Wednesday, April 25, 2007

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.

No comments: