Editorials
Saturday, September 12, 1998

Nation faces months of
impeachment ordeal

KENNETH Starr's submission of the report of his four-year investigation of President Clinton claiming 11 grounds for impeachment stemming from his sexual encounters with a White House intern has launched the nation on a course that cannot help but reach an unhappy conclusion.

A quarter century ago Americans were subjected to the humiliation of Richard Nixon in the Watergate scandal. It ended in his resignation with the prospect of being found guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors" under the impeachment process -- but only after putting the nation through months of conflict.

Only a sadist who experienced that ordeal would welcome what lies ahead for Bill Clinton and the entire country.

This is not to say that Clinton's alleged crimes are comparable to Nixon's or indeed that he is guilty. But the process of determining whether he should be impeached threatens to be equally painful and destructive.

Now that the report has been delivered, it is the unavoidable duty of Congress to deal with it, and the members are anything but eager to do so. The Republican majority is afraid that it will be perceived as persecuting a popular president -- although that popularity may soon evaporate. The Democrats are reluctant to defend a president who, by his own grudging admission, has disgraced himself. In fact, some of the most prominent Democrats in Congress have denounced him.

Clinton has destroyed his credibility by his shameless lies about the Monica Lewinsky affair. His admissions of outrageous conduct came only when his back was to the wall, when it was clear that his lies would be exposed. Under these circumstances it will be difficult for the White House to overcome the presumption that Clinton is still lying in his denials of the independent counsel's charges of perjury, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, and abuse of presidential powers.

Some believe that these charges, even if true, do not constitute sufficient grounds for impeachment because they are based solely on a sexual relationship -- not on the Whitewater case, the release of classified FBI files or the firing of White House travel office employees. However, Clinton may not be off the hook yet on those issues. The Starr report said those aspects of the investigation were continuing.

Certainly the Lewinsky affair is an entirely different matter from Watergate. Sexual encounters are not comparable to burglarizing the offices of the Democratic Party.

But it has been observed that sufficient grounds for impeachment are whatever Congress decides they are. There is no appeal from its decision. At this point it is impossible to predict what decision Congress will make months from now, but it is likely to be strongly influenced by public opinion.

In a sense, however, it hardly matters. Even if Clinton escapes impeachment, his ability to lead this country in all likelihood will have been fatally impaired. The presidency will be crippled -- and may be already.

That is why Clinton's resignation is an option with some appeal. It would let the nation get on with its business under new leadership. The alternative is the prospect of two years of drift. Clinton evidently intends to fight the impeachment charges and shows no indication of an interest in resigning. But that could change.

Lockerbie trial

IT'S reassuring to learn that the White House has rejected a request by the chief defense attorney for two Libyans accused of the 1988 Pan Am bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland, to negotiate a plan to try them in the Netherlands. Let's hope the Clinton administration sticks to its guns.

For years Libya refused to turn over the two suspects in the bombing, which killed 270 people, for trial in Britain or the United States. Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi insisted on a trial in another country before an international panel of judges as a condition for the turnover. The U.S. and Britain refused -- and properly so.

Last month London and Washington, under pressure to bring the suspects to justice, regrettably modified their position. They offered to have the two, Abdel Basset Ali Mohamed al-Megrahi and Lamen Khalifa Fhimah, tried in the Netherlands, but by Scottish judges and under Scottish law. It amounted to making a concession to terrorism when there should have been none.

The offer was described as non-negotiable -- but the terrorists tried to negotiate. A lawyer for the accused said this week the proposal didn't assure his clients of a fair trial and further negotiations were needed. He objected to the stipulation that only Scottish judges hear the case and the choice of Britain as the place of their imprisonment if they were convicted. He also wanted to negotiate the conditions of detention of the accused before and during the trial.

Fortunately, the Clinton administration turned him down cold. "That was a nonnegotiable offer," White House spokes-man Mike McCurry told reporters. Apparently the administration meant it.

There the matter should rest -- no more concessions. It's a good bet that Gadhafi will never accept the current offer, because he wants a phony, politicized trial and the Scottish judges wouldn't cooperate. But even the rejected offer should never have been made, because it was seen as a sign of weakness, and you can't afford to seem weak with terrorists. This case belongs in U.S. or British courts, nowhere else.

---

Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited Partnership

Rupert E. Phillips, CEO

John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher

David Shapiro, Managing Editor

Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor

Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors

A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor