Tuesday, November 5, 1996
PRESIDENT:
Clinton’s scandals could make him candidate for impeachment in
second termAmericans should not cast their votes today without
devoting some thought to a very serious question  are we
electing a president that we will eventually impeach?
After all, the campaign that is now drawing to a close is
striking in its similarity to the 1972 presidential campaign in
which Richard Nixon defeated his opponent, George McGovern, by a
landslide only to resign from office two years later. When Nixon
was elected, the public had suspicions about his involvement in the
Watergate break-in, but tangible evidence of criminal activity was
scant in comparison to what has mounted against Bill Clinton during
his term in office. With Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, Paula
Jones and the latest scandal involving illegal contributions from
Indonesia, Clinton’s political longevity may be more dubious than
Bob Dole’s.
It is highly probable that the Supreme Court will rule that
civil suits may be brought against the president while in office.
If this decision is made, then Clinton would be forced into court
to defend himself against Paula Jones’ allegations of sexual
harassment during his second term. Unfortunately for Clinton, many
pundits agree that these allegations are far from frivolous. Jones
appears to be a credible witness, recalling with specificity a
chronology of events that was contemporaneously corroborated by
several other people when the scandal erupted in 1994. Moreover,
Clinton’s attempts to evade a resolution of the issue do not
bolster his claims of innocence. As the legal proceedings
necessarily reveal more about the allegations, Americans may begin
to wish they could recast their ballots.
The Paula Jones scandal is not the only potentially explosive
land mine that Clinton will have to side-step during his second
term. His campaign has returned $250,000 of the funds it illegally
received from Indonesian businessmen, but the specter of this and
other corrupt transactions continues to hang over the
administration.
It appears that the Indonesian contributors have been allowed to
exert influence over foreign policy in exchange for their sizable
donations. For example, there has been some debate over whether
Indonesia should be permitted to continue trading in the U.S.
market duty-free after invading the nation of East Timor and
violently subjugating its people. The Bush Administration began an
investigation into whether Indonesia was complying with the
standards of international labor in East Timor but, according to
William Safire of The New York Times, it was suddenly dropped after
Clinton received pressure from James Riady, an Indonesian
millionaire who had contributed money to his campaign. By calling a
halt to the investigation, the Clinton administration saved
Indonesian businessmen $40 million a year while undermining
America’s professed commitment to human rights.
Because they have such a willing friend in the White House,
aggressive Indonesian businessmen are not daunted by strict laws
banning foreign campaign contributions. They simply evade the
regulations by funneling their donations through Indonesian
citizens who are legally residing in the United States. Such
individuals have made contributions of several hundred thousand
dollars to the Clinton campaign. The largest of these was in the
amount of $475,000, made by a middle-class landscaper whose
father-in-law was a prominent Indonesian businessman. It is very
distressing that he and others are merely conduits through which
foreign business interests attempt to manipulate the economic
policy of the United States.
These corrupt transactions do not only effect the inhabitants of
East Timor, but they also have extremely important domestic
ramifications. In particular, Indonesian influence has made it more
difficult to uncover the truth behind the Whitewater scandal. After
being forced from the Justice Department, Webster Hubbell was
employed by Lippo, an Indonesian conglomerate, until he was
indicted for fraud six months later. Without the income he received
from performing services of "an undisclosed nature" for Lippo, the
long-time Clinton friend and confidant might have been induced to
reveal more about the Whitewater investigation than he has to date.
In exchange for this financial safety net, he helped Riady petition
Clinton for the termination of the East Timor labor
investigation.
Given this administration’s history of unethical conduct, Bob
Dole is justified in demanding to know where all of the outrage has
gone. Unfortunately, as long as the economy remains steady, the
public does not appear to share his marked interest in issues of
character. It appears the American people will have to watch the
overwhelming evidence of sexual misconduct and shady financial
dealings unravel Clinton’s second term before they develop such an
interest. Although he has won the endorsement of the New York
Times, it was not given without reservations or without the hope
that he would "pledge not to pardon anyone convicted in
prosecutions arising from Whitewater, the White House travel office
firings, the mishandling of F.B.I. files or the raising of funds
for the 1996 campaign." Ironically, the person most needful of a
presidential pardon may be the president himself.
Jennifer Nelson