The Impeachment of the President of the USA - Part IWritten by Sam Vaknin
In hallways of Smithsonian, two moralists are debating impeachment of President of United States of America, Mr. William Jefferson Clinton. One is clearly Anti-Clinton (AC) other, a Democrat (DC), is not so much for him as he is for rational and pragmatic application of moral principles. AC (expectedly): “The President should be impeached”. DC (no less expectedly) ; “But, surely, even you are not trying to imply that he has committed high crimes and misdemeanours, as Constitution demands as grounds for impeachment of a sitting President !” AC : “But I do. Perjury is such a high crime because it undermines very fabric of trust between fellow citizens and between citizen and system of justice, courts.” DC : “A person is innocent until proven guilty. No sound proof of perjurious conduct on behalf of President has been provided as yet. Perjurious statements have to be deliberate and material. Even if President deliberately lied under oath – his lies were not material to a case, which was later dismissed on grounds of a lack of legal merit. Legal hairsplitting and jousting are an integral part of defence in most court cases, civil and criminal. It is a legitimate – and legal – component of any legal battle, especially one involving interpretations, ambiguous terminology and substantiation of intentions. The President should not be denied procedural and substantive rights available to all other citizens of his country. Nor should he be subjected to a pre-judgment of his presumed guilt.” AC : “This, precisely, is why an impeachment trial by Senate is called for. It is only there that President can credibly and rigorously establish his innocence. All I am saying is that IF President is found by Senate to have committed perjury – he should be impeached. Wherever legal hairsplitting and jousting is permissible as a legal tactic – it should and will be made available to President. As to pre-judgment by Press – I agree with you, there is no place for it but, then, in this President has been treated no differently than others. The pertinent fact is that perjury is a high misdemeanour, in least, that is, an impeachable offence.” DC : “It was clearly not intention of Fathers of our Constitution to include perjury in list of impeachable offences. Treason is more like it. Moreover, to say that President will receive a fair trial from hands of his peers in Senate – is to lie. The Senate and its committees is a political body, heavily tilted, currently, against President. No justice can be had where politics rears its ugly head. Bias and prejudice will rule this mock trial.” AC : “Man is a political animal, said Greek philosophers of antiquity. Where can you find an assembly of people free of politics ? What is this discourse that we are having if not a political one ? Is not Supreme Court of land a politically appointed entity ? The Senate is no better and no worse, it is but a mirror, a reflection of combined will of people. Moreover, in pursuing procedures of impeachment – Senate will have proved its non-political mettle in this case. The nation, in all opinion polls, wants this matter dropped. If it is not – it is a proof of foresight and civil courage, of leadership and refusal to succumb to passing fads.” DC : “And what about my first argument – that perjury, even once proven, was not considered by authors of Constitution to have been an impeachable offence ?” AC : “The rules of land – even Constitution – are nothing but an agreement between those who subscribe to it and for as long as they do. It is a social contract, a pact. Men – even authors of Constitution - being mortal, relegated right to amend it and to interpret it to future generations. The Constitution is a vessel, each generation fills it as it sees fit. It is up to us to say what current meaning this document harbours. We are not to be constrained by original intentions of authors. These intentions are meaningless as circumstances change. It is what we read into Constitution that forms its specific contents. With changing mores and values and with passage of events – each generation generates its own version of this otherwise immortal set of principles.” DC : “I find it hard to accept that there is no limit to this creative deconstruction. Surely it is limited by common sense, confined to logic, subordinate to universal human principles. One can stretch meanings of words only thus far. It takes a lot of legal hairsplitting to bring perjury – not proven yet – under one roof with treason.” AC : “Let us ignore legal issues and leave them to their professionals. Let us talk about what really bothers us all, including you, I hope and trust. This President has lied. He may have lied under oath, but he definitely lied on television and in spacious rooms of White House. He lied to his family, to his aides, to nation, to Congress …” DC : “For what purpose do you enumerate them ?” AC : “Because it is one thing to lie to your family and another thing to lie to Congress. A lie told to nation, is of a different magnitude altogether. To lie to your closest aides and soi dissant confidantes – again is a separate matter …”
| | The Impeachment of the President of the USA - Part IIWritten by Sam Vaknin
AC : “Before I do, allow me just to repeat. To me, there is no moral difference between one lie and another. All lies are loathsome and lead, in long run, to hell whatever good intentions, which paved way there. As far as I am concerned, President Clinton is a condemned man on these grounds only. But lies one chooses and victims he chooses to expose to his misbehaviour - reflect his personality, his inner world, what type of human being he is. It is only allowance I make. All lies are prohibited as all murders are. But there are murders most foul and there are lies most abominable and obnoxious. What are we to learn about President from his choice of arms and adversaries ? That he is a paranoid, a narcissist, lacks empathy, immature, unable to postpone his satisfactions, to plan ahead, to foresee outcomes of his actions. He has a sense of special, unwarranted entitlement, he judges his environment and world, at large, erroneously. In short : he is dangerously wrong for job that he has acquired through deception.” DC : “Through elections …” AC : “Nay, through deception brought about by elections. He lied to American people about who he is and what he stands for. He did not frankly expose or discuss his weaknesses and limitations. He sold his voters on an invented, imaginary image, product of spin-doctors and opinion polls, which had no common denominator with reality. This is gross deception.” DC : “But now that American people know everything – they still prefer him over others, approve of his performance and applaud his professional achievements…” AC : “This is power of incumbency. It was same with Nixon until one month before his resignation. Or, do you sanction his actions as well ?” DC : “Frankly, I will compare President Clinton to President Andrew Johnson rather than to President Nixon. The shattering discovery about Nixon was that he was an uncommon criminal. The shattering discovery about Clinton is that he is human. Congress chastises him not for having done what he did – in this he has many illustrious precedents. No, he is accused of being indiscreet, of failing to hide truth, to evade facts. He is reproached for his lack of efficiency at concealment. He is criticized, therefore, both for being evasive and for not being sufficiently protective of his secrets. It is hard to win such a case, I tell you. It is also hypocritical in extreme.” AC : “Do you agree that President of United States is party to a contract with American People ?” DC : “Absolutely.” AC : “Would you say that he is enjoined by this contract to uphold dignity of his office ?’ DC ; “I think that most people would agree to this.” AC : “And do you agree with me that fornicating in White House would tend to diminish rather than uphold this dignity – and, therefore, constitute a violation of this contract ? That it shows utter disregard and disrespect to institutions of this country and to their standing ?” DC : “I assume that you mean to say fornication in general, not only in White House. To answer you, I must analyse this complex issue into its components. First, I assume that you agree with me that sex between consenting adults is almost always legally allowed and, depending on circumstances and culture, it is, usually, morally acceptable. The President's relationship with Miss Lewinsky did not involve sexual harassment or coercion and, therefore, was sex between consenting adults. Legally, there could be nothing against it. The problem, therefore, is cast in moral terms. Would you care to define it ?” AC : “The President has engaged in sexual acts – some highly unusual -with a woman much younger than he, in a building belonging to American public and put at his disposal solely for performance of his duties. Moreover, his acts constituted adultery, which is a morally reprehensible act. He acted secretly and tried to conceal facts using expressly illegal and immoral means – namely by lying.” DC : “I took pains of noting down everything you said. You said that President has engaged in sexual acts and there can be no dispute between us that this does not constitute a problem. You said that some of them were highly unusual. This is a value judgement, so dependent on period and culture, that it is rendered meaningless by its derivative nature. What to one is repulsive is to other a delightful stimulus. Of course, this applies only to consenting adults and when life itself is not jeopardized. Then you mentioned age disparity between President and his liaison. This is sheer bigotry. I am inclined to think that this statement is motivated more by envy than by moral judgement …” AC : “I beg to differ ! His advantages in both position and age do raise spectre of exploitation, even of abuse ! He took advantage of her, capitalized on her lack of experience and innocence, used her as a sex slave, an object, there just to fulfil his desires and realize his fantasies.” DC : “Then there is no meaning to word consent, nor to legal age of consent. The line must be drawn somewhere. The President did not make explicit promises and then did not own up to them. Expectations and anticipation can develop in total vacuum, in a manner unsubstantiated, not supported by any observable behaviour. It is an open question who was using who in this lurid tale – at least, who was hoping to use who. The President, naturally, had much more to offer to Miss Lewinsky than she could conceivably have offered to him. Qui bono is a useful guide in reality as well as in mystery books.”
|