December 1998
STARR PERFORMANCE

Independent Counsel Ken Starr appeared before the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, November 19, in its impeachment inquiry of President Clinton.

In presenting the facts in his investigation of possible impeachable ofenses by the president, Judge Starr acquitted himself well, testifying with poise, restraint, and clarity in hisng statement and in answering a barrage of questions, many mean-spirited and irrelevant to the core issues he addressed, thrown at him by committee members and Bill Clinton's personal attorney, David Kendall, during the long day and into the evening hours.

Sixty-seven percent of the American people thought Ken Starr did a good job in presenting the facts in the case, according to a national media poll. We echo those sentiments.

After much partisan bickering and blatant obstruction by the minority Democrats on the committee for the first thirty minutes of the hearing. Judge Starr was finally permitted to testify. He presented a clear and complete case for serial perjury, witness tampering, obstruction of justice, violation of President Clinton's oath of office (as chief law enforcement officer "to take care that the laws are faithfully executed"), and abuse of power by illegally using the mechanisms and instruments of government to deceive the American people, the office of the independent Counsel, and the Congress of the United States, and to cover up several instances of perjury.

The Democrats, ironically, insisted that the impeachment process be completed in 1998. They fought for that deadline when they believed the Republicans would gain additional seats in the House of Representatives.

The Democrats picked up five seats in the elections on November 3rd. But those additional Democrats will not have the opportunity to vote on impeachment, because the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Henry Hyde, made a New Year's resolution to move the impeachment out of committee before the first of January.

As a consequence, Republicans may still have an eleven-seat majority when the vote on the House floor is taken. There is still a possibility that President Clinton could be impeached and forced to endure a trial in the Senate.

There is little doubt that if impeachment gets to the Senate, Clinton's presidency will survive. It requires sixty-seven votes in the Senate to remove Bill Clinton from office. That means a minimum of twelve Democrats would have to vote against him. The highest estimate I have heard is nine, and that number seems unlikely after the poor showing by Republicans in the 1998 midterm elections.

Exit polls on election day indicated that fifty-five percent of the electorate are against impeachment. Now we know that Republicans and Democrats who vote to impeach the president will do so on principle, not for political gain.

It is in the best long-term interest of the United States to establish, loudly and clearly, that no man is above the law. We are a nation of laws, not of men. This nation will be fundamentally changed if this Congress stands for the proposition that perjury by the chief law enforcement officer of the land is permissible. That is where we are headed.

It is clear that the vast majority of Democrats in Congress do not want Clinton impeached, but it's a dirty little secret that most of them are scared stiff that Clinton might get out of the mess he has created unpunished. They desperately want some kind of censure. Republicans should deny them that fig leaf.

Kenneth Starr's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee was strong and may well have served to strengthen the spines of the twenty-odd wobbly Republicans reported to be ready to vote against impeachment of Clinton.

We will watch closely. These are the times that test men's character. Keep your eyes Take names.