WHEN the Republicans in Congress impeached President Bill Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair, they insisted that it wasn't about sex, it was about lying. Of course that wasn't true. Even at the height of their power-mad self-delusions (when Newt Gingrich was conducting his own affair with an aide while prosecuting the president), Republicans realized that to make lying an impeachable offense was opening a door no politician should eagerly walk through.
Bill Clinton admitted to the nation in the campaign of 1992 that he was a womanizer who liked "cheap trailer trash sex" because that was who he was, trailer trash. Much to the amazement of republicans Clinton took this negative image and made it a positive. America embraced Clinton's magnetism that combined with his power gave him the illusion that every woman would open her mouth if he asked her to. This was a weakness that Richard Mellon Scaife spent millions of dollars to use to political advantage.
The harmed party was Paula Jones, not Hillary. Hillary long ago made the decision Bill could dip his pen into any ink jar he found was willing. She even participated in keeping her sordid husband's slimy unions secret and recognized that for Bill the sex was about power and not love. Interestingly enough Paula turned Bill down and he accepted. To him the power was not about the women who rejected but all the ones who accepted. There was no underlying crime.
Now for a second put yourself in Paula Jones's shoes. While digging up dirt on President Clinton, Richard Mellon Scaife's hit men learned of Paula Jones and exposed the sordid proposition to the world. She did not want that exposure. She begged the Scaife's minions not to say anything. Her only crime was what, rejecting a future president who a billionaire wanted to harm? Scaife's minions exposed Paula Jones and defamed her over nothing. Then they promised her what? Scaife promised her to recover her dignity which he took away from her by throwing dirt at Bill Clinton. Talk about perjury traps, this was a dignity trap and a rich ultra conservative billionaire took the dignity from a woman who did nothing wrong.
The issue was not about lying or sex, the issue was about Richard Mellon Scaife using his billions to get President Clinton. It was about Scaife using his power to political ends. He failed years ago to use his wealth to successfully defend Richard Nixon, now he was going to use his wealth to get Bill. Scaife didn't care whether or not Newt was collateral damage, Scaife wanted on thing Bill's scalp. Hillary knew this when she spoke of a cabal that was out to get Bill. It was a cabal paid for by Scaife. Follow the money!
Of course it was really about sex. Nevertheless, those of us who thought impeachment was an outrageous abuse of power by the Republicans had to accept that Mr. Clinton had, clearly, lied. And our argument was this: Mr. Clinton made a mistake. He should not have lied. But he lied in answer to questions he should not have been asked. He should not have been put in a position where he had to choose: he could lie under oath, and be impeached or worse, or he could tell the truth, and embarrass himself and his family, and probably still be impeached or worse.
The wonderful myth sold by Scaife's minions was that it was about sex. Earlier they tried to sell it was really about death, Foster's death. And before that the minions tried to sell it was really about corruption, Whitewater corruption and Hillary's involvement in that corruption. From the Clinton's perspective it was all about getting Bill. From Scaife's perspective it was about keeping the Democrats out of power and revenge for Watergate. Sex, Foster's suicide, Watergate were all means to an end for Richard Mellon Scaife. The only trail he left was money and the money he provided to others of like mind.
Did Clinton clearly lie. This is a myth. Clinton was found "in civil contempt of court for misleading testimony in the Jones case." (see Paula Jones). Further, while the House did impeach Clinton the Senate failed to convict Clinton. At no point in time was Clinton found guilty of perjury. Clinton did argue that "he believed the agreed-upon definition of sexual relations excluded his receiving oral sex."
(see Paula Jones)
In the book A Civil Action Jonathan Harr describes how large corporations lie in civil cases and the prosecutors rarely if ever go after people for those lies. Despite Bill Clinton being thoroughly investigated for lying and tried in the Senate for lying, he was never found guilty of lying. The underlying case brought by Paula Jones was dismissed in a summary judgment and never went to trial. Clinton did settle while the judgment was under appeal, but that was more like having a root canal than an admittance of guilt.
In contrast Libby was indicted, convicted, and sentenced for lying and obstruction of justice. Only by perpetuating a myth can one say Bill and Scooter both lied. No one can argues that Clinton lied to the Independent Council. Clinton didn't and his testimony was available to the public. So when Clinton was criminally investigated for lying he did not lie or obstruct justice. Scooter Libby did lie and obstruct justice during the criminal investigation into leaking classified documents. Big difference.
Now lets get to the bottom line. Kinsley would like us to believe that Libby and Clinton both faced the same perjury trap. Sorry folks it did not happen that way. Clinton was asked questions by his sexual relations with Monica Lewinski that he never expected to be revealed. It was not the type of thing that Monica wanted the world to know. The revelations, not by Paula Jones, but by the minions of Scaife was what got Bill into trouble with Paula Jones in the first place despite there being no criminal or civil act worth pursuing. Besides, only a real big major first class CAD kisses and tells.
Lawyers always tell their clients to answer the question exactly as asked and not to provide additional evidence. Bill felt he did this as he thought the question as precisely asked was about coitus. He mislead by saying no and not being clear. If he said I did not have coitus with Monica Lewinski, then he would have been a 100% accurate. Is sex only coitus or does sex include all those precoital activities like holding hands, kissing, petting, licking sucking, . . . etc. As Bill said to Starr that all depends on what is is. What is sex and what is not sex?
Now for the tricky part. The questioner must be absolutely clear what the questioner is asking about. Bill Clinton's answer is misleading, but not untruthful, because his answer fits within the definitions of the terms. Libby was not just misleading he was untruthful. Clinton was misleading in a civil action where such lack of truthfulness is common, not in a criminal investigation.
Now let us return to the Plame investigation. Let us assume that there was no underlying crime committed because Cheney declassified Plame's status as a covert agent before Libby, Armitage, or anyone else talked to reporters. There is no underlying crime. However, Cheney was clever and made it classified that there was no underlying crime in order to hide that he declassified information for political purposes.
If Cheney's actions were revealed in a close election battle Bush / Cheney would undoubtedly lose the election. During the election no one ever suggested that Cheney might have declassified Plame and worse Bush made a point of saying he would fir the leaker as if a leak had occurred when all that happened was a declassification and that fact was classified.
The perjury trap was set, not by opponents of the Bush / Cheney administration, but by the administration itself. If Libby told the truth that Cheney declassified the information about Plame, then he would be leaking classified information to FBI agents. Leaking because they didn't have the proper classification (ultra top secret purple or whatever nonsense) to hear the information. So Libby perjured himself. Libby was certainly never going to say this was a complex plan to fool the people.
Only sick minds like those of Nixon, Bush, Cheney Rove, Libby and their minions could think up such a tangled web of lies. If the truth ever unravels, say Libby reveals what is really going on, then there is hell to pay.
What will happen is the following. Libby will never serve a day in jail, lord knows he might break and spill all, and the Scaife's of the world will see to it that Libby receives a good income for his troubles. Contrary to what reporters are saying if a Republican is elected president, then Libby may even work on K street.
The bottom line is that yes there are comparisons that can be made between Clinton and Libby, but they are weak and when closely studied make Clinton look like an angel and make Libby look like a minor minion of the devil.
Comments are closed on this story.