< PREVIOUS ] [ 1998 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
Judge Susan Webber Wright ruled properly to dismiss the lawsuit Paula Corbin Jones filed against William Jefferson Clinton. Even if everything occurred the way Jones alleged, how was she damaged? She kept her state job and was even promoted afterward.
Assuming that Jones's story was true, then Clinton was a boorish oaf making a crude proposition. As the judge observed, that's disgusting but not actionable, and our courts are already sufficiently clogged.
Fortunately for those of us who enjoy Rabelaisian humor on late-night TV, the Clinton Investigation Industry will suffer no shortage of other raw material. However, they always seem to miss the matters that should be investigated.
· Prevarication Transfer Factor. The argument is that Bill Clinton is not true to his marriage vows, and thus cannot be trusted with the nation's business.
Is there indeed a connection, though? I do business every day with men and women whose word is solid. If they say they'll sell a given product, or perform a given service, at a certain price by a certain time -- it happens.
But if small-town gossip can be believed, some of these otherwise trustworthy people are less than faithful to their marriage vows.
I suspect that most Americans have made the same observation, which explains why Clinton's standing in the polls remains high.
Perhaps there is a correlation between public and private truthfulness, though. Since Congress and Special Prosecutor Ken Starr both possess substantial investigative resources, why don't they turn to this topic? The results would be useful to all of us, thereby benefiting the general welfare, instead of narrow political agendas.
· General Governmental Corruption. Often I read
right-thinking pundits who declare that the Clinton
Administration is the most corrupt in history
as
evidenced by the illegal campaign contributions from Asian
nationals.
But illegal
isn't necessarily corrupt.
Doesn't corruption involve a quid pro quo?
That is, back in the Watergate days, I could see a connection between A) campaign contributions from the dairy industry, and B) price-support levels for milk.
More recently, I could reasonably imagine a connection between A) substantial campaign contributions from Phil Anschutz and the Union Pacific and Southern Pacific PACs, and B) Congress removing railroad mergers from anti-trust oversight.
So, other than occasional overnights in the Lincoln Bedroom, what did these contributors get in return? The investigators have shown me the money, but they haven't shown me much else. If the White House is indeed as susceptible to purchase as our Congress, then we've got bigger problems than Filegate, Troopergate, Zippergate, etc.
· Affirmative Action for the Children of the Wealthy. White House interns are young people -- generally recent college graduates -- who serve without pay. They are not exactly altruists dedicated to public service, though. Internships look good on the resume, and provide connections to influential men like Vernon Jordan who can arrange for $80,000-a-year jobs at big companies.
My kids, upon their graduation from college, will not be able to take internships. They'll have to find jobs to pay off their college loans, and it's unlikely that these entry-level jobs will provide much in the way of well-placed connections. The same is probably true of your children.
In other words, these internships provide a further advantage for those who already enjoy many advantages. Poor kids simply can't afford to be interns.
I'm not the only one troubled by this. Charles Peters, editor of the excellent Washington Monthly magazine, has interns and pays a stipend, $200 a week. He freely confesses that that's not enough to live on in Washington, thereby preventing some talented young people from availing themselves of this opportunity to jumpstart a career of major-league journalism.
He has the courage to confess that he's morally troubled by this. But no one in Congress seems to care, and the special prosecutor, has other fish toy fry. Unable to subpoena library records or video rentals on account of privacy laws, he now goes after bookstore receipts. Just what protection does the First Amendment really offer when your reading preferences can be the subject of a criminal investigation?
So, there's plenty to investigate, even after the dismissal. But for some reason, I won't be surprised if none of these matters gets any attention.
< PREVIOUS ] [ 1998 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >