RE: THE PRESIDENT, THE LAW, AND IMPEACHMENT (Continued)

April 11, 1998

Your question and comments beg the obvious answer. All of your comments are based on the first phrase of the seventh paragraph of your discourse: "If the allegations are true...." The obvious answer is that the President should be held accountable for any illegal behavior on his part. That's obvious to every Professor of Social Science and every mill worker drinking beer in a bar after shift change.

Your scenarios took that phrase and turned it into a condemnation of the President, as though he had, in deed and fact, broken the law. The real fact is that Mr. Starr can't even convince the Republican Party that Mr. Clinton has broken the law. Thus, the entire conversation is wishful thinking on your part as well as on Mr. Starr's part.

According to Mr. Starr's interpretation of the public opinion polls, the American citizenry tolerates the President's indiscretions, as opposed to his alleged illegal behavior. I don't think the polls say that at all. I interpret the polls to mean that the American public does not condone indiscretions on the part of the President any more than most men and women tolerate indiscretions on the part of their respective spouses. The polls also indicate that the American public does not support the use of presidential indiscretions to make political book.

It is a fact of life that each and every one of us occasionally makes mistakes and fouls up. Such occasional blunders, due to human error, usually do not present a major problem. A blunder in an individual public officeholder's personal life presents a major problem only when others over-react to the situation. It is the over-reaction to the Clinton-Lewinsky indiscretion that turns off the American public. If Mr. Starr had not over-reacted, the matter would have been handled by the Clinton family the way it should have been handled.

It is also a fact that Mr. Starr was never able to link the Clinton family to any illegal Whitewater activities. So, he has now gone chasing Mr. Clinton's skirts. That's the moral equivalent of the Wall Street Journal buying and publishing the National Inquirer.

Mr. Starr is the moral and possibly legal problem right now. His name will be listed right after Senator Joseph McCarthy's in the history book of how not to do things the American way. GW

April 12, 1998

Interesting newsletter. I'd like to keep receiving it.

I graduated from Furman University in 1979 and am currently a law student at George Mason University in Arlington, Virginia. EM

April 12, 1998

I found your newsletter commentary regarding the Clinton-Lewinsky debacle very interesting. I concur with much of your analysis.

Still, the President's "executive privilege" remains. Those who are legally responsible for upholding and enforcing the law cannot, with honesty and in good concience, unreasonably differentiate, or discriminate, in their application of the law to individual persons within our society. However, the law confers upon the President benefits and advantages that are denied to the general citizenry, e.g., Camp David and Air Force One. I don't think these extras are unfair, considering what the presidential vocation entails.

Since I've broached the executive privilege, let's get into the Big W (Watergate). If President Nixon ordered a taping system to be installed and if that system were installed in his office, then why is it so preposterous to contend that those tapes fall into his executive domain and hence privilege? MK

April 13, 1998

It strikes me that there is a significant question that your analysis overlooks. Of course, the President has to obey the law. In that respect, he is just like any other citizen of our society. But there is, to my mind, a fundamental issue of morality: Is anyone required to answer honestly and truthfully a question that should not have been asked?

Here's the issue, as I see it. Like the rest of us, politicians holding high government office have private lives. Exactly where the line between private and public lies is, of course, a matter of some public dispute, but a line there must be. When the line is crossed by asking questions about bedroom behavior--questions that should not be asked--the questioner who has violated that norm forfeits his or her claim to an honest and truthful answer. After all, why should the first person to cross the line by asking such inappropriate questions expect the respondant to play by the rules the questioner has violated? Thus, the larger question is not whether a politician holding public office lives under the rule of law; that's a given. Rather, the question is the rule with respect to personal, private conduct that has no obvious impact on the way in which an officeholding politician undertakes his or her job.

This isn't just about Clinton. It's a contest over where we draw the line. Absent something like physical or emotional abuse, I, for one, want to keep bedroom behavior outside public scrutiny. Few of us have lived lives sufficiently righteous that we could stand the beacon of total public scrutiny. TB

EDITOR'S REPLY:

In your defense of the individual's right to privacy, you make some very strong points about a matter of fundamental significance in our ongoing endeavor to preserve liberty under law in the USA.

However, you appear to be advocating a major change in the law--a change that would give the individual person the legal and constitutional right to lie under oath, the right to knowingly and deliberately make false statements under oath when asked questions he or she deems to be inappropriate intrusions into one's personal and private life. Such a change in the law would allow each person questioned under oath to be the judge what is and what is not an appropriate question and to act on the basis of his or her own judgement in giving an answer to the question. The individual questioned would define what is and what is not perjury.

With such an alteration in the law, what would happen to our legal/judicial system and the rule of law? There would be no legal means of getting the truth out of uncooperative, hostile witnesses in criminal investigations and in civil as well as criminal cases in court. Not only would the criminal justice system be destroyed, but due process of law would be denied to persons pursuing civil lawsuits to obtain relief from the adverse effects of the actions of others--relief from the harmful results of arbitrary actions on the part of government and predatory actions on the part of private individuals, firms, and groups. Al Way

April 15, 1998

Thank you for the enlightening message on American constitutional law, as it pertains to the President. I enjoy reading commentary on constitutional issues.

For some time, I have been beside myself over recent interpretations of our beloved Constitution.

Please include me on the list to receive future issues of your newsletter. MM

April 16, 1998

I find the whole furor over the Clinton-Lewinsky relationship a brazen and downright abominable intrusion into a private and personal matter--a matter which has been brought to fore by what seems to be an illegal wiretap. If the news releases are to be believed, the frightening aspect of the controversy is invasion of a young girl's privacy as well as the emotional involvement of her mother. Also, the ongoing Paula Jones accusations seem to make that woman an emotional victim of some eager "backers." Years ago, I felt much the same sympathy for A. Hill, fighting a losing battle.

The scenarios that you present are most distressing, especially the comparison of our incumbent President with Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, and Dictators, Inc. I still believe in the efficacy of the American judicial system, but I wonder how the law could pursue the actions of our citizens who commit adultery, genocide, and other morally offensive actions.

The Starr investigations into Whitewater are another matter. However, all the speculations and the ongoing leaks from all sides are discouraging and seem to muddy and diminish that whole series of murky investigations. WCL

EDITOR'S REPLY:

The scenario to which you refer in the second paragraph of your letter was presented by a reader in the form of a question. In response to her question, I used the scenario as the starting point for describing the degree of moral decay and social disintegration which I believe would have to exist within the USA before the American voters would knowingly elect a convicted and incarcerated criminal President of the United States. I admitted that the events and developments contained in the scenario were farfetched and, fortunately, most unlikely to materialize. My reference to emergence of a homegrown Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin, Fidel Castro, or Saddam Hussein was not intended to imply that the personality, behavior, and philosophical orientation of our incumbent President resemble those of any foreign tyrant--past or present. Al Way

May 11, 1998

After a casual reading of your commentary, I have a question for you: Are you a Republican, a Democrat, or an Independent? BS

EDITOR'S REPLY:

I identify as a Republican, but try to avoid being rigidly and dogmatically partisan.

Politically, I am an American first, a Progressive Conservative second, and a Republican third.

In actively participating in the political process and dealing with issues of national public policy, our primary consideration, as Americans, should be the national interests and general welfare of the USA. The general interests of the entire American nation-state and its population should take precedence over the particular interests, or special interests , of particular individuals and groups within American society, including partisan political interests--i.e., the particular interests of particular political parties and factions.

Ideally and in principle, this is how we should conduct ourselves in the political arena. In reality, however, this high principle (or standard) of political conduct, more often than not, is observed in the breach. Being merely human and lacking the qualities of divine omniscience, complete selflessness and total altruism, we often lose sight of and violate the principles we value so highly. In politics, as in all other kinds of human relations, there is always present the problem of basic human nature--called "original sin in traditional Christian theology. As imperfect, mortal human beings, we are all sinful--"sinful" in the sense of being weak and highly susceptible to temptation. Each of us is inclined to fall into temptation and read his or her own particular interests into one's conception of what is in the general interest of the whole society, or community. The individual is tempted to perceive his or her own self-interest as being a vital and essential part of the general interest.

Some of this is done through artful demagoguery, deliberate deceit and trickery, and conscious dissemination of persuasive but deceptive propaganda. Most of it, however, is done unconsciously, without the participants realizing what is happening. Their ideological predilections and other biases convince them that they are taking action to promote the general interest, rather than their own particular interests. Instead of seeing themselves as being self-interested, partisan activists, they perceive of themselves as being civic-minded, public-spirited citizens working for the common good of society.

If you tried to explain to a political or other activist the true nature of his or her motives, he or she would instantly go into a state of shock and denial. You would have hurt the person's feelings, wounding him or her to the quick. You would have probed the deeper layers of the human psyche, getting the person extremely upset. He or she would not believe you, and from then on, would probably categorize you as a genuinely obnoxious pain in the neck.

The Psychology books and professors tell us that each and every person is considerably less objective and rational when examination, analysis, and discussion pertain to his or her own personality, motives, and behavior. One tends to be much more objective and rational when the focus of personality, motivational, and behavioral analysis is upon others.

Hence, each of our two major political parties, made up of large numbers of imperfect, tempting individual human beings and groups (factions) of imperfect, tempting individual human beings, is a reflection of the frailties as well as strengths of its membership. Each party, like any other human organization, has its blind spots as well as its keen insights. Al Way

May 12, 1998

I enjoyed reading the commentary on the President and the law. I appreciate the newsletter and would like to continue reading your comments and those of your readers. BW

May 12, 1998

Your newsletter was quite thought provoking and your opinions, at least on the issue of the President and the law, seem to be very similar to my own.

I am encouraged to hear from another voice of reason and advocate of personal responsibility and accountability for all citizens of this great nation we love.

Thanks for adding me to your list. I look forward to receiving your future communications and reading your commentaries. ELE

May 14, 1998

As interesting as is the discussion about whether the President must obey the law, the crucial word in your discussion is the word "alledged." President Clinton has been alleged to have violated the law. In fact, there has been no proof that the allegation is true.

Unless being elected to the Office of President means that one foregoes the rights of citizenship, the President is innocent until he is, by whatever legal means, proven to be guilty.

Thus, most of this discussion is pure scholasticism, perhaps fun from a logical standpoint, but, thus far, having no grounds in legal fact. SM

May 15, 1998

Your commentary is quite predictable. We have here not a constitutional issue, but rather a campaign of the disgruntled to remove the duly elected incumbent President of these United States. The real issue is whether the President can and should be subjected to this nonsense. If so, God help the rest of us when a well financed bunch of ideological sore losers go to battle.

There are some who are determined to stiff the Democratic Party by stifling or getting rid of President Clinton or waging an interference campaign, until George Bush or Ronald Reagan can be reinstated as President for life, regardless of election outcomes.

After all, what has President Clinton done that is so terrible and criminal? Given the worst case, how many men do you know who have been this seriously prosecuted and persecuted for telling their alleged girl-friends, playmates, mistresses, or whatever, "We can't tell anyone about this." Get real! JH

May 17, 1998

Thanks for sending the newsletter. I found your comments very interesting and thought provoking.

I have just been elected Chairman of the Republican Party in my county and, of course, want to stay well informed.

I cannot believe the current "State of the Union." I can't believe that a pot smoking draft dodger was elected President in the first place, much less reelected when everyone knew more about his questionable past. Can you remember careers on the U.S. Supreme Court being forfeited because of commission of such lowly crimes as smoking pot and plagarism on a college paper?

I'm still hot about Clarence Thomas' appointment to the Supreme Court. I thought he should have been subjected to a much greater degree of scrutiny and that his appointment should have been aborted when things became murky. Surely, he wasn't the only person to satisfy the "Equal Opportunity" needs of the nation's highest court!

Keep up the good work! SK

May 22, 1998

I haven't had a chance to fully digest the commentary in your newsletter, but I did go to the end of the newsletter and look at your favorite mottoes. Based on those mottoes, I believe I will enjoy your publication. I appreciate my inclusion on your mailing list. If all goes well, as I believe it will, I will selectively refer other names.

I am still a Quail fan.

My favorite saying: "All Christian doctrines canot be proved by reason, but every argument against them can be disproved by reason." DAB

May22, 1998

This is in regard to Scenario Two: "An escaped convict somehow gets elected to the Office of President. Sometime after he is inaugurated and assumes the Office, it becomes public knowledge that our incumbent President is a convicted criminal and prison escapee--a fugitive from justice."

It is an interesting scenario, but let's face it. If the officials responsible for losing the convict didn't notice and recognize him/her on the TV news, in the newspapers, and on campaign signs and posters for at least four months before the election, and if not a single one of his/her opponents were able the presidential candidates personal history and prison record, then there would have to be a whole lot of slow-witted people around. The whole scenario is just unbelievable. SDC

EDITOR'S REPLY:

"The whole scenario is just unbelievable." Essentially that's what I said in my commentary. A reader presented the scenario in the form of a question, and I responded to the question. Al Way

May 23, 1998

Well said and very impressive. Thank you for the newsletter. I'll spend hours re-reading and thinking deeply about it. RCR

June 8, 1998

Firstly, the President should obey the law, but so should Kenneth Starr. The focus should be on the issue and not on pursuing a witch hunt. Four years and 35 million of the taxpayers' dollars are excessive and defy good common sense.

Secondly, members of Congress have found it enjoyable to exclude themselves from laws that they enact for other citizens. TP

June 9, 1998

I think speaking out about an issue is one thing, but I firmly believe that there's something very dangerous about being sucked down into the mire of hearsay and gossip of this world's social and political dungheap. The words of Christ keep resounding in my mind: "Be in this world, but not of this world." Be careful, my friend. Be very careful. GW