One of my favorite political writers, Joshua Micah Marshall, posts interesting (and sometimes, clairvoyant) items almost daily on his Talking Points Memo website. He also turns up in magazines and other websites like Salon, where he has a terrific piece on the final report from the office of Independent Counsel (i.e., Robert Ray, successor-in-interest to Ken Starr) on the matter of Clinton's alleged "crimes" in the Lewinsky caper. I believe — and I expect this will be the judgment of history, if it isn't already — that the whole thing will be seen as a colossal waste of government funds and resources, and an appalling example of prosecutorial abuse.
That last aspect hasn't gotten nearly enough attention. One of the moments when I found myself genuinely taken aback during it all was during a conversation with a friend of mine who regards himself as a Militant Libertarian. He hates Democrats and considers Republicans the lesser of two evils…but still evil. For years, I have heard him rabbit on about how government surveillance is immoral; how every teensy thing "they" do is an erosion of our freedoms; how the Feds shouldn't have the right to even know your address, let alone whether you own guns, smoke crack or hump small barnyard animals. But it was perfectly fine with this guy that some of the Feds investigated our president's personal life and published the most personal, irrelevant details — especially the part about him masturbating in the sink. That was just great because any principle can be overlooked if it harms your enemies…and this guy regarded (still regards) Bill Clinton as his enemy.
This is a disappointment I have in some way with all our leaders — Dems, Repubs, Greens, whatever. It's the placing of simple political expediency — harming one's foes, especially — above principle. Did you ever see one Clinton opponent speak up and say, "This has gone too far?" I didn't. Most of them would not defend Starr's goons leaking to reporters, releasing slime and scaring the bejeesus (and life savings) out of almost anyone who worked around the Oval Office. But if one of them ever said, "This is not right," I sure didn't hear it…and the Democrats who hid under their desks were no better.
Marshall's Salon piece points up how disingenuous much of the Ray report is, especially in its contention that they could have indicted Clinton but chose not to — a conclusion designed to please no one and put nothing to rest. Starr was said to have a political "tin ear," showing no concept of how certain actions and statements would be received by the public. The guy who followed him into the job has demonstrated similar people skills. He's said to be about to announce for the Senate but who, on God's green earth, would vote for the man? If you hate Clinton, you're mad that Ray supposedly had tons of evidence of criminal-wrongdoing but chose not to use it. If you love Clinton, you're pissed at the whole drawn-out Witch Hunt. And if you're indifferent to Clinton, you're still fed up with the whole story and unlikely to reward the guy who prolonged it into its second century…and who still hasn't issued the final reports on Travelgate and Filegate.
If you'd like to see what Mr. Marshall has to say, I can offer two options. The article is on Salon but it's in their premium section, which costs $20 a year to join. It's well worth it and if you've already gone that route, here's the link. If you're too cheap to do that — or already (wisely) donating all your discretionary income to this site, the piece is copied over at www.smirkingchimp.com. This is a website that started out to be one of those inane "Doesn't George W. Bush look like an ape?" things but it's evolved into a serious presentation of liberal issues. Alas, it's on a server that moves at about the speed of a deadlocked Congress…but if you're willing to wait a spell for a good essay to come up on your screen, here's a direct link to it.
I'll quote one paragraph from the Marshall piece because I think it's so important. Remember, if you will, that the TV show 60 Minutes gave a woman named Kathleen Willey a whole hour to tell her tale of being groped by President Clinton, and that Starr's office prosecuted — and darn near destroyed the life of — a woman named Julie Hiatt Steele who refused to verify certain details of Willey's claim. Marshall writes…
So how credible is Kathleen Willey? Apparently, not very credible at all. And that's not the word from some Clinton lapdog, but from the OIC itself. Appendix B of Ray's report analyzes Willey's accusations and concludes, rather hermetically, that "there was insufficient evidence to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that President Clinton's testimony regarding Kathleen Willey was false." But that conclusion is a comic understatement when read in the context of the report's Appendix B. The OIC lawyers couldn't even convince themselves that Willey was credible, let alone prove it beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury. They had already concluded that Willey was a liar.
So why is no one screaming about what was done to Julie Hiatt Steele? During the impeachment mess, some Republicans spoke of perjury as a crime akin to molesting toddlers, and spoke of the "Rule of Law" being annihilated if a prominent perjurer went free. How come they aren't calling for Willey's prosecution and 60 Minutes isn't airing this view of her? Answer: It doesn't advance anyone's cause at the moment. And these days, adhering to a principle ain't nearly as important as winning the current skirmish.