We’ve Heard It Before

It has been a year now since Americans first heard of Monica S. Lewinsky and allegations of her sexual relationship with President Clinton, an affair that would launch the political drama now approaching its final act in the impeachment trial before the Senate.

Is there anything to say that has not already been said, over and over, about the facts and issues underlying this trial? One of the House managers of the case against Clinton, F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.), promised before his formal opening statement Thursday that--”if only people will listen”--he would present a convincing case that Clinton lied to a grand jury and obstructed justice as he tried to cover up his wrongdoing. We listened carefully to Sensenbrenner’s speech. It was strong, passionate, well-constructed. But if it added any significant new facts about what Clinton is accused of doing or offered any compelling new arguments that his actions merit the loss of his presidency, we did not hear them.

Rhetorical embellishments aside, the case against Clinton remains essentially what it has been since special counsel Kenneth W. Starr made his House report and the Judiciary Committee, relying on that report, approved two articles of impeachment. The essence of one of those articles, alleging perjury in grand jury testimony, seems virtually indisputable, though the evidence for obstruction of justice is far less so. The question, now as from the first moment the impeachment issue was raised, is whether the lies Clinton told truly constitute an impeachable offense.

Sensenbrenner argued that “perjury is the twin brother of bribery,” and since bribery is among the high crimes cited in the Constitution’s impeachment clause, then Clinton’s lying is an impeachable offense, regardless of the context in which it occurred. We are among those who don’t accept that conclusion.

Perjury in a civil case, something that is especially deplorable when committed by a public official, simply does not rise to the level of a crime against the state, which is what the impeachment of a president should be about.

Clinton’s lawyers can be expected to present a strong legal defense when they speak next week. But there is nothing they or anyone else can say that will mitigate his moral failures. The one fact everyone can agree on is that Clinton has behaved abominably throughout this squalid business, and his acquittal by the Senate, if it comes, will neither rescue his reputation nor lighten the harm he has done to his presidency. We knew that last year. We know it now. And yet the repetitive arguments in Washington go on.