February 17, 1999

The End

Time to recap, pause, reflect, and ponder.

The Republicans had as a target a President who engaged in a bizarre extramarital sexual association (one cannot call it a relationship) with a subordinate in the workplace, lied about it to the public, lied about it in sworn testimony in a civil case, and lied about it in sworn testimony before a grand jury. And, in the end -- or at least, in this end -- he remains standing (banging the bongos in private), while the Grand Old Party is out a House Speaker and a Speaker-to-be and languishing in the polls, flatlining at an approval level close to half that of the Democratic Party.

The thumb-sucking, the hand-wringing, and the GOP-on-GOP rhetorical violence will not fade quickly. The Republicans will argue among themselves over who lost Clinton. David Brooks of the conservative Weekly Standard, for one, recently opined that Mission Clinton went askew when Kenneth Starr failed to strike a quick immunity deal with Monica Lewinsky. But the seeds of the Republicans' stupendous failure were sown much earlier. For years, conservatives and Republicans had been relentlessly pursuing confrontational scandal-politics. And much of their effort has been laughable, easy to dismiss. Representative Dan Burton, an Indiana Republican, chased after the campaign financial skullduggery of the Clinton White House -- a subject worthy of inquiry. But he was tarred by questionable finances of his own, and he refused to investigate GOP misdeeds, such as the allegation that Tom DeLay, the House majority whip, had been involved in the shady funneling of campaign donations. In the Senate, the Republicans put the ethics-challenged Al D'Amato in charge of the Whitewater probe. The only proper response was chuckles. Conservatives, by linking Whitewater to the Vince Foster suicide in fanciful conspiracies, turned Whitewater, perhaps a serious subject, into a code word for nutty obsession. The non-sensational details of Whitewater told you what you needed to know about the Clintons, for part of the deal entailed bilking retirees who had trouble making their payments. Senator Fred Thompson's inquiry into campaign finance practices also was hindered by his inability or unwillingness to scrutinize GOP excesses and possible illegalities. Don't forget that clowns like Representative Bob Barr were running around for years shouting conspiracy-this, conspiracy-that. Long before anyone saw Lewinsky's Mona Lisa smile (cheers for the New Yorker cover), Barr was demanding Clinton be impeached for acting as an agent of Beijing. Since the puppet-master behind the GOP attack squad was Newt Gingrich, a serial offender of House ethics rules, this bunch deserved no respect.

Then there was Kenneth Starr. Years on Whitewater, years on Travelgate, years on Filegate and... nothing. He did bag Webster Hubbell on a peripheral matter (cheating his law firm partners) and some Arkansas pols, but until Linda Tripp appeared on his doorstep he had not come close to Clinton. Along the way, though, he cemented his image as a politically-motivated hard-ass, a whatever-it-takes crusader, a psalm-singing corporate mercenary, a leaker, and a phony do-gooder who could not recognize his own conflicts of interest.

By the time Lewinsky was in Starr's clutches -- begging for a lawyer and being bad-copped by Starr's agents -- the public was already suffering GOP scandal-fatigue. Consequently, when the Republicans struck gold -- hooray, lies and sex! -- most of America was unwilling to listen. The manner in which the Republicans subsequently conducted their impeachment project -- such as quickly rubber-stamping and kicking out Starr's overreaching report -- hardly cast them as serious-minded, deliberative, investigators of facts. The public was right not to follow this band. In fact, the public responded much in the way the first O.J. jury did: it allowed its feelings about the prosecutors and the cops -- the Republicans and Starr -- to color its view of their case. Who was to be blamed for that? Not the White House spin machine the cons love to demonize. It's not as efficient as Dick Morris claims. No, it was the Republicans. Their judgments were trusted less than Bill Clinton's performance. Imagine that. What's the lesson in all this, for aren't we compelled at the end of this trauma to ask that clichŽ? How about this: when the economy is deemed to be rip-roaring, most Americans prefer a self-acknowledged liar to self-righteous hypocrites. There are other explanations for how this mess played out. But clearly, the conservatives and their get-Clinton extremism poisoned the well prior to Lewinsky's arrival.

I won't forget attending a conservative conference in the early Clinton years and watching grassroots activists purchasing a bumper sticker reading, "Where's Lee Harvey Oswald when you need him?" Did Bill Bennett decry this sort of moral decay? Most of the public was unaware of the depths of this anti-Clinton nastiness. But with Gingrich, Barr, DeLay, and Starr leading the charge, it seeped through and shaped public consciousness. Clinton handed the Republicans a fistful of ammunition, but much of America was so tired of seeing the GOPers waving silly pop guns, firing half-cocked, it did not matter that these shots were real.

Thirteen months after Monica entered our lives, the President has the public in his pocket, the Republicans have major road work ahead, and Starr, who still appears to be waiting in an alley for Clinton with blackjack held high, is vilified throughout the land. Clinton, an opportunistic liar (which does not distinguish him from past presidents), did not deserve this turn of fortunes. But the Republicans got what they deserved, and Starr, now under investigation himself, has earned the reputation he deserved. Two out of three ain't bad.

Snitchgate

It was hard to pay attention to the suspense-free finale of the impeachment trial last week -- thanks to Christopher Hitchens. Because we both toil for The Nation magazine, I was inundated with calls and email notes regarding his purported outing of White House aide Sidney Blumenthal. Most responses were angry. Many noted Hitchens' metaphysical resemblance to Linda Tripp. I, too, was troubled by Hitchens' actions and had a difficult time following the justifications he offered in public. He claimed he had no choice but to tell the GOP House Judiciary Committee investigators the truth about his discussion with a source/friend, even before the probers raised the threat of a subpoena. But after he cooperated with this unreliable bunch, he then declared (belatedly) he would not cooperate in an investigation that targeted Blumenthal. In a Washington Post Op-Ed, Hitchens suggested that he had acted like a "true friend," for he had decided not to stand by while Blumenthal prepared "to be used as yet another human sacrifice by his employer." It was not apparent how Hitchens' assistance to Hyde's Rough Riders had saved Blumenthal from sacrifice on the altar of Clinton. Hitchens insisted he still regarded himself as a chum of Blumenthal, although he had exposed Blumenthal to further GOP wrath and to scrutiny from the Justice Department and Starr, which could cost Blumenthal a load of money. Hitchens is a clever and smart fellow. If he could not adequately defend this conduct in public, then these actions were indeed indefensible.

But what was astonishing about this sub-controversy was that Hitchens' betrayal of his friend and all the subsequent huffing-and-puffing occurred over what actually was a trivial item, one of little import to the case against the President, or a case against Blumenthal. In much of the media harrumphing, Hitchens affidavit was misrepresented. In The Los Angeles Times, Todd Gitlin said the affidavit alleged "Blumenthal had lied when he maintained under oath, in a Feb. 3 deposition for the Senate trial of President Clinton, that he had not spread derogatory rumors about Monica Lewinsky to reporters." Within this fine weekly, another Nation colleague, Alexander Cockburn, while crucifying his onetime friend Hitchens, noted that "Hitchens' affidavit was about as flat a statement as anyone could want that Blumenthal has perjured himself." Over at party central, a Nation editorial reported that the infamous affidavit was "contrary to Sidney Blumenthal's testimony under oath that he had not passed on to the press President Clinton's misleading allegations that Monica Lewinsky was a 'stalker' who 'threatened' him." On Friday, The Washington Post declared the affidavit "contradicted the sworn testimony of an old friend."

Not quite. So reads the infamous affidavit: "During lunch on March 19, 1998, in the presence of myself and Carol Blue, Mr. Blumenthal stated that, Monica Lewinsky had been a 'stalker' and that the President was 'the victim' of a predatory and unstable, sexually demanding young woman. Referring to Ms. Lewinsky, Mr. Blumenthal used the word 'stalker' several times. Mr. Blumenthal advised us that this version of the facts was not generally understood." On the subject of Lewinsky, that is all the affidavit claims.

During his Senate deposition, Blumenthal was asked about this "stalker" business. But the questioning was narrow. House manager Lindsey Graham, referring to a January 30, 1998 AP story that reported Lewinsky was known within the White House as "the Stalker," asked Blumenthal if he was aware of a behind-the-scenes campaign at that time to portray Lewinsky as a untrustworthy climber obsessed with the President. Blumenthal said, "No." He was asked if he knew how the first Monica-the-stalker stories had come to appear in the press. "I have no idea how anything came to be attributed to a White House source," Blumenthal answered. Graham asked if Blumenthal ever recounted the conversation he had with the President in which Clinton claimed he was the victim of Stalker Lewinsky's sexual demands. Blumenthal replied that he had not mention this discussion to anyone for months -- and then only referred to it when discussing his grand jury testimony with a White House lawyer.

Whether Blumenthal is telling the truth or not, nothing in the Hitchens affidavit challenges his testimony. By the time the fateful lunch at the Occidental was under way, hundreds of articles had publicized the Monica-as-stalker allegation. Blumenthal probably had read every one. The story had been out and about for over six weeks. (In fact, Lewinsky had acted stalker-ish enough to cause White House senior and junior aides to wonder or worry about her. What they did not know was that she had bagged her prey. Clinton readily made cavalier use of her, cast her off, and then was irritated that she remained so clutching.) Blumenthal's mid-March references to Lewinsky, as described by Hitchens, do not serve as proof there was a campaign in January to discredit Lewinsky, and they do not indicate that Blumenthal knew how the stories had originated. For all we know, he may have been the fellow orchestrating the anti-Monica assault, but the affidavit does not shed any light in this regard.

Yet the conventional view was that Hitchens had provided evidence Blumenthal had committed perjury. It was, of course, predictable that the Republicans, who are fixated on Blumenthal for god-knows-what reasons, would exploit Hitchens' affidavit in such a hysterical manner. Still, Hitchens cannot in good faith point to it as an innocuous document. It was like waving a rubber bone in front of a pack of desperate dogs. He, no doubt, believed it was a significant admission. Otherwise, why go on Meet the Press to discuss it? But the fact that his affidavit adds nothing important to the story renders it harder to understand why Hitchens felt compelled to come forward with these nuggets of false gold. Did he turn on a friend in order to provide information of no probative value? He appears to believe that his affidavit was a strike against Clinton, whom he detests greatly. "The source I'm ratting is Clinton, not Sidney," he asserted. Yet the Blumenthal remarks Hitchens revealed do not inconvenience the President.

In legal terms, Blumenthal should not be troubled by Hitchens' affidavit -- though that won't stop the anti-Clinton gang from claiming otherwise. But he may be discomfited by an affidavit subsequently filed by Hitchens' wife, Carol Blue. In her sworn statement, she declares that Blumenthal referred to his conversation with Clinton -- a conversation he denied sharing with friends, when he was questioned by Graham. If all this rigmarole ever comes before a court, a good lawyer will have fun noting that the Hitchens and Blue affidavits are inconsistent on this point. He or she will raise the question of whether Blue, nearly a year later, is blending the Occidental chit-chat with memories of subsequent news stories that related the Blumenthal-Clinton conversation. But since Hitchens' statement gave birth to this soap-opera-within-a-soap-opera, his remains the more significant statement. And, to repeat, it does not prove Blumenthal a liar or a perjurer, for good or bad.

Much ado about nothing, then? Not entirely. The snitching remains, and the politerati will rake over these coals for much time to come. Hitchens, a wonderful raconteur, is generally well-liked in the media capitals of Washington, New York, and Los Angeles. Yet many of his friends and admirers were finding it tough to process his actions and spending many sad hours puzzling over his behavior. That will continue. (Were it not for the lawyers, investigators, and prosecutors hovering about, this would have the flavor of a bad high-school spat.) As with so much of Monicagate, this small event, Christopher's lunch with Sidney, has caused a disproportionate amount of trouble. The entire sorry scandal -- launched by stupid sex followed by stupid lies -- had Hyde-ites screeching hyperbolically about moral decay in American society and anti-Hyde-ites screaming hyperbolically about sexual McCarthyism and a bloodless coup. If only it had really meant so much. If only Hitchens' affidavit was about a remark that made a difference. If only Clinton's chest-thumping pursuers truly cared about honesty throughout government. If only Clinton's sky-is-falling defenders who claimed to be safeguarding the democratic process were each dedicated to ensuring that the electoral process works for all citizens (not just those who pay to play) and protects civil liberties, due process, and privacy for everyone (not just those who lie during sexual harassment cases). If only.

-- David Corn