Abuse of Power By R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr.

WASHINGTON -- From the soapbox of his regular Newsweek column, Jonathan Alter begins a recent essay with admirable panache. He writes, "David Brock is arguably the most loathed writer in Washington, which is saying something."

After that audacious insight, Alter, alas, descends into futile ramblings about 1990s scandals, some of which Brock had uncovered, that utterly trivialize the errant politicians' 1990s conduct. And Alter concludes with an erroneous summation that I hope does not become history's judgment of the 1990s. Says Alter, "The tawdry sexual politics of the 1990s were a luxury afforded by prosperity."

As Rep. Gary Condit present sexual scandal should make clear, the Clinton scandals were not simply "tawdry sexual politics." They were abuses of power. When Brock published the first Troopergate piece I, as his editor, tried to make that point. What Clinton did with government employees was an abuse of power. Usually his goal was sex, but always his most serious transgression was to use the glamour and power of his office to corrupt staff and have his way with whomever he set his sights upon. If he had used these women, troopers and other government employees to advance his stamp collection, it would have been equally wrong.

To be sure, from the playing of Gennifer Flowers' tapes during the 1992 presidential campaign, to Paula Corbin Jones' lawsuit, to Monica Lewinsky's taped testimonials of randy love, the stories were lurid and risible. Yet they were also very serious. Americans were being governed by a president who abused his power with staff, lied under oath and obstructed justice. Clinton is a man of the basest character. It is dangerous to have such people in power. We may have to await the full revelations about Condit to get a hint of the danger.

In time, Americans discovered about Clinton what reporters had known for years or should have known. His abuses of power went beyond sexual dalliances to include financial misbehavior, fund-raising irregularities, dangerous technology transfers for political gain, and finally the damning pardons and laughable filching of the White House furnishings. Contrary to Alter's assessment, Clinton was the center of something far more serious than "tawdry sexual politics" -- and, by the way, "tawdry," which became the press's shopworn adjective for Clinton's sexual scandals, was never an apt description. Clinton's assignations were never "cheap and showy," that being the meaning of tawdry. The sex scandals were secretive and sordid, which is to say, "morally depraved."

If that sounds a bit strong to sophisticates, it might not after we see how the Condit scandal plays out. It, too, is an abuse of power, complete with its amusing aspects. Hour after hour the television screen feasts on old tapes of Condit, a Democrat, during the Lewinsky scandal calling upon President Clinton to come clean about the intern and tell all he knows. Now from his fastness in Congress, the Hon. Condit has done just the opposite. He has withheld information about an intern with whom he was sexually involved. It is reported that he lied to police. Reportedly he asked another of his paramours to sign an untrue affidavit -- once again, an elected official obstructing justice. He has even had one of former President Clinton's lawyers, Abbe Lowell, spin the press.

This time around, however, the abuse of power may not go unpunished and may have gruesome consequences. Condit's Clintonesque tactics of delay and dissimulation have hampered a police investigation into a missing person. His intern may not end as happily as Clinton's has, and Condit's fate may not prove to be as ambiguous as Clinton's was. In the end, writers such as columnist Alter, who thought the sexual escapades of an elected official with an intern were harmless, may see the darker side of all this.

Yet they really ought to get their minds off this sex thing. For elected officials who would lie under oath, obstruct justice, and break as many other laws as Clinton and Condit seem to have done are a threat to our very democracy. In being able to place themselves above the law, they defeat the rule of law.

Last week, I had the opportunity to interview a federal judge who pursued corrupt politicians throughout the 1990s. I noted that he had been thwarted by the politicians' ability to delay judicial procedures, deceive the courts and journalists alike, and evade justice in a way no ordinary citizen would. I told him I had come to doubt that the courts can deal with such political wizardry. The judge did not disagree.

-- Norm (al@normal.com), July 12, 2001

Answers

APPLE. Clinton had an affair with a intern and now she's famous.

ORANGE. Condit had an affair with an intern and now she's presumed dead.

Uh, do you see any difference there Norm?

-- BTW, I read that Bill was playing pool with Liz Hurley and Sheryl Crow last weekend (and@sitting . in the Royal viewing area at Wimbelton before that), July 12, 2001.

He's been out of office for 6 months and you still can't let go of Clinton's dick?? LMAO!

You need to get with it Norm! The latest entertainment sensation is watching the village idiot Dumbya make public appearances. It's like watching the 3 Stooges all in one man! Fun for the whole family. Bwaaahahaaaahahaaa!!

-- (check out @ the. Idiot in Chief), July 12, 2001.

It is pretty pathetic though that the only thing Clinton will ever be remembered for IS his cock.... some legacy...

-- who cares (why@bother.anymore), July 12, 2001.

The article: "Usually his goal was sex, but always his most serious transgression was to use the glamour and power of his office to corrupt staff and have his way with whomever he set his sights upon."

What rock does this guy live under? Politicians were doing this long before Clinton came down the pike. Just run down a copy of Fishbait, The Memoirs of a Congressional Doorkeeper - that'll confirm that extramarital sex, based mainly on using "the glamour and power of ... office to corrupt staff" has been the sport of Congresscritters for at least since 1935.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), July 12, 2001.

Somehow I find it difficult to believe either Nixon or Carter had extramarital sex in the White House (Nixon was too square, Carter was too straight).

In general, it strikes me as very risky for the man with the codes to be screwing around, especially with rough trade like Monica or Sam Giancana's babe (JFK).

How did Clinton know that Monica wasn't taping the Oval Office Lavatory therapy sessions? How did he know that she wasn't working for the KGB or Bin Laden or Mossad or the Republicans for Chrissake?

For President, it's imperative that we have someone who can't be seduced into compromising the nation's security. I make the same judgement on any President, regardless of party.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), July 13, 2001.

Norm, for those who still don't get it about Clinton, they will NEVER get it about Clinton.

LN, Clinton took it to new levels; he has gone where no other politician has ever gone before. (Well, except for Ted Kennedy who murdered a woman and got away with it.) I know you and Doc don't see it and you never will. But I just shrug my shoulders, vive la difference.

On to Gary. The guy should resign. I know I'm judging him but he's guilty as sin. The guy had something to do with her disappearance. I think she's sleeping with the fishies.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 13, 2001.

I had a dream lastnight, that they found her...alive and well. Let's hope.

-- (cin@cin.cin), July 13, 2001.

Miss Levy, I mean.

-- (cin@cin.cin), July 13, 2001.

I did not have sex with that former woman.

-- (Gary Conduit @ biker.bar), July 13, 2001.

"Clinton took it to new levels"

That would presume you know about what the 'old levels' were. As far as I can see, the new wrinkle with Clinton wasn't what he did (I can't imagine that groping women or getting blow jobs was some kind of new low for Washington DC), but the amount of publicity that was given what Clinton did. That was really unprecedented!

We have Richard Mellon Scaife to thank for that, with an assist from people like Ken Starr, who coordinated his activities with Scaife's hirelings.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), July 13, 2001.

LN, seems to me you're also making a presumption, that is, it did happen to that 'level' before and was never publicized. That's what makes opinions.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 13, 2001.

" seems to me you're also making a presumption..."

Actually, I already cited a source that pretty well establishes that getting sex outside marriage was extremely common on Capitol Hill during the long tenure of William "Fishbait" Miller as the Doorkeeper of the House. His book was on best seller lists during the mid 1970s.

Miller worked as Doorkeeper from about 1935 until 1970. His real job was to do favors for congressional reps. A lot of those favors centered around facilitating sexual rendevous and keeping mum. In his book he makes it very clear that he could name a lot more names than he does - but he does disclose some names - probably because he disliked those particular reps.

So, please cite some sources that would discredit Miller's account, since as long as his account is correct it wouldn't matter a damn how many people you cite who say that sexual favors never reached the levels Clinton achieved. If Miller is correct, then those levels were reached long, long ago.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), July 13, 2001.

The basic problem with ‘most’ liberals is their low standards of morality and personal conduct. As a result, they have no hesitations in defending the actions of public figures such as Clinton and Conduit. ‘Most’ conservatives however, see no harm in the scheming that is rampant in the corporate world. Which is the greater evil for mankind?

Big business employs the population in our society, thus creating a standard of living that is the envy of the entire planet.

Politicians having extramarital sex with young interns benefits nobody….except the politicians of course.

-- Telinet (like@it.is), July 13, 2001.

"The basic problem with ‘most’ liberals is their low standards of morality and personal conduct."

Funny. Most conservatives had very little difficulty overlooking the low moral standards and personal conduct of Newt Gringrich - the marijuana-smoking, draft-dodging, affair-having, wife-divorcing little man that he was.

I wish I could recall the name of the rep they nominated to replace Newt, who Larry Flynt exposed as having a long term extra-marital affair. It was fun to see the gnashing of teeth over that one.

In fact, I'll give odds that Maria has defended both of their morals.

"As a result, they have no hesitations in defending the actions of public figures such as Clinton and Conduit."

Actually, you'll find that a good large percentage of liberals have never defended the immoral actions of either man. But most of us would agree that questionable sexual conduct is not an impeachable offense for a sitting president. Just a shameful personal flaw.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), July 13, 2001.

LN, "In fact, I'll give odds that Maria has defended both of their morals." I guess you lose; I didn't defend anyone's morals. I could give a shit who screws around with whom. But if you noticed Newt did divorced. Why didn't Condit or Clinton? (That's another thread though.)

I haven't read the book you cite; it sounds interesting though. So, you'll have to point to passage that reads a former prez tried to coerce a potential employee into sex for a job. You'll also have to cite an occurrence of a prez getting a blow job while discussing politics on the phone in the oval office. Can you tell me how many other politicians had their staff approach women in bars with the offer to sexually please said politician? You'll also have to cite an instance of a former prez, ignoring staffers recommendations and a federal process, who granted pardons to those whose only 'rehabilitation' consisted of campaign donations. You'll also have to cite an instance where a prez ignored processing of white house donations thus making it personal gifts. And please cite a congressman accused of rape. Also please cite any politician who made a 1,000% profit on a ten month investment. And finally how many politicians have been suspected of doing ALL these things?

I'll grant you that some of these incidents have not been proven in a court of law. However, that's what I mean by 'new level'. Yeah, I know, right-wing conspiracy.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 13, 2001.

"I'll grant you that some of these incidents have not been proven in a court of law."

To speak true, not one of these incidents has been proven in a court of law.

And your requests for evidence of other presidents acting precisely as you believe Clinton did are ludicrous. I could as easily ask you for evidence that Clinton sent burglars into the Democratic Party headquarters or compiled an enemies list then asked the IRS to audit them. And your predictable failure to comply with that request would prove as much.

As for your narrowing the focus of the inquiry to recent presidents only, that is obviously self-serving and myopic. That position presumes that the office of president is somehow morally independent of all other high political offices, so that if Congressmen, Attorneys General, Vice Presidents and Supreme Court Justices all had had oral sex while talking on the phone, it would be irrelevant to whether Clinton's doing so was "unprecedented".

But, if the only way you can argue for Clinton's activities being "unprecedented" is by framing the debate in those terms, then I doubt I could ever convince you of that your chosen frame of reference is silly, because the important thing is that you already believe the conclusion that such a framework enables you to draw, and if you gave it up, you might have to change your conclusion. Since changing your conclusion is literally unthinkable, my trying to change your position in any way is futile.

Or so it looks to me.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), July 13, 2001.

Maria, TK didn't murder that woman ... he just left her in the car too long. :)

-- helen (vw@float.s), July 13, 2001.

Politicians have been screwing around ever since George Washington, it's nothing new. That's because men in general have been screwing around ever since the days of Adam and Eve, it's human nature.

The main difference today is that the Repugliscums have destroyed our right to privacy. Using the media as their weapon, they are trying to convince the public that nothing is sacred, we need to know everything. Most people aren't too comfortable with this idea because they know that they too can become targets.

When a person becomes successful they are seen as a threat by the Repugliscums. The Repugliscum-controlled media no longer has any conscience. They have no qualms about spying or manufacturing false allegations to destroy a person.

-- media no longer has conscience or integrity (sold out to become @ Repugliscum. weapon), July 13, 2001.

Helen, too funny!

LN, "Since changing your conclusion is literally unthinkable, my trying to change your position in any way is futile." I didn't want you to change my position. My position is based on my definition of 'new level' and my definition of 'crossing a line'. Your evidence that it's been done before is based on 'hearsay' just as much as what's been publicized on Clinton's scandals. We (both of us) have based our *opinions* on what we see and hear. Nothing new there LN. You have no 'evidence' and neither do I.

You asking me to "please cite some sources that would discredit Miller's account" is futile. Just as I could ask you to cite sources that discredit what's been publicized on Clinton. ALL of it is hearsay, not proven in a court of law, and not evidence by any stretch of the imagination.

I stand by my first statement which is my opinion based on hearsay, "Clinton took it to new levels; he has gone where no other politician has ever gone before." I asked you to cite any other politician who has crossed the line in a similar way.

I'm not asking you to prove your Miller's account that "...that pretty well establishes that getting sex outside marriage was extremely common on Capitol Hill". I believe that sex is old news (and yes indeed common on Capitol Hill while neither I nor you have proof of such) and Clinton went well beyond a little sex. I said it is my opinion. You won't change your mind as the title of this thread indicates. You don't get it and NEVER will. As I posted in my first post, "shrug my shoulders".

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 13, 2001.

Yuppers, Maria. If you get to define what words and actions mean and have no interest in what definitions other people use or why, then obviously there is a pretty BIG chance that other people won't get it and never will.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), July 13, 2001.