Before the anticlimactic Senate vote on whether to convict
and remove the President, press secretary Joe Lockhart declared the White House
a "gloat-free" zone.
Apparently, some didn’t get the road map.
Minutes before the Senate vote, former presidential counsel
Lanny Davis called the vote a "vindication," and declared that the
Senate would hold the President "innocent." Davis also took the
opportunity to again slap Linda Tripp, stating that, whenever her name came up,
he felt like "taking a shower." Following the Senate vote, MSNBC’s
Geraldo Rivera said that he, too, would restrain himself from
"gloating."
Did Messrs. Davis and Rivera watch West Virginia Democratic
Senator Robert Byrd’s pre-Senate vote appearance on "This Week With Sam
and Cokie"? There Byrd said, "The question is, does this rise to the
level of high crimes and misdemeanors? I say ‘yes,’ no doubt about it in my
mind...I have no doubt that he has given false testimony under oath, and that he
has misled the American people, and that there are indications that he did,
indeed, obstruct justice..." Despite his misgivings, however, Byrd said he
intended to vote to acquit, because "conviction carries with it
removal," the American people want him to remain in office, the President
has but two years to serve, and that the whole ordeal has created a
"division."
Before this burst of candor, newpapers routinely referred to
Byrd as "a statesman" and "elder," the "guardian of the
tradition of the Senate." Following his televised statement on the
President’s guilt, one major newspaper described Byrd only as
"influential," dropping its earlier title of "statesman."
Make that former elder statesman Senator Byrd.
University of Akron constitutional law professor Wilson Huhn
found Byrd’s words shocking. Huhn, who does not believe the President’s
actions warranted impeachment, let alone removal, nevertheless sharply objected
to Byrd’s logic. "If he feels the President committed perjury and
obstruction of justice, and that they constitute high crimes and misdemeanors,
he has no choice but to vote to convict." Professor Huhn agreed that Byrd
engaged in pure and simple jury nullification. "Yes," said Huhn,
"conviction carries removal. It’s supposed to."
A gloat-free zone? The "Los Angeles Times" in
editorializing against impeachment, called the President’s behavior
"odious," "contemptible," "shameful,"
"reckless," "indefensible," "despicable,"
"dishonest," and "stupid." No, the President’s defenders
would be well-advised not to gloat.
And even the President’s own defense lawyer, Charles Ruff,
said that "reasonable people" could conclude that the President
"crossed the line" into perjury. Oh, so reasonable people could agree
with the dastardly, vicious, sex-obsessed, witch-hunting independent counsel Ken
Starr? Reasonable people could conclude that oral sex meets the Paula Jones
definition of sexual relations, which includes "contact with the
genitalia...with an intent to arouse or gratify"?
A gloat-free zone? Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) also
voted against conviction. She did, however, propose a censure resolution,
containing the following:
"Whereas William Jefferson Clinton, president of the
United States, engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate
employee in the White House, which was shameful, reckless and indefensible;
"Whereas William Jefferson Clinton, president of the
United States, deliberately misled and deceived the American people, and people
in all branches of the United States government;
"Whereas William Jefferson Clinton, president of the
United States, gave false or misleading testimony and his actions have had the
effect of impeding discovery of evidence in judicial proceedings;
"Whereas William Jefferson Clinton’s conduct in this
matter is unacceptable for a president of the United States, does demean the
office of the president as well as the president himself, and creates disrespect
for laws of the land;
"Whereas future generations of Americans must know that
such behavior is not only unacceptable but also bears grave consequences,
including loss of integrity, trust and respect;
"Whereas William Jefferson Clinton’s conduct in this
matter has brought shame and dishonor to himself and to the office of the
president; and
"Whereas William Jefferson Clinton through his conduct
in this matter has violated the trust of the American people."
Gloat? The only people arguably entitled to gloat are the
House Managers, who stood tall in the face of the unsympathetic media, and poll
numbers that worked against them. But the thirteen House Managers, shackled in
the presentation of their case by the Senate, know better than to gloat. They’re
likely too busy grieving. For the country.
A gloat-free zone? The President has about as much reason to
gloat as O. J. Simpson. They got away with it. But I see an upside. Maybe O.J.
"The Killer" Simpson can take time from the golf links to help the
President find the real perjurer. v