Reader's Favorites
Media Casualties Mount

Administration Split On Europe Invasion

Administration In Crisis Over Burgeoning Quagmire

Congress Concerned About Diversion From War On Japan

Pot, Kettle On Line Two...

Allies Seize Paris

The Natural

Gore Book Sales Tank, Supporters Claim Unfair Tactics

Satan Files Lack Of Defamation Suit

Why This Blog Bores People With Space Stuff

A New Beginning

My Hit Parade
Instapundit (Glenn Reynolds)
Tim Blair
James Lileks Bleats
Virginia Postrel
Kausfiles
Winds Of Change (Joe Katzman)
Little Green Footballs (Charles Johnson)
Samizdata
Eject Eject Eject (Bill Whittle)

Space
Alan Boyle (MSNBC)
Space Politics (Jeff Foust)
Space Transport News (Clark Lindsey)
NASA Watch
NASA Space Flight
Hobby Space
A Voyage To Arcturus (Jay Manifold)
Dispatches From The Final Frontier (Michael Belfiore)
Personal Spaceflight (Jeff Foust)
Mars Blog
The Flame Trench (Florida Today)
Space Cynic
Rocket Forge (Michael Mealing)
COTS Watch (Michael Mealing)
Curmudgeon's Corner (Mark Whittington)
Selenian Boondocks
Tales of the Heliosphere
Out Of The Cradle
Space For Commerce (Brian Dunbar)
True Anomaly
Kevin Parkin
The Speculist (Phil Bowermaster)
Spacecraft (Chris Hall)
Space Pragmatism (Dan Schrimpsher)
Eternal Golden Braid (Fred Kiesche)
Carried Away (Dan Schmelzer)
Laughing Wolf (C. Blake Powers)
Chair Force Engineer (Air Force Procurement)
Spacearium
Saturn Follies
JesusPhreaks (Scott Bell)

Biting Commentary about Infinity, and Beyond!

« Yet One More Tilt At The Windmill | Main | Practicing For The Darwin Award »

Blackmail

Professor Volokh has an interesting post up about blackmail.

Which reminds me of the bad old days during the Clinton impeachment. I don't really want to rehash it, but sometimes it's useful to recast the arguments in the context of the new reality, post September 11.

Generally, those who argued for impeachment argued (correctly, in my opinion) that his unwillingness to obey laws, particularly laws that he had signed with his own pen, and indeed his apparent contempt for them, were adequate grounds to remove him from office. He had, after all, among other things, taken an oath to "faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.") Of course, being Clinton, I suppose he could lawyer his way out of it and contend (probably correctly) that he did do it to the best of his ability...

But I rarely saw another argument for his removal that is, to me, just as powerful (and would have been cause to remove several previous presidents, though not, as far as I know, the present one, or any in the late seventies and eighties).

The President is the most powerful man in the world. He ultimately controls the nuclear arsenal. He has access to the most vital secrets of the nation. Given that, it is irresponsible, even treasonous, to put himself in a position in which he can be subjected to blackmail.

Suppose that, instead of Ken Starr, Linda Tripp had given the tapes to Saddam Hussein? Or Osama bin Laden?

I don't think that this is the reason for Mr. Clinton's apparent insouciance toward the latter, but only because I don't think that Linda Tripp did that. It would otherwise not be an entirely implausible theory.

While many complained about the poor beleaguered President and how he wasn't allowed to have a "private life," (never mind that his trysts, at least with Ms. Lewinsky, occurred in the Oval Office, on company time), they ignore the fact that no one in a position of such awesome responsibility should be indulging in behavior that he's not willing to read about on the front page of the Washington Post.

While it may be that America remains fundamentally puritan at heart, and some may (indeed do and did during the imbroglio) bemoan that fact, it is not puritanical to recognize it, and to expect the leader of the nation to accommodate himself to it. If America were France, then he could perhaps have as many mistresses as he chose. And even though America isn't France, he still could--as long as he didn't try to hide it, and was willing to accept the political consequences.

But instead, he not only hid it, but he broke the law to do so. Even ignoring the actual illegality of the behavior, anyone else with the level of security clearance implied by dint of being President would have it pulled immediately if such behavior came to light.

Mr. Clinton (and the Senate) should have taken the lesson from Spiderman.

With awesome power comes awesome responsibility.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 04, 2002 11:06 AM

Comments

George Will's summation of President Clinton's character remains the most apt yet offered: He is not our worst President, but he is the worst person to have become President. The time for dispassionate evaluation of his record will not come for many years.

Posted by The Sanity Inspector at June 4, 2002 12:40 PM

The blackmail argument always struck me as quite farfetched, to be honest. Denying your trysts to those who simply wish to show you're engaging in them is different from bowing Saddam Hussein simply because he knows where you put your mini-Bubba.

Posted by Jeff Goldstein at June 4, 2002 02:37 PM

If he was willing to perjure himself, and wag his finger at us, and suborne perjury, and intimidate witnesses, all to keep the truth from coming out, how can we know what else he would or wouldn't do?

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 4, 2002 02:46 PM

We can't know. We can only guess. And my guess is that bowing to the whims of Saddam Hussein is something he wouldn't do.

I think Clinton prides himself on being able to weasel out of things his political foes try to pin on him. Call me a relativist (only please, do it gently), but I don't think this is in the same category of behavior as is hinted at in the blackmail scenario.

Posted by Jeff Goldstein at June 4, 2002 03:19 PM

I don't know why you'd guess that--I sure wouldn't.

At least I wouldn't bet my life, or my country, on it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 4, 2002 03:27 PM

I'm a sucker for a winning smile, I guess.

Posted by Jeff Goldstein at June 4, 2002 04:30 PM

Yeah, you and forty-two percent of the electorate...

I could never see the charm myself. But I have to say, he was never so convincing as when he was lying.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 4, 2002 04:48 PM

Well, I supose that's a principled position but it's also a bit unreal. Saddam and Osama would not be the best character witnesses out there and it would be easy to spin or ignore any Monica-related blackmail from them. Is it that slow of a day that Clinton bashing, which is tired, is due a slot on the page?

Posted by Andy at June 4, 2002 08:03 PM

Don't bet that it DIDN'T happen...has anyone taken a good look at the nature of our trade relationships with China during his stint in office? From specifically exempting Norinco from the assault weapons importation ban to allowing controls over tech restrictions to pass to Commerce (who wanted to give the Chinese what they wanted) from Defense (who didn't), an awful lot of decisions relating to China that don't bear public scrutiny happened specifically because Bill wanted them to.

Posted by David Paglia at June 4, 2002 08:08 PM

So they wouldn't have been believed, even with tapes?

It's never too slow a news day to continue rectify history--a vital function that is never "tired." Is it so slow an Andy day as to justify continuing to defend a reprobate?

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 4, 2002 08:12 PM

I will be the first person to admit Clinton has some serious flaws but the poisonous level that US political discourse fell to was not solely his fault. Yes Clinton lied but US Presidents have lied about more consequential matters than an intern such as Bush about Iran-Contra and no one tried to impeach or blackmail them though Weinberger et al did get pardons, hmm... I guess we will have to agree to disagree about how relevant Flytrap is to today.

Posted by Andy at June 5, 2002 12:52 AM

Perjury is a felony. The Constitution prohibits a person convicted of a felony from running for office. If committing the act before he was elected would have barred him from running, why should be be allowed to remain in office if he committed the act while in office.

And the perjury wasn't about protecting his family, it was about ducking the Paula Jones Lawsuit. What Bill did with consent to Monica, Gennifer and Miss Arkansas don't bother me nearly as much as what he did wihtout consent to Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, and Juanita Broderick, plus the illegal FBI background checks of his enemies, the S&L defrauding euphemistically referred to as Whitewater, the turning of the White House to a bed and breakfast for arms and drug dealer, the selling of guidance technology for nukes to the Chinese, allowing the Chinese to steal secrets from Los Alamos, and using the military as nothing more than a tool to distract from his scandals. This was by a wide margin the most corrupt man ever to hold the office of the President, and even without the fear of blackmail, Shame on the Press and Congressional Dems for shielding him, and shame on the Congressional GOPs for not having the courage to follow through on their convictions and get the bum out.

Posted by MarkD at June 5, 2002 07:30 AM

MarkD--

Picky, picky, picky...

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 5, 2002 08:37 AM

This is for Andy I guess. As this was progessing at the time I grew weary of the "it's only sex and sex is private. Perjury about sex is rarely, if ever prosecuted" line of defense. I wrote a letter to the editor of the Anchorage Daily News about the Clinton administration prosecution of a lady at the Idaho VA hospital the Clinton administration was prosecuting for almost identical charges. The paper refused to print it saying my sources were unreliable internet sources. My sources were Landmark Legal and Human Events, pretty reliable sources. Guess who was among the first to testify at the hearings. This is what prompted my news site.
Andy, do you think it was proper for the Clinton administration to prosecute her while at the same time defend Clinton? Andy, this lady had a law degree (as did Clinton) and was a psycologist. She is now barred from using either. Is that right?
Ann Bingaman, the Assistant Attorney General Under Janet Reno gave a speech entitled, Trends in Enforcement in which she cited a recent case for obstruction in which the defendent got 14 months incarceration for falsifying an affidavit to a federal grand jury. She stated in the same speech, "The division will seek the maximum penalty for obstruction of justice and perjury. We at the division, and I personally, believe thaat such conduct cuts at the very heart of law enforcement and we take it with the utmost seriousness."
I'd like to write more but this is running on and it's time to go to my cardio-rehab class.

Posted by tom scott at June 5, 2002 09:45 AM

Actually, she was a psychiatrist, which made it even worse to not be able to practice.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 5, 2002 09:50 AM

I was extremely sympathetic to the "he shouldn't have to testify about that" argument until someone pointed out that the law under which Clinton had to testify about "that" was a law signed by Clinton himself. After which I decided that Clinton was the only person who should have to testify about "that".

I'm afraid that while I think that I should believe that Clinton wouldn't have dropped the national interest to shield his legacy, I don't, in fact, believe it.

Posted by Jane Galt at June 5, 2002 07:04 PM

I think that it would have been better to have a less partisan pursuit of Clinton's (alleged) misdeeds with women. The claims of Paula Jones, and the rest were not well served by what happened. On the one hand it would have been better to wait until he was out of office and yet I kmow that is flawed as well. Again, I will ask about what makes the Iran-Contra affair not worthy of a comparative look?

Posted by Andy at June 5, 2002 07:07 PM

Just what is it that you think was done wrong in the Iran-Contra affair?

My take is that what the Administration did was very stupid, and against their own policy, but I'm not aware that the President perjured himself, or even lied under oath. (In fact, in light of more recent revelations, I'm not sure that Reagan even really knew what was going on--the Alzheimers may have already been starting to kick in. If anything, the 25th Amendment perhaps might have been more appropriate than impeachment). If there was any wrongdoing there, I think that it was on the part of Bush, rather than Reagan.

But the real point is that Clinton did many worse things (or had his minions do them) than the Monica deal, and many worse things than Nixon (or Reagan) ever did, or thought about doing. The difference was that the press was in his pocket, so we never got the story, or we got an extremely spun and confusing version of it (examples: the FBI files, the magical disappearing/reappearing billing records, the pillaging of Vince Foster's office, the siccing of the IRS on his political enemies, the witness intimidation of many people, the "rolling over once again" of Webb Hubbell, the sales of secrets to China by John Huang for campaign donations, etc.).

The reason that Monica got so much play was that it was the only crime that he couldn't delegate to his underlings, for obvious reasons--they finally got the goods on him. So it served as a surrogate for all of the other, much worse things that they knew he'd done, but that he'd destroyed evidence for, or paid people off, or threatened them, or whatever other means he used to keep the dogs at bay.

There were many things for which Bill Clinton should have been removed from office, even in his first term, let alone his second, but after he'd dodged all the other bullets, the people who were trying to protect the country from any more of his depradations took what they could get. But they didn't realize the degree to which he had corrupted the Democratic Party.

And no, I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Republican.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 5, 2002 07:29 PM

In the Paula Jones case Clinton perjured himself in what all his supporters would have considered, had anybody else been the defendent, a civil rights case.

I fully agree with Rand Simberg about Clinton's administration committing a vast array of corrupt and lawless acts for which Clinton ought to have been tossed out. I rather think, however, that the reason we got the "it's all about sex" line is that almost all the reporters and their editors were uninterested in anything but a sex story or too stupid to understand anything but a sex story.

Posted by Michael Lonie at June 5, 2002 09:21 PM

When I am droning on about Iran-Contra, I am not actually talking about Reagan but rather Bush as his denials of knowing anything are quite suspect. Sorry if that wasn't clear in the last one. If Monica really is the only thing Clinton could be "got" on then that could be interpreted as casting a poor light on those trying to get him and/or their tactics.

Oh and I have never been a Democrat but I have voted Liberal in several Canadian elections. :)

Posted by Andy at June 5, 2002 10:58 PM

No, what it casts light on is his ability to destroy evidence, intimidate and pay off witnesses, and get his underlings (including the Justice Department) to look the other way. One of his very first acts as President was to fire every US attorney in the country and replace them with his own people.

Some in the Justice Department have said that the only way to get to Clinton would have been to treat it as an organized crime case (using RICO, pressuring and turning witnesses, etc.) because that's exactly what it was.

I hope that we'll never again see as corrupt a man ever attain the Presidency.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 5, 2002 11:59 PM

I think we "Clinton bashers" have gotten a little weary and lazy in the last year or so, but as Rand's vigorous and clearheaded denunciation points out, it is really not possible to be too fanatical when it comes to tolerating the crimes and corruption perpetrated by this man and it is good to remind ourselves, as well as the almost impossible to bestir masses of that fact. My hope is that Clinton's reputation will be ground down into the bottom of the cesspool where it belongs, below that of Warren G Harding, to whom he has been compared (apt but unfair to Harding in my opinion). I've seen more relevant commentary in Rand's post and the responses to it than I ever have from the usual talking heads (including the girlyman Republicans). Limbaugh comes closest.

One minor quibble - have we reached the point that one cannot be a Republican (or a Democrat) to retain one's credibility? And Rand, why the hell are you not a Republican? You know, any organization that seeks to put together 50+ of the vote for anything is going to have some aholes you may not want to hang around with or agree with on everything. My advice is - get over it and stand up and be counted so long as the alternative is worse!

In any case, great post. I think DENIAL is the operative word here. Most people prefer to believe, not without reason, that this country is not a banana republic, so that when the evidence indicates we in fact were ruled by a banana dictator, we tend to pretend otherwise or dismiss the accusers as prurient, politically motivated, etc.

Posted by Lloyd Albano at June 6, 2002 11:12 AM

I made the statement to defray spurious charges of "partisanship." (It also has, as Henry Kissinger used to point out in other contexts, the virtue of being true.)

As to why not be a Republican? There are too many issues with which I disagree with them, and apparently, when it comes to big government, they seem to be Democrat lite.

But one more comment on how the pursuit of Clinton was partisan. In the Senate, Republicans voted both ways. Democrats were a solid phalanx in his defense--not a single one voted in favor of removal. So who was being partisan?

And note that it takes two parties to be partisan.

I contend that it's *more* partisan to defend a corrupt president because he's of your own party, than it is to remove him because he's a threat to the nation, regardless of his party.

When the Republicans had a criminal president, they marched up to the White House, and told him to resign. When the Dems had one (arguably worse), they defended (and continue to defend) him to the bitter end.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 6, 2002 11:29 AM


Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?