Why no longer apocalypse now? Why, after so much harping on the compulsory rule of law, would our national morality tutors suggest that this unscrupulous villain of foulest lies - lies commensurate with treason - now be left unprosecuted? Are not principle and duty constants? Do not the impressionable psyches of children matter any longer?
The answer, it seems, is that when it comes to political side-stepping and PR back-peddling, the children can look after themselves, thank you very much. One may conclude with confidence that the private calculation made by Republicans after acquittal was this: As Keystone-coppish as the hapless pursuit of purity in the Senate made them appear, a loss by Starr in federal court would be every bit as bad; maybe worse, given that House managers repeatedly implied that standard trial procedures were an avenue to certain conviction. Let us proceed as we would downtown - managers often said when it suited their purpose - with mounds of depositions and live testimony, and we'll have our man, no doubt about it.
The lack of doubt, of course, resides in the gross improbability of a conviction in federal court. Speculation and hearsay are had by the truckload, but little evidence exists which any responsible prosecutor would bring to trial. Better to avoid further humiliation, send cease-and-desist signals to Starr, seem at last reasonable to the public, and hope the whole mess just slithers away.
As it slithers away, Republicans are mindfully kicking it along, trying to put as much distance between themselves and the infectious carcass of impeachment before election day 2000. The last thing they need is the specter of Ken Starr haunting a D.C. courtroom, resurrecting bad, bad memories in the minds of voters.
But if Republicans are wagging their fingers at Starr, asserting by-gones as by-gones, they're misleading the American people. Platitudes about national healing and fresh starts are disingenuous substitutes for honest admissions of political reality. The GOP fears the unavoidable political damage of a trial and is desperate to abort the idea. Civic considerations are merely tertiary. That's the simple truth.
Go To Page: 1 2
| Here's the follow-up discussion on this article: | View all related messages |
For a complete listing of article comments, questions, and other discussions related to Phil Carpenter's U.S. Politics topic, please visit the Discussions page.