The Monica Lewinsky Fiasco

Eleven Months Already!

Paraphrasing a Jay Leno joke on the "Tonight Show", I would like to say: "Pardon my European upbringing, but I just don't get it."

I first heard about Monica Lewinsky while driving through the jungle of the Yucatan in Mexico, in search of Mayan ruins. It was late January 98. The news came on the car radio. Yucatan radio stations have great political analysts. The first reaction of the commentator was (translated from Spanish): "It is hard for us to understand how a country as powerful as US can be more preoccupied about a president's sex life than about the stock market or the Asian crisis".

He was right on, of course. This has since become a very regrettable situation. It saddens me, because it has very thoroughly shaken a lot of the admiration I hold for the government of this great country.

Some notes, scribbled down while the events were unfolding...

A process has spun out of control when it fails to achieve a stated goal, consumes disproportionate resources, and cannot be stopped. The Lewinsky situation has become a prime example.

Absorbed as everybody is by the soap-opera appeal of the Ken Starr "investigation", people seem to forget how deeply tragic this situation has become. An investigation whose stated goal it was to restore the confidence of the American people in their government, instead has exposed Washington to the world in the most negative light possible.

I am not talking about the alleged misdeeds, which are really more of a high-school level anyway. I am referring to the fact that after reflection, this makes our whole political system appear as a Byzantine mess of intrusive bureaucrats, greedy lawyers, special interest groups, private agenda's and personal vendetta's. Officials and non-officials alike seem to be interested in destroying each other for a few dollars, a few votes or a picture in the paper.

How could our democratic institutions and our legal system have so dramatically failed in distinguishing between the relevant and the utterly trivial?

The Whitewater-turned-Lewinsky succession of events was a total disaster from a public relations point of view. This was supposed to be a serious, independent and fair investigation into serious mideeds. Unfortunately, the investigation and the resulting discussions have not conveyed to the public the impression of being either serious, independent or fair.

Here are some of the most dramatic mistakes:

• Ken Starr is supposed to be an independent counsel. But he is a Republican, and he is closely associated with a number of admitted Clinton haters. Maybe Starr is indeed independent, but in the eyes of the public, he does not appear that way. A prosecutor of Starr's stature should have done a better job avoiding at least the appearance of a conflict of interest.
• The original scope of the investigation was somewhat defined: looking into the president's possible involvement in an illegal land deal called Whitewater. But Whitewater never revealed anything. The investigation should have been stopped right there, and the president should have been completely exonerated.
• The fact that this did not happen, has unquestionably contributed to the public perception that Ken Starr was out to find something on the president, anything, anywhere, at any cost.

The accusations:

• I keep hearing that this is not about sex. But it is not about Whitewater either. Neither is it about campaign finance or any other government related issue. As far as I can see, this appears to be just about sex. Almost one year of bickering about sex!
• The president was never accused of a crime against a person or against the country. Actually, the charges keep changing. The most common accusations are "obstruction of justice", "witness tampering", "perjury" and "abuse of power". In other words, the alleged "crime" is the unwillingness to "cooperate" with a process whose ultimate purpose seems to be his destruction. The president has pointed that out several times, but nobody listens. This is not unlike medieval witch hunt stories.
• This is a case not a single witness apparently wanted anything to do with; everybody seemed to be subpoenaed against his or her will.
• The only credible witness of the Lewinsky affair, turned out to be Lewinsky herself. She was forced to testify, or rather, she was given immunity from a prison sentence in exchange for incriminating the president. Yet, it is the president who finds himself accused of witness tampering.
• After undergoing a 40 million dollar investigation for no clear reason, it is the president who finds himself accused of abuse of power. I am amazed at how the irony seems to be lost on many people.

Affairs:

• To make matters worse, Henry Hyde, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, tasked with looking into impeachment of the president for these "crimes" (that have nothing to do with sex but appear to have a lot to do with sex), turned out to have had a 5-year affair with a married woman himself.
• Surely, that would not necessarily cloud his judgment, but it does look bad in the eyes of the public. Had I been Henry Hyde, I would have resigned as chairman when the news of his own affair broke, to avoid the appearance of hypocrisy.
• To make bad matters even worse, the incoming (and meanwhile also outgoing) Republican house speaker, Bob Livingston, suddenly also admitted to "numerous" affairs. He "volunteered" the admission because "it had come to his attention" that people were digging into his past and about to find out.
• One might wonder how many more Republicans had affairs. The official tally is now weighed very heavily towards the Republican side. Not that I personally care, but it just looks bad when you try to remove the president for having an affair.

The Affair

One could say that the president did indeed have an affair. One that technically did not involve intercourse.

That was certainly not nice, but Bill Clinton is not the first president in history In that situation either. This is not the end of the world; 60% of men and 40% of women have affairs (Republican congressmen apparently are not immune to these statistics either). Besides, theoretically, having an affair is not even a crime. And after all, Monica Lewinsky is not generally perceived as a dangerous spy or a serious threat to National Security.

So, did Clinton lie about it? Maybe. Maybe not (he denied having had "sexual relations", because technically, in the Paula Jones trial, sexual relations were defined as involving intercourse). But he almost certainly would not have lied about it if he had not been asked such indiscreet questions in the first place. One has to admit that the president was forced into an uncomfortable corner.

It used to be rude to ask anybody direct, embarrassing questions about their sex life. Especially a president. It is clear why. But I guess that today, the standards of decency have been lowered.

To many people, including some of my law student friends, this line of questioning might have treaded dangerously close to entrapment.

Republicans sometimes seem to have a short, or at least a somewhat selective memory. One cannot help but compare this situation to the Iran-Contra scandal from a few years ago. President Reagan found himself suspected of having allowed, or having been involved, in a shady kind of operation.

The Iran-Contra scandal was about arms sales to Iran, possibly approved by the administration, but not disclosed to Congress (or the public). The arms sales occurred through Israel, and a particularly interesting aspect was that Iran was being overbilled for the arms. The proceeds of this overbilling were secretly passed on to (contra-)revolutionaries in Central America, again without approval from congress. The deal has been called the largest money-laundering operation the world has ever known.

What really makes a bad impression, is the absurd urge (by Republicans) to impeach the president. Impeachment is a serious matter, allowed by the Constitution only under the following circumstances: " Bribery, treason or other high crimes and misdemeanors ". This is not bribery. This is not treason. This is a situation where, under intense and vicious questioning, the president may have bent the truth in order to safeguard his private life. This is completely trivial!

What most people seem to forget, is that the whole purpose of the Constitution, besides defining and organizing the Federal Government, was to protect the individual from excessive government power. In other words, this is the kind of situation the Constitution was supposed to prevent!

Sure enough, and unfortunately enough, the impeachment articles against Bill Clinton were passed by the House Judiciary Committee. There were 4 of them, all sounding approximately the same, and all having to do with Clinton "concealing" the Lewinsky affair during the Paula Jones trial (which was thrown out of court as well as settled for money). Almost every single vote was along party lines.

To me it is simply hard to believe that such a radically partisan vote could be due only to the fact that Republicans understand the law and Democrats do not.

In the meantime, there is a military operation going on against Saddam Hussein. It was started the day before the scheduled impeachment vote. Of course, the president is being accused of opportunism by his Republican detractors, including the ones who had been calling for military action for some time.

During his personal ordeal, my respect for Clinton has skyrocketed. I am absolutely impressed by the man's ability to hold up under fire. This situation must have been stressful to him. Yet, he has demonstrated an incredible ability to keep performing a flawless job of being president. Actually, the president seems to be the only person who is still doing anything that might benefit the country these days.

House Democratic leader Dick Gephardt predicted that an impeachment trial would " make the hoopla surrounding the O.J. Simpson trial seem rather mild ". I am afraid that he is absolutely right. The Simpson trial was a circus. This will be an even bigger circus. Possibly the biggest circus the world has ever known. Because it involves sex, and sex is the best press there is.

In my view, the pursuit of the Lewinsky episode has already done irreparable harm to the confidence of the people, and of the world, in the US government. And the worst may yet be to come.

This has hurt democracy. This has degenerated into a display of partisan politics, egos and unlimited prosecutorial power. And there was nobody with enough vision, judgment, integrity or authority to stop it.

It makes the country look divided. In effect, it makes our government look like it has literally lost its head. Whatever Republicans and Democrats decided, they should have realized that the last message they want to convey to the world, is the appearance of "infighting at the top".

Maybe I am too simplistic. Maybe my views are distorted by a distaste for bickering and a total failure to understand what the big deal is about sex.

President Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives on Saturday, December 19. This was a low day for democracy, common sense and plain old decency. The House vote was rushed through, while bombs were raining on Iraq, just a few days before Christmas, for fear that a few days of extra delay might allow the American public to wake up and realize the absurdity of it all. It appeared to be a race against public opinion.

I listened to some of the testimony in Congress. Some very valid points were eloquently brought up, and I became optimistic that at least a few Republicans would see reason. It was not to happen.

There was plenty of testimony, but very few Republican arguments. They were all subordinate to "Rule of Law, Rule of Law, Rule of Law!".

• "This is not about sex."
• "The president is not above the law."
• "We wish we could allow a vote on censure instead of impeachment. We feel terrible, but the Constitution does not allow it."
• "We feel terrible, but the Constitution leaves us no choice but to impeach."

All these arguments were seriously flawed.

• To an ordinary human being, this is about sex. Lying about sex makes it about sex.
• If the president indeed committed perjury, he would still not be above the law. He could be prosecuted by any criminal or civil court, and tried by a regular jury. There simply was no pressing need for Congress to short-circuit the regular due process.
• Constitutional scholars and law professors have clearly stated that there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits censure.
• There was plenty of room not to impeach. Impeachment is only an option for "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors", i.e. for crimes against the state. The discussion in Congress should simply have boiled down to the question: "are these significant crimes against the state?". The common- sense answer is: "no way"!

Our democratic system has taken a beating. This impeachment did go through, without broad bipartisan support (without any bipartisan support, almost) and without broad popular support (two thirds of the American people opposed it).

It probably will. But for the better. My read on the situation and the public response, is very optimistic. I believe that the American public is much more sophisticated, discriminating and informed than many gave them credit for.

• People really don't care that much about affairs. After all, that is private stuff and has little to do with job performance.
• People don't like old men bickering about sex.
• People have expressed a distaste for personal attacks and negative campaigning.
• People have expressed an even bigger distaste for hypocrisy.
• People care about real issues.

What's wrong with that? This is not a sign of moral collapse. This is not a sign that from now on, only saints will be allowed in government, either. It simply means that politicians will be held to a higher standard: one of focus on the issues, and one of putting the interest of the country first.