistic, highly trained lawyers, in a crowd with deep antagonisms toward Nixon to begin with, against the emotionally supercharged background of Viet Nam, the basic fact situation of the Nixon impeachment must have led Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham to view events with both outrage and righteous indignation. Simply put: the Clintons probably thought they and their crowd were "good", and Nixon and his crowd were "evil". I think this was a lasting impression, particularly for Hillary.
Now let me try to characterize what I think were six "Impeachment Lessons" the Clintons learned from the Nixon proceedings. These "lessons" regard perceptions of both how legal and political processes should work, and how these processes really do work.
"Impeachment Lesson One" is this: Serious abuses of Presidential Power are impeachable when they violate a public trust, or represent injuries done to the society itself. This pertains to Articles I and II in the Nixon impeachment proceedings. The ideas of a violation of a public trust, and an injury done to the society itself are directly from Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist No. 65. [4] "Impeachment Lesson One" is essentially a restatement and expansion of "Watergate Lesson Two", but with a refinement in the grounds, these being stated with an emphasis on the "public" nature and "harm to society" of wrongdoing, rather than wrongdoing that could be characterized as "essentially private".
"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.
Copyright © 2000, Robert S. Carney Jr., 4232 Colfax Ave. So., Minneapolis, MN 55409. All rights reserved.