See You in Court
How can President Clinton
secure a censure agreement and avert a Senate trial? That's the question
pundits have naively debated since Clinton was impeached. The naiveté lies not
in their answers but in the question. Who says Clinton prefers censure? In many
ways, he'd be better off sabotaging the censure movement and polarizing the
trial.
1.
The chicken game. The conventional wisdom says Clinton is afraid of
being convicted. But is he the only one who fears that outcome? Although
Republican politicians pooh-poohed the notion that they'd be voted out of
office in 2000 for impeaching Clinton in 1998, they're less sanguine about
their chances of being voted out for throwing him out of office in 1999. That's
one reason why Senate Republicans have expressed far less enthusiasm for
convicting Clinton than House Republicans showed in impeaching him. Why
shouldn't he call the GOP's bluff?
2. Clinton's legacy. The conventional wisdom says
Clinton must avert conviction in order to safeguard his legacy. But would
censure serve his legacy better than a trial would? Arguably, impeachment has
tarnished Clinton's presidency as gravely as he could have imagined. And many
analysts think if he's forced to sign a bipartisan, self-abasing censure
resolution, he'll be humiliated, broken, and unable to pass any part of his
agenda in his final two years. Could conviction and removal be much worse than
that? On this line of reasoning, Clinton has little left to lose in a trial and
much to gain. Trial and acquittal might be his only hope of erasing the stain
of impeachment.
3.
The ordeal. The conventional wisdom says Clinton should waive his
defense and avoid calling witnesses in order to shorten the trial and end his
"ordeal." But whose ordeal is it? Republican senators have been saying for days
that they don't want to antagonize the public by calling witnesses and dragging
out the trial for months. Why not give them what they don't want? The House
prosecution team includes Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., and other former federal
prosecutors who are champing at the bit to call Monica Lewinsky and perhaps a
dozen other witnesses. House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, R-Texas, wants to drag
"evidence" about other alleged Clinton sexual escapades into the trial. Why not
call witnesses, inflame these incendiary accusers, and help them ignite the
proceedings, perhaps torching their own party in the process?
4. Censure negotiations. The conventional wisdom says
Clinton shouldn't polarize the Senate along partisan lines, because this would
disrupt the movement toward a censure deal. It's hard enough to work out a deal
already, pundits observe, given that Democrats want to soften the censure
resolution while Republicans want to stiffen it. But why is this partisan rift
over the terms of censure bad for Clinton? He doesn't need a censure deal to
extinguish the threat of conviction. All he needs is a censure proposal that
satisfies 34 Democrats enough to dissuade them from voting to convict him. If
the proposal fails, thereby sparing Clinton any penalty whatsoever, so much the
better.
From this standpoint, a
partisan impasse over the terms of censure is exactly what Clinton needs. This
could be accomplished through various disputes, such as whether Clinton must
confess to perjury before the grand jury (Republicans insist on it; Democrats
warn that it may kill the deal) and whether he should be fined (many
Republicans demand it; many Democrats say it's unfair or unconstitutional). The
important thing is that Clinton's fingerprints mustn't be found on the
sabotage. His best way to navigate this dilemma is by subtly encouraging
Democrats to hold out for terms so soft that Republicans can't abide them.
5. The sequence. The conventional wisdom
says if Clinton fails to strike a censure deal with Senate Democrats and
Republicans, they might vote to convict him. But what if the two options are
considered in reverse order? Already, several conservative Republican senators
are demanding that the Senate complete the trial and vote on conviction before
"negotiating" a censure deal. But once conviction has been voted down, why
should Clinton negotiate? He can play it both ways: Cultivate the censure
movement in order to persuade Democrats to vote against conviction, then
sabotage censure by encouraging liberal and conservative zealots in the Senate
to hold out for extreme terms. Admittedly, this scenario requires that Clinton
ignore what's best for the country and that his enemies save him through
reckless excess. But that has been the story of the year.
Recent "Frame Games"
"Clinton's Final Escape": Why the GOP will spare his presidency.
(posted Wednesday, Dec. 23)
"Wag the Doubt": The debate over Clinton's Iraq attack blazes new
frontiers in cynicism. (posted Saturday, Dec. 19)
Photograph of
President Clinton by Zoraida Diaz.
