Slate's Bizbox
dialogues: E-mail debates of newsworthy topics.

Ending the Clinton Crisis

dialogues
entries
12345678
from: William Kristol
to: James Hamilton

Posted Saturday, Nov. 7, 1998, at 3:30 AM ET

I think Bill Clinton should be impeached.
I think it is unlikely Bill Clinton will be impeached. The American people appear not to want him impeached. They're wrong. But our democratically elected politicians will, not unreasonably, probably follow the wishes of their constituents.
What is likely to happen is that either 1) a few Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee will defect, and there won't be the votes to report articles of impeachment to the floor; or 2) a few dozen Republicans will defect on the floor, and the House will not pass articles of impeachment. The House (and Senate) might instead pass some sort of resolution censuring the president, which the president might in some way "accept." I think there is little prospect of the sort of deal that you've been arguing for, in which the president formally signs on and pays a fine, mostly because the president will see no need to go that far.
I think this is how the next couple of months are likely to play out. All this will produce a split in the GOP--many Republicans will be outraged when others (with or without the support of some Republican leaders) jump ship on impeachment. It will also produce a few weeks of fervent debate in Washington, which will make the American people unhappy, since they wish the impeachment process were over.
Nonetheless, I still prefer some version of this outcome--hearings, debates, votes--to the sort of deal you've outlined, for reasons that I've explained. If the House and Senate want to, as you put it, "officially express their strong disapproval" through some sort of congressional resolution, I suppose they can do that. I think it would be a hollow as well as an extraconstitutional gesture, and suspect that if I were a member of Congress I would vote against it: If the president ought not be impeached, then don't impeach him. In any case, a deal--which was a way to save the president from impeachment--is no longer necessary. So no impeachment, alas, and no deal. Oh well--if we can't remove Clinton, perhaps we can at least dump Newt!

dialogues
entries
12345678
from: William Kristol
to: James Hamilton

Posted Saturday, Nov. 7, 1998, at 3:30 AM ET
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
James Hamilton is a partner at the law firm of Swidler, Berlin, Shereff, and Friedman. He was assistant chief counsel of the Senate Watergate committee and recently defended the continuance of Vincent Foster's attorney-client privilege before the Supreme Court. William Kristol is editor and publisher of the Weekly Standard. He is a regular guest on ABC's This Week With Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES
Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Over the Line
Harold Ford Jr. | I know what it's like to be smeared by your opponent.
: The Positive in Negative Ads
PLUS » Milbank: The President's Lullaby