• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

Amazingly, Ken Starr and House Republicans have shouldered the blame
for publication of the salacious details of the Lewinsky-Clinton affair.
Though Mr. Clinton is the John C. Holmes of this pornographic saga, with
the help of his defenders and the media, he has managed to escape
criticism for his starring role. So effective has been the PR campaign
against Republicans that they have been intimidated into agreeing not to
introduce any evidence in the impeachment trial that remotely relates to
the prurient aspects of the case.

Now that it has become abundantly obvious that Democrats have no
intention of playing fair, Senate Republicans should reconsider their
decision. Their initial concession to exclude the testimony was based on
their recurring miscalculation that the White House would concede most
of the factual allegations.

Contrary to popular belief, Clinton has never admitted his active
participation in any sexual acts with Lewinsky. This is hardly an
academic point, because his defense to some of the perjury counts depends
on his implied denials — which is precisely why Republicans must
reverse their decision not to ask Lewinsky to testify about Clinton
touching her.

People think it makes no difference that during his grand jury
testimony Clinton refused to go into the details about the sexual acts
he engaged in. They accept his explanation that he wanted to spare his
family the embarrassment of the tawdry details. That’s not it at all.
People had already been talking about it for eight months prior to his
grand jury appearance. The reason he couldn’t afford to reveal the
details is because they are incriminating. To admit that he touched
Monica in her erogenous zones would have been tantamount to admitting
perjury in the Jones deposition.

What about this White House notion that the nation mustn’t be exposed
to evidence concerning the salacious details? In the first place, not
one profane word needs to be uttered to make the point that Clinton
touched Monica where he shouldn’t have. Plus, it is absurd to argue that
the factual allegations regarding Clinton’s touching of Monica in
sensitive areas is any more suggestive than a normal scene in any
prime-time soap opera episode. To justify ignoring pivotal evidence in
such an important case requires more compelling reasons. Moreover, if
Democrats insist on continuing to pretend they are horrified at the
prospect of the airing of such testimony then it is past time they
pressure Bill Clinton into conceding what every sentient being already
knows to be true. But this will never happen because just as such an
admission would have incriminated him of perjury in the Jones
deposition, it would now also incriminate him of grand jury perjury.

It’s not that grand jury lies are much more serious than civil lies.
But as to his grand jury lies, his perjury defenses of no intent and no
materiality evaporate. On the political level, his grand jury perjury
manifestly couldn’t have been motivated to protect his privacy about a
matter that had been common knowledge for months. He was not lying about
sex, but to obstruct justice and save his presidency.

If Monica is believed about Clinton touching her, he can no longer
hide behind his “misleading, but legally accurate” nonsense. If he
touched her, then even under his own interpretation of the Jones
definition, he will have committed perjury.

Democrats argue that Lewinsky’s testimony will add nothing because
she has already so testified to the grand jury. Are we naïve enough to
believe their fear of live testimony has anything to do with redundancy?
Of course not. There is no comparison between a sterile transcript of an
immature love struck girl and the live testimony of a young lady who has
ripened into maturity. Democrats in the Senate and elsewhere fear that
when the American people have the opportunity to observe Monica’s
inflections, expressions and general demeanor, they will know she is
telling the truth — and more importantly, that Bill Clinton is still
lying.

The House managers must ask Monica to testify about Clinton touching
her. This simple fact can be elicited without salaciousness, obscenity
or embarrassment and will be highly probative of Clinton’s impeachable
conduct. If Democrats want to persist in their bogus arguments against
having live testimony in this trial let them jabber away. The
Constitution provides that the Senate will conduct a trial, not merely
listen to arguments. Therefore, the majority must proceed with a real
trial and quit obsessing about achieving bipartisanship. Democrats,
including Senator Byrd, have no intention of placing America’s interests
above their party.

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.