Nicholas Johnson (NJ): Good morning.
[Responding to a question from Kim Hill regarding the likelihood and propriety of President Clinton actually being impeached:] It’s seldom, as a former FCC Commissioner, that I agree with lawyers for CBS, but on this occasion I do [a reference to Andrew Cohen’s previous remarks].
The other question is not only whether or not he [President Bill Clinton] committed perjury, but if he committed perjury with regard to a sexual relationship whether that qualifies as "high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Clearly it’s not "Treason" or "Bribery" [the other reasons mentioned in Article II, Section 4]. The impeachment process was really set up to protect the nation in the event that a President really went crazy in terms of the national interest.
There is a lot of suspicion here that the primary driving force behind this [criticism of President Clinton] from beginning to end has been a group of, primarily, right-wing folk who did not really accept the outcome of the election. They were trying to get rid of him -- and long before Monica Lewinsky ever showed up at the White House -- with a sort of drum beat of anti-Clinton talk show material, scurrilous videotapes [other than his grand jury testimony], and every other thing at their command.
Which is not to say that Clinton is a paragon of virtue. I think he behaved in a stupid fashion and put his Presidency at risk. I think what he did was immoral. I’m not making the case for Clinton.
But I do think that what we’re undergoing in this country right now is much more political than it is a matter of legal or constitutional principle.
It’s rather amusing as a sidebar that some of the very members of Congress who passed a Communications Decency Act (which was fortunately found to be unconstitutional) with regard to what can go out on the Internet, violated its own standards with its rush to put the Starr Report out on the Internet.
And the big question is why, now, with regard to all of this material -- even if ever. But why does it need to be done today, before the impeachment process begins? The answer quite clearly is because Congress, and those who are anti-Clinton, are trying to turn around public opinion before the impeachment process begins.
Will it work in the Republicans’ favor -- or will it just generate an enormous backlash on the part of that nearly two-thirds of the American people who, whatever they may think of Bill Clinton personally, think he’s doing a good job as President? They may feel that the Republicans are just totally out of control on this. That may turn it around a little bit.
Whether they [the Republicans] have the nerve actually to follow this thing through to the end, to an impeachment, I would hope to be able to doubt. Even though they deny that they are now willing to go for a censure, I think that may in fact be where they end up simply because they can’t go further with it.
But their obvious motive, it seems to me, is to drag this on as long as possible. As Andrew has said, they don’t want to be running against [Vice President Al] Gore as the incumbent President. So they really have little to gain from anything other than continuing to abuse Clinton for the next two years. But if Gore does get in, they also have the potential of going after him with an investigation with regard to some campaign finance issues. So I think its going to continue to be very mean-spirited, non-productive government and politics the next two years regardless of the way this plays out.
There are a couple of other things I might simply observe.
One is that a lot of Democrats have complained all along that Clinton is in fact so far to the right as to be a Republican. They tell a kind of joke: "Wouldn’t it be nice to have a Democrat in the White House?" So why the conservatives are upset with him is sort of a mystery.
A second thing I would say is it’s important to understand that in this country, as in many countries, there is often a difference -- one that sometimes changes over time -- between public opinion out in the heartland (where I am at the moment, in Iowa City, Iowa), and where Andrew is -- and where I used to live -- in Washington D.C. We call it "inside the Beltway," a highway that goes around Washington. Those who are opinion leaders, who work in the media, a sort of elite in that sense, have a very different view of all these matters than the country at large.
This was also true during the Watergate matter. The Washington Post and New York Times were covering the story but it had scarcely made it to the heartland or western part of the country. So it remains to be seen the extent to which the Washington elite will be able to sway public opinion as they continue with their talk show punditry.