|
Letter Sent to US Congressmen About the Clinton Scandal, Feb 8, 1999
by Paul Dennis Sporer
Thank you ahead of time for carefully considering this somewhat lengthy letter. As a scholar in the social sciences, I do not claim to be an expert in government or Constitutional Law, but the facts that are now available to you and me would all point strongly towards relieving the President of his duties. I am not usually active politically, I have no interest in party politics, but only want to see justice, fairness and truth prevail. The issue before us is whether the President should be censured, fined or removed from office. Being President is a job with many diverse responsibilities. It is precisely because of this diversity that grounds for praise or for condemnation are easy to find. We must therefore base our judgement on how the President has done his job, his relations with his subordinates and Cabinet, and his effectiveness in dealing with other departments of government.
There are four very clear reasons that taken together provide impetus for removal: Impeding the rights of a US citizen, purposely misleading and grossly interfering in a civil rights proceeding, debasing the nation's morals and laws, and acting to destroy the legitimate functioning of the Federal government.
First, by Mr Clinton paying Paula Jones the money she demanded in her civil rights proceeding, he admitted he did indeed grossly violate her civil rights. If Mr Clinton is innocent, then an ordinary citizen is able to on her own slander and extort money from a powerful man like the President. If this was true, then the judicial system is heavily flawed, and your very first priority, and the President's, should be its reform. Are you trying to reform the civil justice process? If not, then you accept the fact that Ms Jones was correct in her assertion of sexual harassment; by your inaction in the area of immediate judicial reform, you are admitting that Mr Clinton is guilty of a serious moral and civil offence. Further, Mr Clinton's avoidance of testifying in the civil case was clearly an attempt to hide his guilt, perhaps not a crime, but certainly unworthy of the highest law officer in the nation.
Second, the payment of money to Paula Jones has silenced those people who have claimed that Mr Clinton is a moral man, far above corruption. Mr Clinton, in this case alone, proved to be quite the opposite by humiliating his wife and daughter, deceiving Congress and to his aides, evading testifying in the Paula Jones case and in the OIC grand jury, issuing phony apologies, and ignoring the grave concerns of the American public. Lying under oath and obstructing justice are indeed difficult to prove, but corruption is another issue. For corruption to be proven, there must be a pattern of disregard for moral and civil laws. This pattern has clearly been present for over a year and a half. But the pattern was begun much earlier than this. Just as he went on national television in 1998 and arrogantly stated he did nothing wrong with Monica Lewinsky, Mr Clinton cold-bloodedly went on national television in 1992 with his wife and vowed that he did not have a sexual affair with Gennifer Flowers. In both cases, he was proven a liar beyond any doubt. Many other examples could be cited. After all that has happened, is it possible for anyone to say that Mr Clinton is not corrupt?
Third, this form of corruption, as bad as it is, is not enough to warrant removal, but Mr Clinton's behaviour goes well beyond the use of deception about oneself, for the twisting of truth is used against others. Mr Clinton even attacks his own country by contributing to the destruction of morals. This undeniably vain and callous man has given the youth the very means and excuses that they need to deal with their own immoral behaviour. Since this scandal is so widely covered, everyone knows about the President's perversion of the truth has savaged traditional Christian morals. Now anyone who seeks to justify immorality and protect himself from detection or punishment will simply go through the following sequence: deny, deny, deny; if facts are revealed, become forgetful; if that does not work, attack the accusers; if more facts are put forward, simply use the phrase 'it depends what you mean by x...', and then reclassify and redefine. In short, make everything subjective, and reject the idea of absolute truth. It is not surprising, that given the subjective view of the world he has, Mr Clinton uses as a defence for his deception his belief that he was treated unfairly by the legal process. The message is clear: Everyone can now freely lie under oath if they feel 'victimised' by the process. Is this the kind of message that America needs now, already consumed by family dysfunction, brutality against children, exploitation, fraud, adultery, pre-marital sex, illegitimacy, abortion and theft? The longer that Mr Clinton remains in office, the more people will be motivated to see him as a role model.
The public now understand that the President no longer has to be a great leader, one with discipline, reason and depth; he merely must be blessed with prodigious memory, high ambitions and better than average stamina. How is he then any different from a film star or music celebrity? It is no wonder that Presidents will be held in low esteem since it would appear that greatness in intellect and virtue are not necessary for greatness in the job of President. Of course, this is erroneous, but it is how the Presidency is perceived. The quicker he is punished with removal, the more people will see the need for respect for the truth and for sensible moral values and restrictions.
Fourth, we come to the most powerful reason that the President should be removed from office. Please consider this very carefully. He, as the most powerful man in the nation, has clearly destabilised the government by being guilty of doing the things described above. By not acting as a moral leader, refusing to cooperate in a civil and criminal legal proceedings, getting others to lie under oath, attacking duly empowered officials of the Judiciary, attacking members of Congress in their duties, and lying to the American public, he has damaged the mechanisms that make government operate. These factors all are part of one package and cannot be removed. because each is dependent on all the others. Yes, the government can still function in a basic sense, salaries will be paid, budgets will still be passed, some reforms will be made. But right now we need, as you well know, major changes in laws and procedures. With Mr Clinton in office, these challenges cannot possibly be met.
The President's statements and that of his aides and friends, statements he has never repudiated, viciously attack duly appointed members of the Judicial branch in the exercise of their official functions. This year-long shameless tirade, this exercise in excoriating and slandering Justice department officials, makes it clear that he has no respect for that branch of government. Employees of the White House, paid by the taxpayers, have accused Judge Starr of 'Gestapo' tactics. Further, he and his subordinates have repeatedly attacked members of Congress, saying that their motivations are entirely political, denying them to vote their conscience, and saying that whatever criticism is made of him is due to 'personal animosity'.
The effects of the President's behaviour is quite palpable in the various departments of government. Mr Clinton has lost the respect of every officer in the military. They know that if they were in the same position, they would have been stripped of rank, thrown into jail or dishonourably discharged. How can the Commander-in-Chief lack the simple discipline to remain faithful to his wife, and yet expect the possible sacrifice of life of the people in the military under his command? In addition, Mr Clinton can no longer appoint any Federal judges or Justices of the Supreme Court without incurring incredulity and derision. It is critical to maintain the smooth functioning of the three branches of the Federal government. Historically, Presidents have been most castigated when they have upset this balance. Andrew Johnson, the only other impeached President, fought to block giving full rights to blacks in the South, going against the Congress. Mr Clinton has also in his own way destroyed this balance, by his scurrilous attacks against a duly appointed and empowered branch of the judiciary, the OIC, and statements that continue to imply that a vast right-wing conspiracy, involving members of Congress, is out to get him. If you want proof that Mr Clinton cannot function as President, consider the fact that although President Johnson 'won' by one vote, he retired from the Presidency. He had the honour to at least admit that he had become a serious obstacle to governmental functioning. The time has come to put an end to the present hypocrisy and corruption.
Sharply-worded calumny, intent on destroying the functioning of government for entirely personal reasons, by the most influential man in America, goes beyond simple corruption and is tantamount to waging 'war' against the government. This behaviour is worse than whatever Richard Nixon did, and he certainly deserved removal from office. President Nixon tried to subvert one investigation, Mr Clinton has attempted to subvert all processes, and to bring down respect for the law. Short of physically attacking government officers and buildings, this is as close to war the President can get. In fact, Mr Clinton's behaviour borders on treason. The Constitution states 'Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort'. Enemies can be found in this country itself, ready to use crippled social, legal and political systems for their own ends.
It certainly appears that the President has no regard for the truth, no empathy for the rights of others, no respect for the operations of the process of which he is a part. Let us examine the Constitutional issues to see if any official punishment should be meted out in reference to the four issues I have raised above. The Constitution states 'Judgement in cases of impeachment shall NOT extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust of profit under the United States' (Article 1, Section 3, emphasis mine). Thus, the Senate has evidently no right to impose censure, fines, or other penalties. At the very least, Mr Clinton should be morally responsible for paying the expenses of the OIC investigation into the Lewinsky matter, and the expenses incurred by the House and Senate in their related proceedings. The Senate cannot compel him to do so, however.
Further, the Constitution says that if the President is impeached for 'treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors' he can be removed from office. Note that this applies to the Vice President and all civil officers of the US, and so it is entirely appropriate to use the criteria set by proceedings against such officials. This argument has cogently been put forward in public discussions by members of Congress as well as scholars, referring to judges that have been impeached and removed for perjury. What has not been discussed by anyone is the last word of the above citation--misdemeanors. This word has been in common use amongst English speakers since the 1400s, and from the beginning the word has meant the same thing, namely, an offence which is less serious than a felony. Certainly, the sexual harassment of Paula Jones and his 'near crime' of impeding justice are misdemeanours. I do not know if the question was asked, but would his lawyers say he is not guilty of at least one misdemeanour? In addition, the Constitution does not say 'The President shall not be removed for minor offences'. The authors of that document could easily have given this warning, if they believed that only serious crimes should be considered. Precedent in legal decisions also gives weight to the idea that minor crimes by themselves merit removal. Andrew Johnson, the only other President in a similar situation, was not guilty of any treason or serious crime, but simply removing a member of his cabinet without the permission of the Senate, a violation of a the Tenure of Office Act, which was subsequently repealed and also found to be unconstitutional. History and law agree that the President does NOT have to be guilty of a serious crime or gross misuse of power or jeopardising the State for him to be subject to impeachment in the House or trial in the Senate. You DO have the authority to remove him from office because of the commission of misdemeanours.
Hence, an objective reading of the Constitution demonstrates that the Senate has no authority to punish the President financially, such as issuing a fine or taking away his pension. They evidently do not even have the authority to censure a non-member, unless the President agrees to it. But what justice is it if the President is censured in a way acceptable to him, since there is nothing further that can be said that can hurt the President? There is only one option left: removal. Such an action would not divide the country more than it already is.
This brings us to the political perspective, which interestingly enough centres on morals. President Johnson never enslaved anyone, nor did he order anyone to become a slave, yet he was considered no longer fit to be the nation's political leader because he seriously debased the MORALS of the nation. How did he do this? By engaging in political tricks to impede a legitimate governmental process intended on giving blacks full civil rights. The Congress set forth the precedent 130 years ago that it does have the authority to pass judgement on a President for his effect on morals, regardless of public opinion. Although the majority's intentions must be considered, we cannot and must not avoid listening to the opinions of at least one-third of the taxpaying American public, some 70 million people, who have considered the President so incapable of doing his job that they have called for Clinton's resignation or removal from office. It is outrageous that this large minority, who can attest to the decline in morals, continues to be ignored. Even worse, politicians and officials of public interest groups continue to say that 'the whole country has voiced its indignation' over the impeachment and trial. As a member of this minority that supports the impeachment and calls for removal, I can only conclude that there is an attempt to establish some sort of totalitarian tyranny of the majority, led, ironically, by the Liberal Democrats! I usually refrain from making accusations like this, the fodder of conspiracy nuts and paranoiacs, but in this instance it seems quite apropos. Morality based on reason must be preserved, otherwise society will die.
If you are unmoved by the demands of morality and fairness, at least bear in mind that future generations will judge your actions. Mr Clinton is an infuriatingly arrogant individual who throughout his life has engaged in thrill-seeking behaviour, and has exploited people in order to enhance his own status. If he is not removed, he will have thumbed his nose at members of Congress, and will have made the public look like fools. Moreover, if you do not act on the moral consequences flowing out of the Paula Jones incident, then you are making Paula Jones into nothing but a whore, someone who takes payment from a john for her 'services'. Censure, even if permissible, is no punishment. Please do not let him get away with this, because if you do, then he will have molested all people who still do value morality and ethics. In the future people will NOT look at Mr Clinton as a 'charming man', an 'astute politician', a 'great leader', or even as a 'victim', but as a conniver, a liar, a scoundrel and a manipulator without conscience or scruple. Your vote will be highly significant, and you should not pay any heed to the foolishness of the masses, for as you well know, they can be and often are wrong. As for the children of this generation, do not allow them to assimilate the message that obsessive lying, perversion, adultery, manipulation, abuse of power, arrogance and selfishness are acceptable activities; do not leave them with the idea that image and celebrity status and popularity are all-important. Wrongdoing in public office must, absolutely must, be followed by punishment equal to the damage done, as any other action is irrational.
Finally, you must ask yourself, would you want every future President to act like Mr Clinton? Unless he is chastised, and that could entail only removal from office, you send a clear message to all future holders of the office that they can with impunity sexually harass people, violate civil rights, cheat, exploit, obstruct justice, viciously attack members of Congress and the Judiciary, lie to subordinates, Congressmen and the American people, and bring disrepute and instability to the whole governmental apparatus. If there ever is a 'stink' made about it, then simply let the President get off with a slap on the wrist. How can this be, in anyone's political philosophy, fair or even sane? If you do not remove Mr Clinton, you have done a great disservice to the country and future generations will not look kindly on your cowardice. Whatever opprobrium you take as a result of the decision to remove the President will hardly compare to the damage you will have done to the country as a whole. A vote for removal is a defiant act against evil, and a courageous stand for morality.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright holder.
|
