Clinton and Nixon

After Charles Paul Freund's reverie of Doorman Bill, there's probably not a lot left to be said about Bill Clinton's My Life; certainly the book, however well it sells, is destined to be as unread as his wife's bestselling volume or any future 1,000-pager (god, let's hope not) by Thomas Pynchon.

As a last word on the topic, here's USA Today's take on Clinton's book:

Clinton admits in his book that his affair with Monica Lewinsky was "immoral and foolish" and hurt his family, the presidency and the American people. "That," he writes, "was no one's fault but my own." Good as far as it goes. But in the next breath, he blames his impeachment on a right-wing cabal led by prosecutor Ken Starr bent on bringing him down….

In ducking full responsibility for his downfall, Clinton is not unlike predecessors who failed to repaint tainted presidencies. Such accounts, historian Richard Norton Smith says, are "faulty vehicles" for rewriting history.

Herbert Hoover tried to absolve himself of responsibility for the Depression. Richard Nixon sought to bury Watergate, but never owned up to the depths of his involvement in the scandal. In fact, his take on his undoing was eerily similar to Clinton's.

"I brought myself down," Nixon told TV interviewer David Frost in 1977. "I gave them a sword, and they stuck it in, and they twisted it with relish."

Nixon and Clinton were similar in that they were generally atypical for their political parties. Nixon, that ardent architect of the regulatory state, was hardly a conservative of the Goldwater/Reagan sort; Clinton's big policy successes (reforming welfare, balancing the budget) cut away from the standard Dem takes. They shared a certain psychological sense of being outsiders to power, affluence, and the Establishment. And they lied a lot and bore grudges longtime. No wonder Clinton gave genuinely interesting--and quite possibly heartfelt--remarks at Nixon's funeral. (Note also the reference to the opening line of one of Nixon's memoirs and its similarity to Clinton's own first line).

Whole USA Today thing here.

Comments

[KentInDC]

Dozer,
Apparently, it was not sexual assault (Even though many of WJC's defenders would argue that any OTHER man in such a position of authority propositioning an employee is sexual assault.), but there is a process in litigation called discovery. Jones' attorneys were trying to use Rule 415 to get information on the "improper relationship" between WJC and ML to determine if there WAS assault to try to establish a pattern of behavior. ML was one of six "Jane Does" from which the plaintiff was attempting to obtain discovery to establish a pattern. WJC lied about his relationship with ML at a deposition and ML signed an affidavit denying a relationship between herself and WJC. Perjuring oneself in order to deny a plaintiff her day in court is a pretty serious matter to most people. If he had nothing to hide, he should have told the truth - as his former attorney advised. Encouraging others to perjure themselves is also a pretty serious matter.

So, if you were the plaintiff in a civil suit in which the defendant and everyone associated with him lied at their depositions, it would be just fine with you?

[John Doe]

It seems that Clinton could have used the book to help his wife's presidential ambitions, and yet he did not do so. He also could have used the book to influence American policy on any one topic of his choice. For example, a heartfelt apology for letting Rwanda happen might make it easier for the US to intervene in Sudan. That Clinton didn't do either of those things suggests that he really does only care about himself.

Disclaimer: I have not read the book.

[deron]

"Perjuring oneself in order to deny a plaintiff her day in court is a pretty serious matter..."

Does a prosecutor have to prove that as intent? Does the purpose of the perjury have to be proved? Does it matter? If it does then is it unreasonable that any person thrust into the limelight (public or private) may seek to prevent embarrassment? Do married people generally deny their trists?

There is clearly a lie here. Since the lie seems to be the sum of years of investigation into various other matters I find it now, and may be construed as simply an attempt to avoid embarassment, I find it a very unsatisfying result of the investigation.

[joe]

"Jones' attorneys were trying to use Rule 415 to get information on the "improper relationship" between WJC and ML to determine if there WAS assault to try to establish a pattern of behavior."

The lawyers/activists from the Rutherford Institute were trying to get embarassing information about a politician who was in their way into the public record. Are you always this gullible about political activists' motives, or only when it's convenient.

Not a relevant matter of law, but very relevant to the political issue of impeachment.

[KentInDC]

deron,
I MIGHT have a little sympathy toward WJC if he were not the one who signed the new rule of evidence into law. And, no, I'm sure you already know there is no need to prove the intent of his lying, but the effect of his attempt to avoid embarrassment almost had the result of denying PJ her day in court. I know, like the independent counsel statute, that the new law was meant for others and not for him. He was reaping what he sowed. By the way, I would hardly consider WJC to have been "thrust into the limelight". He has spent his entire life seeking the limelight and sometimes bright lights show blemishes. If you don't want the imperfections to show, stay out of the light.

I'm not sure to which investigation you are referring, but the Whitewater probe resulting in several convictions, including the Arkansas governor's conviction of fraud for which he was ordered to pay $1 million in restitution and sentenced to four years probation. If it is the Jones v. Clinton case to which you are referring, WJC ended up paying $850,000 to settle the case.

joe:
I have never doubted that political motives were behind the suit. Does that mean the defendant doesn't have to obey the law - especially the law one was only too happy to sign a few years before despite warnings that it was too intrusive? It was poetic justice that a guy who received so much support from trial lawyers throughout his political career ended up paying - or rather having his lackeys pay - millions to trial lawyers.

So, I guess Martha Stewart could be excused if she perjured herself because of the prosecutor's motives?

[joe]

It depends what you mean by excused. I believe the political motives and especially the politicized actions of the lawyers and investigators are relevant to the political question of impeachment.

[deron]

"And, no, I'm sure you already know there is no need to prove the intent of his lying, but the effect of his attempt to avoid embarrassment almost had the result of denying PJ her day in court."

Actually, you're wrong I don't already know. It just seems to me that in a case of perjury based on preventing justice that intent might enter into consideration. In the case at I hand I would think intent would be very hard to prove, because I suspect very few people famous or not, power hungry or not, would act to avoid embarrassment. It wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong on the law, as I am completely unqualified to say what the law is.

But, I remain wholly unimpressed that impeachment as a result of an investigation that started with Whitewater, covered Vince Foster, and Paula Jones ended up being based on a consensual affair.

I do have some sympathy for your arguement that Clintons signing 415 and being at risk of it has some poetic justice. I'm not sure that the affair rises to the level of, "sexual assault or child molestation," as you've pasted. If it's simply an inappropriate relationship does it apply? What does an "inappropriate relationship" as defined by the law mean?

I do have sympathy for both Clinton and Nixon for feeling that they, to paraphrase Nixon, handed their enemies a sword, and they stuck it in, and they twisted it with relish."

To argue that eithers enemies were simply interested in the pursuit of justice, all politics aside, seems very naive to me. I may be too cynical, but I tend to view the Independent Council as an inappropriate tool for partisans.

[fyodor]

And they both had funny noses!

[Gary Gunnels]

I think these pop psychology sketches of Clinton aren't particularly helpful or interesting.

[Shirley Knott]

Nixon not a representative Republican??
What have you been smoking, and where can I get some?
While I freely grant that Nixon does not match the *image* the Republican party chooses to portray, it is hard for me to imagine anyone more representative of one of the two major parties of corruption, criminal conspiracy, sleaze, and slavery. [with FDR being the representative of choice for the other, of course]

[Jason Ligon]

Gary,

They are at least as interesting as the pop psychology takes on the current administration.

Which is to say, you are 100% correct.

Sad, unromantic truth: Clinton was a guy who worked in a way that promoted his self interest who happened to have Donkey-esque general preferences. Bush is a guy who does the same, but who prefers Pachyderm-ic proposals.

At the end of the day, all we have worth talking about is what they proposed to do and what they did. The rest of the baggage or gradeur we heap on them says more about us than them.

[Gary Gunnels]

Jason Ligon,

Well, I am inclined to agree with you - though some pop psychology statements may of course be more informed than others.

[Daze]

>>

There's no contradiction here. Impeachment over the Lewinsky matter was like the death penalty for littering. "I admit to littering, I apologize and take full responsibility for littering, but I believe the death penalty is excessive and those demanding the death penalty have ulterior motives." That's a perfectly reasonable position. Clinton is correct: his enemies on the right wanted to destroy him by any means possible, and the Lewinsky matter was the best available cudgel.

[joe]

Downfall? He left office the most popular president in history. The book sold 400,000 copies it first day. He's win again in a walk if he were allowed to run, and he's going to have his pick of government and private sector jobs for the rest of his life.

Every single person on the USA Today payroll added together couldn't amount to such a downfall.

And thank you, Daze, for pointing out what should really be obvious, and in fact is to an overwhelming majority of Americans.

[E. Steven]

Okay, say anything you want about Clinton, but don't be getting down on Pynchon. He rules!

[KentInDC]

Federal Rule of Evidence 415:
"(a) In a civil case in which a claim for damages or other relief is predicated on a party's alleged commission of sexual assault or child molestation, evidence of that party's commission of another offense or offenses of sexual assault or child molestation is admissible and may be considered ... ."

That portion of the Federal Rules of Evidence went into effect in 1994, having been signed into law by WJC after being vetoed by Bush 41. It didn't take long for that chicken to home to roost in the Paula Jones lawsuit. So, Daze, do you think WJC should be exempt from the laws he signed? Assuming Paula Jones was lying about the whole thing, WJC didn't seem to mind that other falsely accused men would have their private lives scrutinized.

[Lisa Simpson]

Jason, I'm afraid the adjective for a donkey is "asinine". 🙂

[Dozer]

Kent, explain to me exactly how Monica was sexual assult, or child molestation??? Which that law seems to apply.

Seriously, your really reaching with that one....

[fyodor]

I think impeachment went a bit far, but death penalty for littering is over the top in the opposite direction. Dude lied under oath in a criminal investigation. One of the counts of impeachment brought against Nixon was for lying to the American people. As Joe is wont to say, it all depends on your perspective...

[KentInDC]

deron,
I explained above that PJ's counsel invoked Rule 415 to gain discovery on whether WJC's supposed "improper relationships" with six Jane Doe's was consensual. It would not be the first time someone has not pressed charges or filed a complaint even though the relationship involved coercion. At least one of those Jane Doe's did accuse WJC of sexual assault.

I think the effect and/or intent of the perjury has more to do with whether there is a prosecution than any burden of proof. I'm sure another consideration in deciding whether to prosecute would be whether it appears that the perjurer recruited others to perjure themselves. Of course that is a separate offense, but once a prosecutor knows he has a case, he tends to throw everything at the defendant to try to get a deal or conviction.

I hope you are not suggesting that I think WJC's or Nixon's enemies did not have political motives. However, I don't recall any remorse over the treatment of Billy Dale. I also don't recall WJC or any other major Democratic figure finding the independent counsel statute a problem as long as they controlled Congress. WJC didn't seem to have any qualms about carrying out vendettas against his enemies. WJC simply reaped what he sowed.

[OriginalSchoenenSale Nederland]

het is zinvol

[Cheap Sale Nike Free UK Deals]

It makes sense

[Nike schoenen voor je klaarsta]

het is zinvol