|
|
|
 |
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
|
|
Posted on 01/18/2003 12:22:58 PM PST by hoosierskypilot
Jan. 18 — The year 1998 started off unusually calm for the Clinton administration. Earlier scandals seemed under control and the White House was busy building a bridge to the 21st century. That was before the world met Monica.
It's been five years since news broke of the scandalous affair between President Clinton and former intern Monica Lewinsky — a few trysts that nearly ended a presidency. As the president set out on the morning of Jan. 17, 1998, he didn't know that the day's events would change forever the legacy he was busy planning.
The Big Question
It all started with a surprise question during his testimony in the lawsuit filed by Paula Jones, a former Arkansas state worker who alleged Clinton, while governor, had sexually harassed her in 1991.
When Jones' lawyers asked if he had been having an affair with a former White House intern, Clinton denied there was a sexual relationship.
The real opening act in the Lewinsky scandal came four days later, when the rest of the world learned the young woman's name.
"I slept in for the first time since I'd been at the White House," said former White House press secretary Joe Lockhart. "And at about 9 a.m. I called in and said the dumbest thing in the history of presidential politics, 'Is there anything going on?'"
Networks cut into soap operas in the middle to of the day with special reports.
"I mean the media frenzy that resulted from the first day of reporting I'm not sure we'll ever see again," Lockhart said.
Salacious Details
ABCNEWS producer Chris Vlasto remembers how quickly the story expanded.
"I remember looking at when [independent counsel] Ken Starr came out, there's hundreds of cameras around him — it was exceptional and you become a bit afraid at how large it became and you wanted to make sure you were right," Vlasto said.
Over the next days, weeks and month the world learned all the intimate details of the relationship between Clinton and Lewinsky. Everything from the tie she gave him to her semen-stained blue dress ended up in the infamous Starr report.
Lanny Davis, former special counsel to President Clinton, said everyone involved in the case felt immense pressure since so much was riding on the outcome.
"I had been in the middle of a few frenzies, but compared to this it was the difference between a bomb and a nuclear bomb," Davis said. "Everybody recognized what was at stake here could be the presidency itself."
In December 1998, Clinton became only the second president in U.S. history to be impeached. He was charged with grand jury perjury and obstruction of justice in connection with a coverup of his relationship with Lewinsky. The trial began in the Senate on Jan. 7, 1999. A little over a month later, on Feb. 12, Clinton was acquitted. He had kept his job, but his reputation had taken a beating.
Bad Behavior All Around
Looking back, presidential historian Michael Bechloss says the scandal brought out a lot of bad behavior.
"It was an ugly year. It was a brutal year. People were vicious to one another," Bechloss said.
Vlasto said almost everyone involved in the case got hurt in some way. "Every player involved was attacked and I don't think anyone came out unscathed," he said.
The five years that have past since the scandal may not be enough to judge the long-term impact of the Lewinsky scandal on American politics. It's possible, especially in the newly sobered, post-Sept. 11 world, that as riveting as it seemed at the time, it could have little lasting impact. When all is said and done, the scandal that rocked the world in 1998 might end up being little more than a memorable footnote in U.S. political history.
Monica Lewinsky moved to lower Manhattan after the scandal came to a slow end. Now 29, she has had a handbag line and an HBO cable special. She's now planning on going to law school.
|
|
|
|
|
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
|
|
I cannot think of many things the world needs less. I wonder if she will be in favor of Tart Reform.
Ha-ha. You have a way with words. I can answer your question in a word though. No!
The main reporter on Clinton's obstruction, AP's Pete Yost, allowed his articles to be totally controlled by the Clintons in exchange for juicy leaks ( Pete Yost then allowed the leaks to be blamed on Judge Starr).
He was caught getting secret information from a Democrat judge about Starr's investigation.
Pete Yost's selling of AP's ethics resulted in - a promotion and raise.
The real significance is that Clinton had used these same techniques in many cases prior to this, such as Whitewater and the treatment of Dolly Kyle Browning. Every affidavit ever filed by the Clintons or their minions deserves close inspection.
Somehow I think the precedent of declaring that even while under oath and in Court a Government official is entitled to lie will have long term negative consequences for our entire Judicial system.
THIS IS AN ENORMOUS FALSEHOOD !
1998 started with the disclosure by military pathologists that a bullet hole was found in Ron Brown's head. Photos were posted to the Internet, and even Jesse Jackson was calling for an explanation.
Then the Monica distraction "exploded."
Little was heard again about that bullet hole.
ML/NJ
I wonder if the liberal lap-dog columnists have had a chance to think about the ramifications of the Lewinski affair have had for even values they hold dear, like feminism and openness in government. I know they were way too busy trying to save the Clinton presidency during the unfolding of those events, but surely, time and distance must have given them at least a tiny bit of perspective on it all, don't you think?
I can always make a liberal think when discussing the Lewinski affair by pointing out that they voted for Bill Clinton to advance their agenda, and not just pursue babes. Failing to keep his pants zipped while in the prescence of alluring employees defeated the purposes for which they elected him. It makes them think, surely some others have reflected upon this fact, too. Does anyone think we'll hear from them?
Let's see... Suppose one were a corrupt President looking for ways to ensure a secure retirement. I know... Let's order up the FBI files of the most influential 2000 personalities in Washington, DC and see what's in them.
Some will be clean as a whistle and a waste of time. Others will contain credible allegations of wrong-doing. These people will be very vulnerable. Any intense investigation of such people could quickly win their cooperation. An unscrupulous detective or two will have to be hired to track down the "smoking guns".
But the majority will not contain clear evidence of where they are weak, only hints. For these people the strategy for winning their future cooperation will have to be developed later, when the contents of their files can be examined in a future context. That is why it would be necessary to copy everything in the file into a computer database. Every detail in the files, however irrelevant seeming, could be valuable later on. And all the information can fit on a handful of optical disks.
Even people whose files were not copied will find themselves reluctant to enter the fray because they just don't know for sure.
Now, why does all this sound so familiar?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.