    |
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Herewith some factual observations and lessons learned, from the impeachment of William Clinton: Clinton took an Oath to preserve the Constitution and "take care the laws be faithfully executed".
Clinton repeatedly committed perjury and lied to the American people. Senator Byrd said "there's no question about (Clinton) having given false testimony under oath and he did that more than once".
Democratic Senators and Representatives said a president (who appoints judges) should not be removed from office for committing perjury or obstructing justice about matters he claims are private.
History will record that Clinton received oral sex in the offices of the White House, and allegedly during telephone calls with Congressmen. For similar acts, any corporate executive would be fired, and any military officer would be court-martialed.
Politicians and pundits interpreted the election of 1998 as a referendum on Clinton's impeachment, even though large-scale exit polls showed that Americans did not intend their votes to be a referendum. On December 14, 1998, speaking from Israel, Clinton said, "I don't believe it's in the interest of the United States and the American people to go through the impeachment process and have a trial in the Senate". By making this self-serving statement he advocated not following the Constitutional process, and further undermined the Constitution he had sworn to protect.
The day before the House was scheduled to vote on impeachment, Clinton bombed Iraq. Democrats argued this was reason to postpone the impeachment proceedings. Clinton's credibility as Commander-in-Chief had been jeopardized by his actions.
After he was impeached, eighty House Democrats expressed support for Clinton on the White House lawn.
With one exception (Senator Feingold), Democratic Senators voted not to have a trial and not to have witnesses.Urging dismissal of the case, former Democratic Senator Bumpers claimed Clinton cannot do much damage in the next two years. Because Clinton was acquitted by the Senate, we can only hope that Senator Bumpers claim will hold. However, in the previous six years, Clinton's White House committed many serious misdeeds:
-Clinton fired all U.S. attorneys when he took office, and replaced them with his own appointees.
-The White House "accidentally" obtained 900 raw FBI files on political opponents.
-Over 100 people have either fled the country, taken the Fifth Amendment, or refused to be interviewed in the investigation of foreign donations to the 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign. A White House aide, Mark Middleton, plead the Fifth Amendment.
-The White House lobbied for the Chinese Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO) to operate the U.S. Long Beach Naval Facility. A COSCO ship tried to bring two thousand automatic weapons into the port of Oakland, California in 1996.
-Clinton thanked his friend Charlie Trie for a letter tying US decisions about China to Clinton's 1996 campaign. Clinton publicly rejected Taiwan in 1998.
-On the day that the Senate voted to acquit Clinton, China warned the US not to give Taiwan antimissile systems to defend itself against 100 ballistic missiles that China had recently targeted against Taiwan.
-Clinton placed US troops in Somalia under foreign commanders, forsaking his duty to be Commander-in-Chief. Fifteen US soldiers were murdered and one US soldier's body was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu by a Somali mob.
-The White House arranged sleepovers in the Lincoln bedroom for $50,000 a night.
The Framers intended impeachment to hold a president responsible for acts of his subordinates, not just for high crimes and misdemeanors that he commits in person. However, the independent prosecutor felt obligated to only bring to the House those matters where the President could be directly tied to an indictable crime, i.e. the perjury and obstruction of justice concerning Monica Lewinsky. So, Clinton was not impeached for the variety of other misdeeds committed by the White House during histerm.
The Framers created impeachment to remove a deceptive president who might endanger the national security. Many politicians recommended censure rather than impeachment, but censure does not protect the nation from a president who cannot be trusted. Senator Kerrey once called Clinton "an uncommonly good liar".
The Constitution does not state that public opinion, bipartisanship and "dignity" of the Senate are important in cases of impeachment. These were of enormous concern to the Senators during the trial.
Overnight polls conducted by the news media and based on a few thousand people were considered by Senators to justify their long-term decisions about impeachment of the President, decisions affecting millions of people, indeed the entire world. Internet polls based on tens of thousands of people consistently showed strong support for removing Clinton.
The history of the impeachment of William Clinton has demonstrated that the process designed by the Framers does not work: A dishonest president can avoid removal from office if he is sufficiently popular, because the House and the Senate are far more influenced by public opinion than the Framers anticipated. As Hitler proved in Germany, the most dangerous leader may be elected and have enormous popularity. Hopefully Clinton is no Hitler, but he is certainly as good a liar.
Because the impeachment process does not work against such a leader, essentially the only protection the United States has against a corrupt but popular president is the term of office limitation, which may not be very effective. The Congressional impeachment process is also far too time-consuming and publicly divisive for the modern era, when the president can involve the nation in a military emergency at any time.
Therefore, a Constitutional Amendment is needed that would give the Supreme Court the responsibility to impeach, convict and remove a President, based on evidence brought by an independent prosecutor.
Leonardo Kokopeliwww.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/1243/
* * * Some thoughts on yesterday's ruling.
Excerpts from Judge Susan Webber Wright's order holding President Clinton in contempt:
``Notwithstanding these orders, the record demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the president responded to plaintiff's questions by giving false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process.''
``... it simply is not acceptable to employ deceptions and falsehoods in an attempt to obstruct the judicial process, understandable as his aggravation with the plaintiff's lawsuit may have been. ..."
How is it that the United Stated Senate was not convinced of obstruction by Mr. Clinton, when the judge in the very case in question, finds the evidence "convincing"? What does it say about the Senators who voted to acquit in the impeachment trial, when Judge Susan Webber Wright says that this "attempt to obstruct the judicial process" ..."is simply not acceptable"?
``... however, this court has attempted throughout this case to apply the law to the president in the same manner as it would apply the law to any other litigant, keeping in mind the duties and status of the presidency and the 'high respect' that is to be accorded his office. In that regard, there simply is no escaping the fact that the president deliberately violated this court's discovery orders and thereby undermined the integrity of the judicial system.''
It is a sad commentary on our political system that those Senators who voted to acquit could not exhibit the same backbone and resolve as Judge Wright "to apply the law to the president in the same manner as it would apply the law to any other litigant, keeping in mind the duties and status of the presidency and the 'high respect' that is to be accorded his office." In so doing they have compounded not only the erosion of "the integrity of the judicial system" but also the erosion of the trust and confidence of all citizens in the political process and in the offices of our political leaders. By their example, they have also delivered a most damaging blow to the integrity and moral structure of our society. This I find even more egregious and unacceptable.
 |
 |
