By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Original Sources
The percentage of Americans who now believe that President Clinton actually DID have a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky has risen to about 75%. The percentage of Americans who believe he did what Paula Jones accused him of doing has ranged from 57% to 72%, depending on when the poll was taken.
President Clinton has vehemently denied either asking Paula Jones for sex or having a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
Members of his staff who have been able to say, with a reasonably straight face, that the President told them he did not have a sexual relationship with that woman and they believed him are rapidly disappearing.
America is now in the throes of a huge national debate on whether or not it makes any difference that the President of the United States has lied, not only to the American people but to a court of law on this issue.
Donna Mungen who occasionally writes for the Los Angeles Times and also teaches at a college said on C-Span that "there are more important things going on" in the President's life then whether or not he lied to the court. "I think we all do a little shading," she observed.
A little shading? Donna, this does not fit into the category of "a little shading." Bill Clinton is a lawyer, as is his wife. As a lawyer, to say nothing of his other job as President of the United States, he is expected to uphold the law of the land and not lie about it. It not only is required by the law. It is also required by professional ethics. A lawyer who lies under oath simply cannot get out of it by saying he had other important things to do and didn't have the time to tell the truth.
For those who do not understand what the word "lie" means, let me define it for you. A lie is a false statement known to be false by the person who makes it. "Perjury" is the act of swearing that something is true which one knows to be false. It is a felony. If Clinton lied under oath about Paula Jones or Monica Lewinsky - he has committed a felony. Lawyers who commit felonies and are convicted are subject to disbarment.
This was pointed out to me by Bruce, a reader who comments on issues of the day from time to time. He observed: "the 'professions' physicians accountants and attorneys require a "personal" code of conduct. Deviation from that code calls for sanctions and/or the loss of license. You are presumed to know that code. Claiming to be uninformed doesn't cut it before a board of inquiry or your employer or your peers." If, he points out, as it appears these lawyers are deliberately blocking Ken Starr's investigation, encouraging their clients to lie under oath, they are violating their profession's code of ethics."
Bruce's timely comments jogged my memory on the subject of ethics. Remember what was going on just a little over a year ago about ethics? Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was accused by several Democrats of violating ethics standards of the Congress. What was being charged is that his Renewing America course, which originated at Kennesaw College, where he once taught, was somehow a Republican plot being paid for by tax exempt funds. A special counsel for the Ethic Committee conducted an investigation of the charges.
The "crime" which Newt Gingrich was accused of committing was operating a non-profit organization out of the same office as a political action committee. This, of course, is not against the law and is extremetly common as was pointed out at the time. The counsel pointed out, "It is not unusual that the political action committees, charitable organizations and lobbying organizations share the same address and operate out of the same offices. For example, the National Organization of Women (a section 501(c)(4)), National Organization of Women Foundation Inc. (a section 501(c)(3)), and the National Organization of Women Political Action Committee (a political action committee) all list as their address 1000 16th St. NW 700, Washington, D.C. For a further listing of multiple, affiliated Political Action Committees/Section 501(c)(3) entities/Section 501(c)(4) entities sharing the same address, see Exhibit B and Appendix D.
"Finally, it is common for these multiple-entity organizations to engage simultaneously in activities that have political implications. For example, the Sierra Club operates a section 501(c)(3) entity designated as Sierra Club Fund; a section 501(c)(4) entity designated as Sierra Club; a political action committee designated as Sierra Club Committee on Political Education; and a section 501(c)(3) entity designated as Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund. All of the entities list as their address 730 Polk Street, San Francisco, CA. The internet home page of Sierra Club reflects its broad-ranging purposes, including those which are political."
Gingrich's other transgression was failing to catch an error his attorney made. Inadvertently erroneous material, which conflicted with accurate material already before the House Ethics Committee led to the Speaker being "reprimanded" and required to pay the legal costs of the investigation, which amounted to $300,000. Furthermore, the Speaker's enemies INSISTED that he be FORCED to pay the sanctions out of his own personal funds.
This was from the same group who were determined that he not be allowed to HAVE any personal funds from the book he had just written.
This was more than some fair-minded members of the House could stomach. Rep. Tom DeLay reminded the committee that no other member of congress had ever been given such a costly reprimand for inadvertently giving inaccurate data to the Committee, "The gentleman from Missouri, the minority leader, Mr. Gephardt, received a letter from the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for giving false information to the committee not intentionally." Gebhardt, of course was not the center of media attention nor required to pay the Committee ANYTHING, much less $300,000.
So how come we are hearing all the sudden from the same group of Democrats who wanted to oust Gingrich from the House of Representatives due to such utter trivia are now telling America that the President of the United States committing perjury is "no big deal?"
In all fairness they can't have it both ways. Either they should give Newt Gingrich his $300,000 back, with an apology, or they should, at a minimum, require the President to pay for the cost of the investigation, which is approaching $40 million. Of course, if Clinton had cooperated with the requests of the Committee, like Newt Gingrich did, instead of stonewalling and then lying about providing "all the documents" it would have cost a lot less.
The depth and breadth of Democrat hypocrisy is simply breath-taking.
To comment: mmostert@waveshift.com