FREEDOM WATCH

By BOB WARD - Editor of the Texas Journal

High Crimes Or Whatevers?

ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION, a president may be removed from office for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Recent revelations by President Clinton are

stirring debate over how high a crime must be to warrant impeachment.

Clinton defenders insist adultery is not a crime and even lying about it to the public isn't a crime. And even lying in his deposition in the Paula Jones lawsuit, they go on, isn't serious because it was a civil case.

The claim that lying in a civil case is somehow acceptable displays callousness and ignorance. Civil litigation is someone's attempt to obtain justice under our system. Additionally, civil cases often dispose of multiple millions of dollars. There is nothing trivial about civil cases and litigants have a right to truthful testimony from witnesses.

Probably adultery and lying to the public aren't indictable crimes. But is that the standard for impeachment? According to Thomas Jipping, director of the Free Congress Foundation's Center for Law and Democracy, the notion that a president must be guilty of an indictable crime to be impeached is a modern interpretation. Delegates to the constitutional convention, he said, meant impeachable offenses to include more than that. "Maladministration," suggested by delegate George Mason, was rejected by James Madison as too vague so the word "misdemeanor" was used. He cites a 1937 Harvard Law Review article which stated, "It is settled that the stipulated grounds for impeachment . . . include more than the indictable offenses technically covered by these classifications."

The President has shown no signs of mending his ways. On Aug. 17, even as he was confessing he had lied to us, he was still lying. He told us that what he said in his January deposition was "legally accurate." But he was telling us that he had an "inappropriate" relationship but in January he swore he couldn't remember ever being alone with her. Is the President so gross as to carry on his "inappropriate" relationship in the presence of others in the Oval Office? Or was he lying to us about giving a "legally accurate" statement in his deposition? Given Clinton's loss of credibility, Congress could reasonably conclude he is unable to function effectively and the good of the country requires his removal. Such a conclusion may be bolstered by other information -- unrelated to adultery -- in the special prosecutor's report. This might include abuse of power, obstruction of justice, wrongful acquisition of individuals' FBI files, using the IRS to punish critics. .

There is even the transfer of military technology to Communist China which may turn out to be -- as a lot of Americans feel -- treasonous. That would resolve all debate as to the grounds for impeachment.

Congress must also consider whether the disruption of the impeachment process is worth it to replace Clinton with Al Gore.