Presidential Mishaps: Escaping the Law of the Land (Part 1 of 3)

Who better to escape the law than the President himself? If any government official or public figure should be entitled to get away with breaking a law or committing a crime, it should be the President, right?

The answer to the question is, “no,” at least in my opinion. Nevertheless, we have seen many former presidents escape from the clutches of court. The first one that comes to mind is President Richard Nixon and his involvement in Watergate.

The Watergate Hotel was the headquarters for the Democratic National Committee. In 1972, there was a break-in at the headquarters by members of the Nixon Administration. Once leaks that Nixon might have been involved in Watergate emerged, the press, most notably The Washington Post set out to uncover the scandal. Eventually, a Senate committee was commissioned to further examine the break-in at Watergate in 1973.

Nixon began to lose his political footing after the hearings with the Senate committee, which aired May 17 to August 7 in 1973. During the course of the hearings, the committee learned that everything said in the Oval Office of the White House was recorded. Nixon’s tapes were subpoenaed, but he refused to hand them over on the grounds of executive privilege.

In Nixon’s case, executive privilege wasn’t enough and the tapes were surrendered to the FBI on July 24, 1974 after the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. After the tapes were released, Nixon’s White House began to fall apart with one aide/official after another being found guilty of illegal election-campaign activities. The pressure from the Senate as well as dwindling public support caused Nixon to resign.

On August 8, 1974, Nixon announced he would be resigning his presidency effective August 9. Had Nixon not resigned, he most likely would have been found guilty of perjury and conspiring in illegal campaign activities. Nixon’s resignation saved him from further public embarrassment. A month later, on September 8, 1974, the newly sworn President Ford gave Nixon a full pardon excusing him from any past crimes.

Because Nixon was never formerly tried, the truth still remains somewhat concealed. Some critics believe that Nixon’s acceptance of the presidential pardon is testimony of his guilt. It is also significant to note that in 1977, Nixon agreed to a series of interviews with David Frost. During these interviews, Nixon became angry with Frost. According to Louis Liebovich in his book, Richard Nixon, Watergate, and the Press: A Historical Retrospective, Nixon “…valiantly tried to explain away his Watergate role during the Frost interviews and later in his book, reacting angrily when Frost pointed to inconsistencies in his arguments and pressed him for more details about his personal involvement,” (Liebovich 117). Aside from Watergate, however, Nixon avoided the press.

Nixon’s case is unique and is the only case in which a president resigned from office. The fear of impeachment is a great fear for a president or any government official. The other case that always comes to mind when I think about guilty presidents is the case of President William J. Clinton and the Monica Lewinsky Scandal.

Clinton is suspected of having a sexual relationship with White House Intern, Monica Lewinsky between November 15, 1995 and April 7, 1996. It is also purported that Lewinsky and Clinton had sexual relations in February and March of 1997.

The Clinton/Lewinsky scandal was brought to light during the Paula Jones sexual harassment case in 1998 after Lewinsky submitted an affidavit denying any physical relationship with Clinton. Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, who was working on the Jones case, received tapes from Linda Tripp, a colleague of Lewinsky’s. These tapes were recorded by Tripp and documented phone calls between herself and Lewinsky regarding the Clinton affair.

These tapes fueled the fire that consumed the lives of Clinton and Lewinsky over the next several months. Starr set out to convict both Clinton and Lewinsky of perjury. News of the scandal hit airwaves of January 17, 1998. A few days later, on January 26, Clinton told the American people in a nationwide broadcast that he never had sexual relations with Lewinsky.

Over the course of the next several months, the scandal between Clinton and Lewinsky remained stagnate because neither party chose to divulge the press’s inquiries. However, on July 28, 1998, Lewinsky received immunity in exchange for a grand jury testimony and turned over a semen-stained dress with Clinton’s DNA on it. On August 17, 1998, Clinton admitted he had inappropriate relations with the White House intern. Clinton did not include oral sex as part of the broader term, “sexual relations.”

After admitting to his actions, Clinton’s license to practice law was suspended in Arkansas and later by the United States Supreme Court. He was also fined $90,000. On December 19, 1998, the House of Representatives charged Clinton with impeachment. The crimes Clinton committed according to the House included perjury and obstruction of justice.

The impeachment trial lasted 21 days and on February 12, 1999, Clinton was acquitted of the charges. The Senate vote fell short of the two-thirds majority needed for conviction and removal from office as per Constitutional guidelines. Clinton was a free man.

The Clinton/Lewinsky scandal is a much different case when compared to Nixon’s Watergate Scandal, yet they are very similar. Both Clinton and Nixon lied to the American public about actions committed to protect their dignity. However, Nixon’s popularity with the American public plummeted whereas Clinton’s approval ratings rose. The American public did not want to see Clinton impeached. Nixon escaped an impeachment trial simply because of his resignation.

When we look back at the history books, I think it is apparent that both Nixon and Clinton are guilty of lying to the American public, which is a big no-no” Nevertheless, both men escaped formal punishment. Nixon and Clinton were subjected to humiliation and the exhibition of personal and private information, but they were not convicted or indicted for their crimes.

Ford’s pardon of Nixon was very unpopular in 1974. The American public disapproved of the pardon. They felt betrayed by Nixon and more so because he ran away from his actions by resigning from office. With Clinton, the American public stood by the current president, perhaps only because he chose to face his actions and the possible consequences. Was Clinton’s bravery and honesty rewarded while Nixon’s lack thereof punished?

The discussion of government officials and crime is a delicate territory to explore. As we have seen, presidents do not tend to be convicted of crimes. More often than not, these trials and scandals are the center of media attention and entertainment for the greater public. So, all in all, I guess the point here is that in order for one to survive what could be a detrimental scandal, one needs to have a whole lot of power. Unfortunately, that’s not the case for me and it probably isn’t for anyone reading this. All I can say then, is good luck.

A Blog Series: Public Figures & Breaking the Law

On April 13 2007, Governor Jon Corzine of New Jersey was involved in an almost-fatal car crash, leaving the 60-year-old governor with a flailing chest and broken femur. How did this crash happen?

News outlets have been reporting on the event and have discovered Governor Corzine’s vehicle was traveling 91 miles per hour, 26 miles above the speed limit, when it was hit by a red pickup truck. It has also been released that Governor Corzine was not wearing his seatbelt at the time (he was in the front seat of the Chevy Suburban).

As it turns out, New Jersey has strict laws about seat belt safety. The official website of the New Jersey Government (http://www.nj.gov/lps/hts/seatbelts.html#2) summarizes the law as such:

“Applies to all passenger vehicles including vans, pickup trucks and SUV’s, that are required to be equipped with seat belts. Applies to all passengers who are at least 8 years of age but less than 18 year of age, and each driver and front seat passenger of a passenger automobile….All occupants are required to wear a properly adjusted and fastened seat belt system.”

New Jersey state officials are trying to locate the driver of the pickup truck who supposedly caused the accident. The drive could face charges of reckless driving and leaving the scene of an accident. Governor Corzine’s driver, state trooper Robert Rasinski, could face charges for disobeying the speeding limit. And Governor Corzine himself be cited and fined for disobeying his own seatbelt law (a minimal fine of $46.00).

However, the current issue of investigation revolves around the fact that no one can interview the governor because his respiration is currently being facilitated by a breathing tube. Furthermore, doctors and officials worry that the Governor won’t be able to remember the details of the accident. The doctors at Cooper University Hospital have constantly stated that the governor is very lucky to be alive.

Tom Shea, chief-of-state to Governor Corzine believes the governor should be cited if he was indeed not wearing a seatbelt. As far as citing Governor Corzine is concerned, he probably won’t face any fines. He has certainly suffered enough since the accident.

The only question that remains is: why would a government official break a law they have promised to uphold? The answer to this question is debatable. Furthermore, if a government official, or in fact, any public figure breaks the law, should they be punished accordingly?

Over the next few weeks, I will be debating these topics and I plan to look at several public figures from different walks of life. These people include government officials, actors and other celebrities, as well as athletes.

In my opinion, I believe that public figures should be treated like everyday citizens when it comes to the law. Nevertheless, I understand that public figures are entitled to special privileges whether it’s a matter of who they know or how much money they have or bring in for an organization.

In any case, I do wish Governor Corzine a speedy recovery and hope to see him back to work in the near future. As for the citation, I think it should be given as a matter of principle.

The Greed Generation

If you had the opportunity to walk away with a guaranteed $100,000 or more, would you take it?

I certainly would, but it seems like more and more people are willing to call that kind of cash “chump change.” The hit game show, Deal or No Deal, is the personification of greed in America. Contestant after contestant shouts “NO DEAL!” hoping that the case they’ve chosen holds one million dollars. Deal or No Deal and game shows of the same nature have deemed the current generation of Americans, young and old, “The Greed Generation.”

Deal or No Deal has been around for some time. The show aired on NBC on December 19, 2005. The show has gained international acclaim and several versions have taken off in other countries including Canada and France. The show is hosted by comedian Howie Mandel.

Deal or No Deal is probably one of the simplest game shows in television history. Prior to the show, a third party randomly places monetary amounts ranging from $0.01 to $1,000,000 in a total of 26 cases. Contestants, who are chosen through an application process, are then asked to choose a case. Once the contestant has his/her case, he/she begins to narrow down what could be in the case by opening the remaining cases.

The show operates in rounds (a total of nine) and each round requires the contestant to open a set number of cases. If the top amounts, which range from $100,000 to $1,000,000 stay in play, the Banker, will offer the contestant larger sums of money to buy the case from the contestant. The Banker’s goal is to buy the contestant’s case for as little as possible. If the top amounts are revealed as not being in the contestant’s case, the Banker’s offer decreases.

Since the game show’s induction in 2005, many have attempted to deduce the chances of a contestant picking the case with $1,000,000. Of course, the chances are very slim. To be exact, US Today crunched the numbers and revealed there’s only a 3.8% chance of a contestant choosing the top case. Meanwhile, there’s over a 50% chance a contestant’s case will hold less than $5,000. Seven contestants have chosen the million-dollar case, but all of them have taken a deal prior to knowing that their case held a million dollars.

One interesting piece of trivia is that one of these unlucky contestants, Dave Atherton, sold his case at the third offer for $81,000 when his case actually held $1,000,000. Atherton is the only contestant to sell a case that early in the game. More often than not, contestants play the game through the end and stick with their case. The biggest winning contestant was Michele Falco on September 22, 2006 who took home $750,000. She stuck with her case until the end.

It kills me to sit there and watch people turn down six digit figures when their case probably only holds $500 bucks. I sit there, glued to the television screen thinking that the six digit figure that was just turned down would pay for Masters three times over! Alas, I don’t know what I would do in the situation. I say that I would walk away. Yet, every time I’m at the casino, I can’t help but slip another $20 bill into the slot machine hoping to strike three sevens and hit the jackpot.

Is the phenomenon of greed cultural or compulsive?

Culturally, Americans celebrate prosperity. Who Wants to Be a Millionaire is another game show that encourages greed by pushing contestants to try to answer just one more question. Game shows like Deal or No Deal and Who Wants to Be a Millionaire along with other popular shows including Wheel of Fortune set a cultural tone inciting that anyone can win “big money.” These life-changing prizes are a new and more current version of The American Dream. Anyone can have it. But, can they?

Some critics who believe this is a cultural phenomenon say that these game shows promote a “pornography of wealth.” As Joshua Gamson points out in his article, “Other People’s Money” back in January of 2000 in The American Prospect, game shows are a cheerleader for capitalism encouraging consumers and could-be contestants that they could get something for nothing.

Gambling is and can be a compulsive activity. Gamblers tend to forgo logic hoping to get their big payday. The compulsion for Deal or No Deal contestants could simply be the urge to beat the system and pick the million-dollar case. I have seen many contestants claim to know which case holds the top prize (none of them have had it). So, the Banker wins in the same way that “the house always wins” when it comes to casinos.

Is there a lesson in all of this? Taking chances and striving to win are very large parts of culture and can lead to great prosperity or utter downfall. The danger “The Greed Generation” is subject to is potentially great, but in the meantime, it will continue to very entertaining.

The Tudors: History Has Never Been So Much Fun

Sex, power, and lust are perfect ingredients when making a breakthrough television series. The Tudors on Showtime combines and utilizes these elements to tantalize viewers as they are thrust into the 16th Century. A history lesson has never been so much fun.

The Tudors first aired on Sunday, April 1 at 10 p.m. on Showtime. Currently, the first two episodes of the series are available on Showtime’s website (www.sho.com). The series is written and produced by Michael Hirst with cinematography provided by Ousama Rawi. Together, Hirst and Rawi have created a perfect balance of words and images to please the viewers’ ears and eyes.

But you may ask, how is this possible? How can history be compelling and exciting? When one thinks of the reign of Henry VIII—an image of an old, fat, and excessively married man comes to mind. The Tudors proves, however, this was not the case. Rather, Henry was a fierce and provoking youth. This period in European history brought tumult and excitement at every turn as the fate of a nation relied on the hand of one ruler.

The Tudors takes viewers back to the delicious 1500s with decadent costumes and savory scenery. It is not hard to understand why King Henry VIII lusts not only for power, but the women that surround him. Within the first two episodes of the series, there has been sex, adultery, mistrust, treason, death, birth, and rivalry. It is no surprise this series has already gathered such a huge following with critics claiming it to be one of the best cable series since The Sopranos.

The dialogue in The Tudors is powerful and provocative. Hirst also recently published his book, The Tudors: It’s Good to be King. (It is currently on sale with a list price of $14.95.) Hirst’s extensive knowledge of Henry VIII provides the series with accurate historic details although The Tudors has only focused on the aristocrats and royalty of the time.

The star of the series, Jonathan Rhys Meyers, gives a commanding performance as King Henry VIII. His portrayal of Henry propels the series forward. Henry VIII is handsome, charming, and ruthless. His character easily flip-flops between passionate lover to cold husband to fearless ruler. Henry’s yearning for a male heir is one major plotline in the series thus far. It is also made clear that Henry wants to be immortalized in the pages of history.

Another character of notoriety in The Tudors is Sam Neill who plays Cardinal Thomas Wolsey. Cardinal Wolsey, like Henry, always finds a way to benefit from the situation. Secondary characters in the series look to Cardinal Wolsey for guidance and support. They also have, on several occasions, asked him to handle Henry. Cardinal Wolsey also acts as Henry’s confidant and helps to conceal the illegitimate pregnancy of Elizabeth Blount. Together, Henry and Cardinal Thomas strategically plot and map out the best routes to attain power.

Maria Doyle Kennedy plays Katherine of Aragon, daughter Spain’s King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella. Katherine originally married Arthur, Henry's brother, but he died sixth months into the marriage. In 1509, she married Henry VIII. In the series, Katherine is portrayed as strong and confidant woman and faithful wife. She wants her marriage to Henry to be a partnership and she tries to advise him in his rule during the first episode, but is reprimanded for interfering in political affairs.

Katherine of Aragon plays an integral role is in the plotline of the production of a male heir for the throne. Henry has grown impatient as each child produced by Katherine has been short lived, stillborn, or a girl. Katherine prays to the Madonna for a boy and her femininity and fragility are well-portrayed in the series.

Sir Thomas More, played by Jeremy Northam, has made brief appearances since the series began. More is known for his book, Utopia, which means “paradise.” For Henry, utopias don’t exist and he much prefers the powerful philosophy of Machiavelli’s The Prince.

Hirst has done well in foreshadowing future events in the life of Henry. Sir Thomas Boleyn, Earl of Wiltshire, played by Nick Dunning, tries to position his two daughters to win the affection of Henry VIII. His first daughter, Mary, is unsuccessful in keeping the attention of Henry. In the second episode, Sir Thomas coaxes Anne to win the attention of Henry through the sexual skills she obtained while living in France.

The character of Anne Boleyn is played by Perdita Weeks. Natalie Dormer plays Anne Boleyn who will become Henry’s second wife. Dormer plays Anne as a seductress capable of giving men, particularly Henry, anything he wants. She is physically appealing as Anne.

Throughout the first two episodes, the viewer can smell the faint scent of the events that are to come. There are mentions of Martin Luther, who will eventually pen his “100 Theses.” The viewer will also notice Henry’s ruthlessness to obtain his desires. As Hirst’s book title suggests, the character of Henry knows the power he possesses as king. He knows such power is great, but has no regard for the consequences such power has.

In the second episode, Henry proves his power by having Edward Stafford, 3rd Duke of Buckingham (Steven Waddington) beheaded on the charge of treason—a crime that was never truly committed. This event, which coincides with the birth of Henry’s son by Elizabeth Blount illustrates to the viewer that Henry will break rules at all costs to attain what he wants.

The notion of power and fear are forever present in every decision and action Henry takes as King. This fear of higher power (in the form of religion) and his drive to obtain power will lead Henry to become King of the Church of England through the Act of Supremacy (which “legalized” his divorce from Katherine). The notion of religious ideology and philosophy is a constant source of discussion for characters in the series and will most likely continue to drive them.

The Tudors is a series that is promoted on the opposite pole of religion. Rather than promoting the series through inherently good virtues, Showtime has decided to vest its advertising campaign in what are more commonly known as the Seven Deadly Sins. This move is probably wise as the history does not label Henry VIII’s reign as virtuous or good. When entering The Tudors webpage on Sho.com, the viewer sees several of the deadly sins flash across the screen including envy, greed, gluttony, pride, and lust. These sins are the full embodiment of Henry VIII.

Thus far, there are several themes that are playing out in The Tudors. The first them is fear versus love. Henry admires the question Machiavelli brings forth in The Prince, which asks if a ruler should be feared or loved? Henry struggles with physical and emotional love because he continuously grows tired with his wife (later wives) and mistresses. The pursuit of power is less difficult for Henry, but his reckless use of it may be dangerous as his reign continues.

A second theme of masculinity versus femininity can be found in the series. The character of Henry is the ultimate portrayal of a man: thirsty for sex, war, and power. His opposite, Katherine of Aragon, is the paradigm of womanhood through her loyalty and dedication to her husband. These traits of masculinity and femininity continue to blur from character to character as the plotlines thicken in The Tudors. For example, Anne Boleyn, is the ultimate woman physically. She is beautiful and tempting, her figure is well-rounded. Her personality, on the other hand, can be conniving. She seeks to boost herself through her actions.

Finally, the theme of humanity versus mercilessness is present in The Tudors. When speaking with Sir Thomas More, Henry prides himself as being a humanist, but disagrees with More’s peaceful path because he is king and is blinded by war. The script when combined with the cinematography visualizes this theme. The beauty and softness of the Renaissance architecture and dress when contrasted with the sharp and cunning dialogue of the characters provides a drastic and powerful element in the series.

The Tudors will most definitely succeed as a cable series although it would also succeed as a network series. However, the show would lose one powerful component—nudity and sex scenes. In every aspect, The Tudors is a primetime delight with superb acting (especially Jonathan Rhys Meyers and Sam Neill), excellent dialogue (Michael Hirst), and tantalizing scenery (Ousama Rawi).

The fourth installment of The Tudors will air on Sunday, April 22 at 10 p.m. on Showtime. This episode is currently available on demand. With such a strong start, The Tudors will certainly have a long reign on the Showtime network. Tune in to the show, you won’t be disappointed.