Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review Jan. 23, 2001 / 28 Teves, 5761

Nat Hentoff

Hentoff
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
MUGGER
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Roger Simon
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports


History will not absolve him


http://www.jewishworldreview.com -- I was a Democrat until 1992, when Bill Clinton convinced the Democratic Party to nominate him for the presidency. I had previously researched his record as governor of Arkansas and had found ample evidence to agree with David Von Dreher's description of the governor in the Washington Post in March of that year as "a master of detail with a downhome feeling," but "when he isn't clicking, he can strike people as two-faced, soulless, trying to be all things to all people."

The late Murray Kempton, a Pulitzer Prize-winner for commentary, proved to be a caustic prophet in New York Newsday before the 1992 Democratic convention: "And so an increasingly shameful Democratic Party drifts toward the anointment of a shameless candidate."

Since then, Clinton, the New Democrat, has so eroded the integrity of his party that on Aug. 13 of last year, Minnesota Sen. Paul Wellstone -- one of the few authentic Democrats left in Congress -- said in the Washington Post:

"I think the Democratic Party has become a party without a purpose, except to win elections. The campaign money chase has seriously diluted our policy purpose, and there is a belief that talking about the poor is a losing strategy. ... We don't inspire people." Neither, in my view, does the Republican Party.

Yet Clinton has bamboozled much of the populace and the great majority of the working press that has covered his presidency. Moreover, during the impeachment process, Clinton succeeded in lowering the reputation for scholarship and intellectual honesty of the hordes of historians, law professors and "expert" lawyers who -- in ads and in testimony before Congress -- insisted that the president had not committed impeachable offenses. Some of the same "authorities" have excoriated the Supreme Court for its decision in Bush vs. Gore.

As Richard Posner, chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, wrote in "An Affair of State: The Investigation, Impeachment and Trial of President Clinton" (paperback) and (hardcover) "the impression that many lay observers must have taken from the spectacle (during the impeachment) was that perjury is an unimportant technical offense -- and that a clever lawyer can beat any perjury charge (perhaps any charge, period) by spinning a web of sophistries." Posner also cited these academic "authorities" on the rule of law as having ignored obstruction of justice, including tampering with witnesses, by the president, himself a lawyer and former law professor.

Since the working press had apparently not read the Constitution recently, let alone the record of the 1787 Constitutional Convention on impeachment, the citizenry was led to believe that the president, as the First Lady famously declared, was the victim of a right-wing conspiracy, and that the independent prosecutor, Ken Starr, had modeled himself after Torquemada.

A reader of this column has sent me a hypothetical question that future historians -- presumably with more objectivity than those who put themselves in Clinton's service -- might well consider. The reader asked the present citizenry:

"What if Gingrich were the president and he did all the things that Clinton has done -- perjury, tampering with witnesses, and all his personal excesses? Would you have voted to keep him in the office of the president, would you have wanted your Senate and House of Representatives to vote to keep him in office?"

The reader added: "I once wrote to Rep. David Bonior, who pursued Gingrich until he was out of office, and asked why he wasn't doing the same thing to President Clinton, who was guilty of things far more serious than anything Gingrich did. Bonior never responded."

I would now ask the same hypothetical question of Barney Frank, Maxine Waters and the rest of the Democrats who debated impeachment on the House Judiciary Committee -- and of all the Senators who refused to convict Clinton.

Of course, I would also ask the question of the members of the media, in all its forms, and of all those continually reverberating commentators on cable television, such as Alan Dershowitz, Lanny Davis, Jeffrey Toobin (ABC-TV's legal expert) and Joe Conason of the New York Observer -- and particularly White House janissaries James Carville and Paul Begala.

Both of them once worked for the late Robert Casey, Democratic governor of Pennsylvania. On his death, both spoke accurately and feelingly of Casey's utter integrity and honesty. How could Carville and Begala then have devoted themselves to Clinton?

But how could Clinton have deceived so many historians, law professors and the American Bar Association about his conduct? The ABA was silent about impeachment, and later honored the president by inviting him to address its annual convention after Federal Judge Susan Webber Wright held the president in contempt of court for undermining "the integrity of the judicial process."

The suddenly announced deal between the independent prosecutor and Clinton sets an unruly precedent. Clinton admits he broke the law, but there will be no prosecution. Is this the rule of law?



JWR contributor Nat Hentoff is a First Amendment authority and author of numerous books. Send your comments to him by clicking here.

Up

01/08/01: Will Rice remember Rwanda?
01/02/01: Expanding the culture of death
12/26/00: Media should stop misleading public about High Court's actions
12/18/00: A government that executes children
12/11/00: Caucus speaks out on slavery in Sudan
12/04/00: This year, give the gift of the Constitution
11/27/00: Is capital punishment a deterrent?
11/20/00: Punishing the Boy Scouts
11/06/00: Joe Lieberman's excommunication
10/30/00: CNN discards journalistic responsibility
10/23/00: The basic flaw in the debates
10/16/00: Nader's American history lesson; or: Silencing Jesse Jackson
10/06/00: Hate-crime laws: The real message
10/03/00: Why Clinton was not convicted
09/25/00: Protecting babies born alive
09/25/00: A selective zeal for justice
09/06/00: The power of nonviolence
08/28/00: Should Dr. Laura be silenced?
08/22/00: Trashing the Bill of Rights in Philly
08/14/00: The repressive hand of China
08/07/00: A racial incident on a train
07/31/00: Attention Jesse Jackson: Sudanese children are still branded and enslaved
07/24/00: Open up the presidential debates!
07/17/00: A stealth attack on privacy
07/03/00: Plea to the Congressional Black Caucus
06/26/00: Burning 'bad' ideas at college
06/19/00: Affirmative action beyond race
06/12/00: Students discover the Constitution
06/06/00: The Liar's legacy and America's delusions
05/30/00: Reining in the majority's will
05/23/00: Press swoons for a bunco artist
05/15/00: The China that tourists don't see
05/08/00: The coverage of Reno's lawless raid
05/01/00: In Clinton and Castro's best interests
04/24/00: Elian's human rights
04/17/00: Crime's down, but arrests keep rising
04/10/00: Teacher brings Constitution to life
04/03/00: The Americans who keep disappearing
03/27/00: The censoring of feminist history
03/20/00: Should there be a chaplain in Congress?
03/13/00: Big labor, big China, spinning Gore
03/03/00: The ACLU violates its principles --- yet again!
02/28/00: Still two nations?
02/11/00: You bet we should disbar Bubba
01/31/00: Where was Jesse?
01/24/00: Is suing church for sexual harassment an entanglement?
01/18/00: Will Miranda make it?
01/11/00: ACLU: Guilty until presumed innocent?
01/03/00: Liberty lion should be Man of Century
12/28/99: Drug tests that tear families apart
12/20/99: Get ready for decisive ruling on school vouchers for religious schools
12/13/99: Guess who is taking the lead in anti-slavery movement? Hint: It ain't Rev. Jesse
12/06/99: When we refuse to buy the 'otherly-challenged' excuse
11/29/99: Expelling 'Huck Finn'
11/22/99: Pleading the First
11/16/99: Goal of diversity needs rethinking?
11/08/99: Prosecution in darkness
11/02/99: The accuracy that's owed to readers
10/26/99: Disappeared Americans
10/18/99: The blue wall of silence
10/11/99: Bill Bradley's speech tax
10/04/99: 'Technicalities' that keep us free
09/27/99: Our 'Americanism'-ignorant generation
09/20/99: ACLU better clean up its act
09/13/99: A professor of infanticide at Princeton
09/07/99: The Big Apple's Rotten Policing
08/23/99: Lawyerly ethics
08/16/99: To Get a Supreme Court Seat
08/02/99: What are the poor people doing tonight?
07/26/99: Lady Hillary and the press

© 2000, NEA