You are visiting http://geocities.datacellar.net/SoHo/Workshop/2096

To see an archive of the articles on this site, click here.

House shouldn't impeach Clinton

By Tim Wood

Originally published in The Columbia Daily Herald on Dec. 16, 1998

The House of Representatives soon will consider impeaching President Clinton.

After much thought and consideration, I've decided to oppose it.

President Clinton is guilty of moral misconduct and deception. But as bad as his behavior has been, the consequence should not be impeachment and possible removal from office. The penalty should be political.

The root of the accusations against President Clinton are in the civil lawsuit which Paula Jones filed against him. This lawsuit put the President in a position of answering a questionable line of query regarding his conduct with women.

Clinton offered an evasive answer which he now contends was legally accurate. He has been accused of committing perjury. His subsequent responses to the Kenneth Starr's investigation have resulted in more accusations of perjury and obstructing justice.

Both sides of the debate have produced "constitutional scholars" to support their positions on impeachment. They have spoken much of "precedent," both for impeaching Clinton as well as for future situations.

The writers of the Constitution made impeachment a political, not a judicial process, so the concept of precedent is not as important as doing what is best for the country.

Impeachment is not for punishment of bad behavior. Impeachment should be used to remove a president whose conduct has endangered national security and has impaired the operation of government to a dangerous point. Sadly, potentially impeachable offenses - such as the transfer of missile technology to China - have been ignored in the pursuit of a shaky perjury charge in a civil lawsuit that first was dismissed, then settled without admission of guilt.

Many politicians lie. Sadly, we, the people, have almost come to expect it. Lying under oath is a crime. If Clinton's answer indeed was perjury, that should not necessarily result in impeachment.

Had he lied under oath in another scenario, impeachment might be appropriate. Let' suppose that Congress did investigate that missile technology transfer. Had Clinton been put under oath and lied about that, it would be a threat to national security and therefore an impeachable offense.

If Clinton had engaged in an "inappropriate relationship" with an undercover spy, that would be an impeachable offense, regardless of whether he lied about it.

If the impeachment proponents want to keep bringing up precedent, perhaps they should consider the type of precedent that would be set with the impeachment of President Clinton. Any type of perjury by a future president - of any political party - would be grounds for impeachment. You would be hard pressed to find any president willing to raise the right hand and testify under oath. Any response, no matter how honest, could be challenged. Any accusation of lying, regardless of how frivolous, could bring on impeachment proceedings.

The members of the House of Representatives are trying to do the job of the voters. Although Clinton will not stand for re-election, his party will. I can't boot Clinton out of office. But I could take it out on the next Democratic nominee. If that happens to be Al Gore, I'd like to find out why he stood so loyally beside a President who repeatedly lied to him and the nation.

Someday, historians will look at these proceedings and ask, "What were they thinking?"

The least that the House of Representatives can do is use some judgment stop this out-of-control process.

Home page||Send me an e-mail ||Click here for great deals on CDs!

||Tim Wood's Rocketry page ||Tim Wood's Music Page, featuring Chicago (the band)