Clinton not convicted

Standing up to the forces of darkness and retribution

The House impeachment managers -- those 13 angry white men who just refused to go away -- failed utterly in their bid to convince two-thirds of the Senate that Bill Clinton had committed the high crimes and misdemeanors specified by the Constitution as grounds for removal from office. As White House lawyer Charles Ruff argued in his eloquent closing, "I believe their vision to be too dark. . . . I believe it to be a vision more focused on retribution, more designed to achieve partisan ends, more uncaring about the future we face together."

The Republicans like to portray themselves as insurgents, and cast their prosecution of the president as a great moral crusade carried out by an outnumbered, outgunned opposition on behalf of the common folk. What self-aggrandizing tripe. The fact is that the Republicans have held the White House for 20 of the past 30 years. Yes, Clinton, a weak Democrat of moderate instincts, has been president for the past six years, but the Republicans have controlled both branches of Congress since 1995. Yet despite this extensive on-the-job training, the Republicans -- and especially the House branch -- have shown no capacity to lead, but only to react.

The House Judiciary Committee's chairman, Henry Hyde, gave the game away in his ludicrous final remarks. "I wonder after this culture war is over that we're engaged in, if an America will survive that's worth fighting to defend," said the hypocritical Hyde, his syntax as fractured as his common sense. This isn't about presidential perjury and obstruction of justice. This is about the social upheavals of the 1960s, when part of the country rejected sexual repression and immoral warmongering in a way that those on the wrong side of the cultural divide have never been able to accept. Clearly the Republicans, whose public standing is at its post-Watergate low, are prisoners of their ultraconservative Gingrich-Hyde wing, much as the Democrats were in thrall to their liberal McGovern wing in the 1970s and '80s.

Clinton did lie under oath, although legal experts differ on whether the circumstances add up to perjury. And the evidence that he obstructed justice is compelling, if unproven. But Clinton's wrongdoing stems from personal misbehavior, not the political crimes against the state envisioned by the Constitution's authors. The public gets it; the Republicans still don't. Clinton is not yet out of his legal quagmire, nor should he be. Independent counsel Ken Starr could still prosecute him for the low crimes he may have committed.

Starr, who has demonstrated precious little sense so far, should at least have the sense to hold off on criminal charges until Clinton leaves office. But if Starr is reckless enough to charge Clinton now, there will be a silver lining: it will make it that much less likely that Congress will extend the misbegotten Independent Counsel Act when it comes up for renewal later this year.

All the time, effort, and angst that went into the impeachment drama could have been avoided if Hyde and his fellow House Republicans had listened to the public's cry for closure and whacked Clinton with the congressional censure he deserves. It's still not too late to do that. Though some argue that the House impeachment vote stands as the ultimate censure, that action was too partisan to be seen as legitimate. What the country does not need is a replay of the repulsive pep rally Clinton staged for himself on the White House lawn immediately after he was impeached. A tough bipartisan censure vote should cut short any presidential celebration -- although, with someone as shameless as Clinton, that's by no means certain.

What do you think? Send an e-mail to letters[a]phx.com.