ShareThis Page
Paul Kengor: Impeaching a president: 20 years ago (and today) |
Paul Kengor

Paul Kengor: Impeaching a president: 20 years ago (and today)

Paul Kengor
| Thursday, December 27, 2018 7:03 p.m
FILE - In this Nov. 8, 2016, file photo, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, and her husband former President Bill Clinton, greet supporters after voting in Chappaqua, N.Y. The Clintons announced Monday, Oct. 8, 2018, they will visit four cities in 2018 and nine in 2019 across North America in a series of conversations dubbed “An Evening with President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.' (AP Photo/Seth Wenig, File)

Twenty years ago, America experienced the impeachment of a president.

The vote occurred Dec. 19,
1998, with two articles approved by the House of Representatives, on the grounds that President Bill Clinton lied to a grand jury and obstructed justice.

The Senate trial began
Jan. 7, 1999. A two-thirds vote was required to remove Clinton from office. It wasn’t even close, as not a single Democrat voted for removal.

How did it come about? What lessons can we learn
today, especially as members of the incoming Democrat-
controlled House look
to impeach Donald Trump?

The path to Clinton’s impeachment began Jan. 17, 1998, with Clinton giving a six-hour, sworn deposition denying a “sexual relationship” with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Among the curiosities was his striking amnesia over seven women listed as various Jane Does. All were women that Clinton, retroactive Father of the #MeToo movement, employed as sexual playthings — usually on company time. The deposition included complex discourses over what the master of the parsed word considered “sexual relations.”

What Clinton told Judge Susan Webber Wright was a rehearsal of what he soon tried to shovel to a larger audience.

That came to pass when, on Jan. 26, speaking in the Roosevelt Room at the White House, Clinton doubled down. Standing between his wife and vice president, joining him in announcing their new after-school initiative, Clinton looked at the press and glared: “I want you to listen to me. … I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time — never. These allegations are false.”

With that, Clinton stomped away. His performance was impressive, calling to mind a trenchant assessment by fellow Democrat, Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey: “Clinton’s an unusually good liar. Unusually good.”

Clinton would be forced to fess up only when it was later learned that that woman, Lewinsky, had a blue dress with stains on it — the distinctive DNA of William Jefferson Clinton.

Bill was busted. As liberal pundit Chris Matthews put it, he “didn’t decide to tell the truth, he got caught.”

Lewinsky would later tell all. She now concedes that her 50-something boss had engaged in a “gross abuse of power.” What sort?

There were 18 months of gifts and at least a half-dozen sexual encounters between Clinton and Lewinsky, one with him maneuvering a cigar. They occurred between Nov. 15, 1995, and March 29, 1997, the peak of Clinton’s re-election campaign. The first took place the day Clinton signed a “Family Week” proclamation. One of the most infamous, while the president was on the phone with a congressman, occurred Easter Sunday 1996, after he returned from church.

What to make of the whole sordid mess?

The most respected voice in the impeachment proceedings was Congressman Henry Hyde. “It’s not a question of sex,” said Hyde in his historic floor speech. “It’s a question of lying under oath. The issue is perjury … obstruction of justice.”

Actually, it was all those things. Clinton had a sexual problem as well as a legal problem.

Nonetheless, when it comes to impeachment, the terms are subjective, and easily succumb to partisan lines. That was precisely what happened in this case 20 years ago. And, it is likely to happen again with President Trump.

Paul Kengor is professor of political science and executive director
of The Center for Vision & Values
at Grove City College. His column
appears twice a month.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.