wenty-six years ago a pair of Washington Post reporters unraveled a ball of political deceit that would eventually cause the president of the United States to resign.
Earlier this month, four years after being hired to investigate a land deal in Arkansas, independent counsel Kenneth Starr was able to prove in horrifying detail (not to mention taxpayer expense) that two adults who live in the District of Columbia repeatedly had consensual sexual relations, and didn't feel the need to tell us.
Despite the best efforts from members of the crowded Washington media circus, poll after poll is showing the general public is not having as much difficulty as the reporters are differentiating between the two scandals.
I will be the first to admit Bill Clinton is no choir boy. He has had repeated extramarital affairs. And while I don't think anyone would deny he has been less than forthcoming during depositions in the Paula Jones and Ken Starr investigations, I doubt his team of lawyers would allow him to be caught by a perjury charge. The testimony I have seen tells me he has gone over previous testimony with a fine tooth comb to get to the point where it has become technically accurate.
Accuracy need not be sweeping in a court of law. The entire burden rests in correctly answering questions. If answers are left slight enough to allow for multiple interpretations, that would be seen as bang-up lawyering in any other case. For Clinton it is deceit. I don't think people should be shocked that slick lawyers use small technicalities to help their clients beat charges. When it comes to picking lawyers, the old adage is, "Honest lawyers look good in phone books, but slimy lawyers win."
While legally I believe he has his bases covered, I do believe Clinton has misled the people who put him in office. In fact, on Jan. 17, 1998, he lied to anyone who found themselves near a television.
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman ... Ms. Lewinsky," the president said with a stone-faced demeanor.
My mother tried her best to drill the need for honesty into my head repeatedly as a child. She also taught me that when I make a mistake, it is important to apologize.
When people say they worry about the message Clinton is providing to children when they see him lie, I am led to another question. What would happen if a person who is man enough to repeatedly apologize for seemingly minor missteps is run out of office anyway?
It appears to me Bill Clinton is not being run out of office because he is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, the standard for impeachment as described by the Constitution. He is being chased out of Washington because there are too many reporters tripping over themselves for the day's hot story.
With the advent of the Internet and a plethora of 24-hour news channels, every crackpot with a computer or a journalism degree is being admitted to the sacred ground once trodden by the likes of Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. The scary side show to this shift is that journalistic standards have been tossed out the window as too many reporters fight for too few juicy stories.
While Richard Nixon was chased out of office by reporters armed with the factually based allegations of misdeeds, Bill Clinton has been pushed to the edge of impeachment by a media circus drunk in its pursuit of the next scandal.
