August 4, 1998

Although we agree with you 100% about American society's demanding the President's adherence and obedience to the laws that apply to the rest of us, the spin doctors' contention that an affair is not worth impeachment is convincing.

However, it is not the affair that is on trial. In fact, the Clinton-Lewinsky matter is just an appetizer, as far as we're concerned. Once this case shows up Clinton as a President who has perjured himself, prosecutors will finally be taken seriously in other matters. Whitewater will be reinvestigated, and just wait until the matter of foreign campaign contributions from Communist sources is taken seriously. Clinton will try to string this out until the end of his term.

We hate the things Clinton has done and stood for, but we fear what will happen to the economy if the President is impeached. We're sure foreign investors will back off to see what will happen, and then local investors will get scared and stocks will fall. No one will win in this situation, and one person will allow all to pay the penalties for his misdeeds. JA & KA

August 14, 1998

Thank you for your comments in the newsletter. I also suspect that impeachment proceedings will not occur. Given the current climate of legal definition versus legal definition, it does not appear as though there will be a clear mandate for the U.S. House of Representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings against President Clinton, much less for the U.S. Senate's trial, conviction, and removal of the incumbent President. Perhaps, Senator Hatch's comment that the President should simply confess and be forgiven has been taken to heart by the White House, and the President will openly admit that inappropriate sexual relations did occur.

As a graduate student and PhD candidate as well as a citizen, I am rather concerned about the polling data. I wonder whether or not voters' job performance ratings of persons holding elective office in the U.S. national government are really lagged variables--"lagged variables" in the sense that they are affected only in the long term. The people hear that the sitting President has conducted himself improperly and, when questioned about this conduct, has been dishonest and deceitful, knowingly making false statements under oath. However, the American public sees no reason to give President Clinton a low job performance rating, not until their feelings of malaise can be targeted to a specific issue area. Right now, it seems that the American public, as it perceives the situation, has nothing to be concerned about.

With the current problems in Russia and Asia and their potential effects on American national security and economic growth, I wonder if issues related to these problems and their potentially harmful effects on the USA might come to be "linked" with a lack of public trust in the incumbent President.

Once the American public links a negatitive rating of President Clinton's personal behavior to a negative outcome of his national policy leadership and initiatives, public exposure of the Predident's personal misbehavior may impact on the general public's rating of his on-the-job performance. Unless such a link actually does occur, the Clinton-Lewinsky mess might not be felt at all.

This question is of great interest to me. I am wondering if you know of any research which suggests that the public's job performance ratings of holders of high government office are really affected only in the long term--anywhere in the world. If you have any comments, I would appreciate them. SAM

EDITOR'S REPLY:

In responding to your question regarding political research, I am confining the scope of my remarks to the American political system and to American political culture and behavior, since my primary area of specialization within the field of Political Sience is American Politics and Government.

The relevant political research with which I am familiar indicates that, in American elections, longterm changes in elite and mass perceptions of politicians' performance in elective federal public office tend to be much more important in shaping (1) the realignment of the congeries of groups (interest groups, political factions, and voting blocs) regularly supporting each of the two major political parties--Democratic and Republican--and (2) the gradual shifting of the position of normal majority party from one major party to the other, due to the realignment of the groups regularly supporting each party. Typically, the contemporary majority party's defeat in a single presidential or congressional election is the consequence of immediate, temporary, shortterm shifts in popular perceptions of presidential or congressional job performance. More often than not, shortterm popular perceptions of presidential job performance are shaped by contemporary economic conditions in the USA.

Another important variable that can and has impacted on shortterm popular perceptions of presidential performance is whether the USA is, at the time, involved in a very difficult shooting war with one or more foreign powers--a long, drawn-out costly and bloody war that, according to widespread elite and mass perceptions, lacks clearcut and legitimate national objectives and is virtually impossible to win decisively, a military conflict from which it is extremely difficult to extricate ourselves with honor.

In American political history, highly publicized scandals involving a sitting president have, on occasion, resulted in the defeat of the President's party in a single federal election. For example, three major political developments during the 1970s--(1) public exposure of the 1972 Watergate burglary, carried out with the assistance and under the direction of White House aides, during the Republican Presidency of Richard M. Nixon, (2) public exposure of President Nixon's attempt to coverup his aides' involvement in the break-in, and (3) the pardon granted to Nixon by Republican President Gerald Ford, who, as Vice President, succeeded to the Office of President, after Nixon's resignation from the Office to avoid impeachment proceedings--were, no doubt, major causal factors in the defeat of President Ford in the election of 1976 and the victory of his Democratic opponent, James Earl Carter. This election outcome, however, did not prevent a resurgence of the Republican Party and its success in getting its presidential candidates elected in the next three presidential elections--Ronald Reagan in the 1980 and 1984 elections and George Bush in the 1988 election. And, of course, this series of Republican victories did not prevent the defeat of President Bush in his bid for reelection in 1992 and the election of Democratic candidate William Jefferson Clinton--and his reelection in 1996.

Conceivably, the Clinton-Lewinsky and Clinton-Paula Jones scandals could have an adverse impact on the Democratic Party in the coming November, 1998, congressional elections and in the presidential and congressional elections of the year 2000. The scandals could have the result of decisive Republican victories in the congressional elections of 1998 and 2000--victories which could increase Republican strength in the two houses of Congress. The scandals could result in defeat of the Democratic presidential candidate in the election of 2000 and the return of the White House to Republican control. But don't make book on it. Currently, the public opinion polls do not indicate impending electoral disaster for the Democrats. Al Way

August 15, 1998

Your commentary was very informative. However, I feel you are missing the big picture, which is not the sex scandal, as the Socialists ("Liberals") would have us believe.

The big picture is also about murder. I don't believe for a second that Vince Foster committed suicide. Moreover, the cause of Ron Brown's death is not as cut and dried as one might think.

Even deeper than all of this is some really sinister actions in Arkansas that you probably will not allow yourself to imagine. DDF

EDITOR'S REPLY:

By no means do I see the Clinton sex scandal as the "big picture." My position is that the central and, by far, most significant issue in the Clinton-Lewinsky matter is a legal issue: Did or did not President Clinton, in fact, violate the law? It is also my position that this central issue raises a much broader, fundamental legal and constitutional issue: Should the President be made to obey the law? Should we insist that the President observe and abide by the laws which apply to everyone else in American society, or is he to be considered above the law and allowed to operate outside the law, free from the restraints and controls that the law imposes on the behavior of other individuals subject to USA jurisdiction?

I don't know about reopening the investigations into the deaths of Vince Foster and Ron Brown, but I do believe that the matter of laundered campaign contributions from foreign sources not particularly solicitous of or accomodating to American national security concerns is quite important and warrants serious consideration and thorough examination. Al Way

August 15, 1998

Our family really enjoys your newsletter. We like the nonpartisan way in which you explain the news. This, in turn, allows us to make our own judgements, based on unbiased information. Thank you for taking the time to put it all together and sharing it with us! DB

August 16, 1998

I enjoy receiving your newsletter.

I am convinced that, if the economy is perceived as being healthy by the American public, and if the nation thinks that times are good (economically), the President could sell videos of his "inappropriate" behavior in the White House and people wouldn't care a whole lot.

You are right. We have become numb to deceit in high places. There must be a lot of people out there who have done or are doing the same things Clinton is doing and to whom, therefore, the President's misconduct is no big deal.

For many years, I lived in South America. Culturally speaking, things are perceived differently in South America--differently than things traditionally have been perceived in the USA. In some Latin American cultures, Clinton is somewhat of a hero. He is seen as a hero because he is doing something that men do every day--cheat on their wives. The fact that Clinton seems to be temporarily getting away with it enhances his position as macho man.

I believe that this kind of attitude has been taking hold and growing in some segments of our society. JMC

August 17, 1998

I enjoy reading Way's Commentary. I hope you will continue to comment on the issues of the day. It is refreshing to have someone with your background share his obversations. Please keep me on your email list, and please continue with Way's Commentary. BQ

August 17, 1998

Good to hear from you. Thanks for the thoughtful reflections. Keep 'em coming. WK

August 20, 1998

Not for the purpose of starting an argument but rather from my desire, as a "Dirt Lawyer" (real-property lawyer), to be educated in the unfamiliar field of criminal law, could you please explain why knowingly making false statements (for the sake of abbreviation, call 'em "lies") under oath is NOT a criminal offense?

Apparently, there is some sort of legal distinction being drawn between lying under oath in a civil proceeding and lying under oath in a criminal proceeding. Could you please explain any difference between the criminal consequence of one versus the other? I'd really like to know the argument. RTR

EDITOR'S REPLY:

In the opinion of some lawyers, the President's commission of perjury in a civil case, especially one that was dismissed for lack of evidence (e.g., the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit), is not an offense warranting impeachment proceedings in the U.S. House of Representatives. Currently, this school of legal opinion and argumentation is being utilized by lawyers defending President Clinton and seeking to derail the impeachment process. Personally, I am not persuaded by their argument. According to my understanding of the law, perjury--knowlingly making false statements under oath--is a crime, whether it is done in a civil case or in a criminal case. Perjury is perjury. Lying under oath is lying under oath. It is a violation of the law and, hence, a crime. The question of whether the act of perjury was committed in a civil or criminal case is irrelevant. In either type of case, the act of perjury is a serious crime--a felony and, in my opinion, an offense that rises to the level of an impeachable "high crime" under Article II, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution. Al Way

August 20, 1998

This is in reference to Section A of Way's Commentary, Volume I, Issue # 2, Main Topic: The President, the Law, and Impeachment.

One of your legal themes seems to be that, if a majority of the voting members of the U.S. House of Representatives (assuming a quorum) concludes that there is, in the view of those members, sufficient evidence of the President's having committed one or more impeachable offenses, then those members will vote to impeach.

My reading of the U.S. Constitution, however, is that the House only may vote to impeach in such a context. In other words, I maintain that there is nothing obligatory or inevitable about an affirmative vote to impeach, regardless of the nature or weight of the evidence, as perceived by the members of the House. Just as ordinary prosecutors might choose not to prosecute individuals whom they have strong reason to believe would be found guilty after trial, and just as an ordinary grand jury might similarly decline to return indictments for reasons not related to suspects' seemingly illegal behavior, so also might the House of Representatives decline to vote to impeach the President. The only thing that is inevitable in the larger impeachment process is the removal of the President from office, in the event that the U.S. Senate votes to convict.

Thus, as observers, we must closely consider apparent public opinion on the matter of President Clinton's various acts of misconduct--fudging on his marital vows, fudging in a deposition relating to an investigation pertaining to his fudging on his marital vows, fudging to the public and to his staff on a matter pertaining to his fudging on his marital vows, and possibly pressuring others to fudge in legal proceedings pertaining to his recent fudging on his marital vows. The eventual weight of that public opinion will likely determine what the members of the House of Representatives decide to do about what they eventually conclude Clinton did in one or another context.

I rather suspect that the sum of dominant public opinion on all of those matters will be something like this: "Yeah, he cheated on his wife and his kid. Yeah, he was wrong in doing so. Yeah, he lied about it. Yeah, he was wrong in doing so, but almost everybody who sneaks around could be expected to lie about sneaking around. Yeah, that was basically a private matter between him and his family that didn't affect the government or the general public interest. Now, let's to Wal-Mart." In other words, I suspect that the American public's judgements on the moral matters will likely be negative, but tolerant--perhaps, a function of diminished expectations--and will predominate over the public's judgements on the dimly perceived and hardly understood legal principles.

Again, I suspect that voting majorities in Congress, at this relatively late point in the 1998 election cycle, will fall in line with the public's estimations. Indeed, the Republicans would be much better served, in partisan terms, by the continued presence of a permanently damaged Clinton in the White House than by the presence of a President Straight-Arrow Gore. ("So, maybe Gore used a Vice Presidential office telephone to raise campaign money for his friends. Big deal. Them guys in Congress sell their votes to raise money!") DSC

August 21, 1998

I find your argument interesting. I would like you to consider the following: If all individuals in this nation are supposed to obey the law, then why are we only interested in the alleged transgressions of the current occupant of the White House and his second in the Old Executive Building?

As Bob Dole once asked, "Where's the outrage?" This question could be asked about many situations other than those involving the alleged misconduct of the incumbent President and Vice President.

The question could be asked about Ralph Reed and the Christian Coalition's blatant misuse of its nonprofit charitable status for pro-Republican political activity during the 1994 congressional election campaign and the misinformation it spread only about Democratic candidates' issue positions. According to Larry J. Sabato in Dirty Little Secrets, the Christian Coalition disseminated its misinformation through "voter guides" distributed through a network of churches two days before the election.

In addition, it should be pointed out that, again according to Sabato, the current Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives paid a $300,000 cost for the investigation into his violations of the Ethics Law and is currently under investigation by the Internal Revenue Service for allegedly misusing GOPAC's tax status.

It should also be noted that the first person to end up under criminal sanction in the 1996 presidential election campaign was a Dole fundraiser named Simon Fireman. Based on this evidence (at least as much as there was against the Clintons, as regards their involvement in the Whitewater scandal), a special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate the 1996 Dole campaign.

Regarding criminal fundraising activity, it might interest you to know that, last year, the 1988 Robertson campaign paid what I believe to be the largest fine for violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) since that statute has been in force.

In addition, you might look at the way in which reporters attached to the President's traveling party have managed to avoid paying import duties when they bring dutiable merchandize back from abroad.

My point here is that the law should be enforced equally and that, if one individual should be held accountable with criminal sanctions, so should all individual members of American society.

As for the biggest threat to the Republic, I think you might find more of that from groups unwilling to accept the fact that the voting public twice elected President a man whom the groups opposed. These groups have been making a mighty effort to undo the results of the 1992 and 1996 presidential elections. For an example of this, take a look at the activities of one David Bossie, as outlined in James Stewart's Bloodsport. In addition, I would direct you to Theodore Lowi's The End of the Republican Era, which gives a far more erudite description of this point than I am capable of providing.

If the current President broke the law, he should be punished, but so should every other violator of law currently holding public office or working in public affairs, regarless of his or her locale, position, or party affiliation. KC

August 21, 1998

"Ours is a government of laws, not of men." Who said that, or a paraphrase of it? Cheers! FD

EDITOR'S REPLY:

In The Commonwealth of Oceana (1656), James Harrington, a 17th.-century English political philosopher and advocate of constitutional republicanism, defined a "commonwealth" (i.e., a constitutional republic) as "an empire of laws, and not of men." A paraphase of this defini- tion--"government of law and not of men"--was included in the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, which was, for the most part, the handiwork of John Adams. Hence, Adams may have been the first American notable to describe American government in terms of the enduring political ideal which Harrington supplied to Anglophones in general and to Americans in particular. Al Way

August 22, 1998

Like everyone else, I'm tired of the Clinton sex scaldal. Public exposure of this mess is going nowhere. In fact, I think the spin merchants are keeping the controversy going to keep more important matters from the public.

The fact that the investigation is going nowhere seems to be indicated by the public opinion polls saying "NO" to impeachment or resignation.

However, I believe the "NO" has another meaning as well--like consideration of these questions: Should we get Billy out and Al ("I didn't know it was a fundraiser") Gore in? Should we exchange one liar for another?

The American voters are not fools. We know we're better off with a weakened Bill Clinton in the Office of President for the next two years, rather than Al Gore for the next ten years.

We should be doing all we can to get Ms. Reno to push the investigation of the 1996 Democratic National Committee's fundraising, especially Gore's part in it. I believe this is much bigger and far more important than Bill Clinton's sexual antics. SR

January 7, 1999

The following is a letter that I recently sent to Virginia's two U.S Senators, Charles S. Robb (D) and John W. Warner.

It is unthinkable that any poll of uninterested, uninformed, ignorant public opinion should govern the outcome of the Senate impeachment trial of President Clinton. Never in our history has there been such an assault on government by law, our only hope for justice, which is the foundation of our freedom.

Senators, do your duty. Party interests must fall behind our country's integrity. EHL