Pixel Tracker

Friday, January 18 , 2019, 4:18 pm | Fair 63º

 
 
 
 

Joe Conason: When ‘Reckoning’ With Bill, Try Facts Not Myths

Suddenly it has become fashionable again in liberal circles to flay Bill Clinton for his sexual misconduct, whether real, alleged or imagined.

Amid the national frenzy swirling around the likes of Harvey Weinstein and Roy Moore, prominent journalists and politicians are competing to display their dudgeon over the former president and things he is said to have done long ago.

On The New York Times op-ed page, new columnist Michelle Goldberg writes that the former president ought to be expelled from "decent society" because of Juanita Broaddrick's allegation that he raped her in 1978, under the headline "I Believe Juanita."

In Politico, former ABC correspondent Jeff Greenfield pillories Democrats who supported Clinton for supposedly "brushing aside the serious questions ... of predatory sexual behavior" toward Broaddrick, Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey.

And in The Atlantic, Caitlin Flanagan demands "a reckoning" of the way that "the Democratic Party protected Bill Clinton."

All these commentators, and a few more, seem to recollect a moment when Clinton blithely escaped accountability for awful sex offenses because the feckless liberals let him skip. But that is precisely the opposite of what happened.

Unlike Weinstein, Moore or any of the dozens of powerful men whose misdeeds have provoked a wave of justified fury, Clinton endured a series of official investigations of his alleged sexual misdeeds, litigated publicly all the way to the Supreme Court and the U.S. Senate.

A zealous federal inquisitor with a team of relentless and experienced prosecutors, as well as the forensic services of the FBI, ran a wide-ranging sex probe that went back decades. The special prosecutor's name was Kenneth W. Starr.

The Starr investigation of Clinton's personal life unfolded rapidly after the independent counsel and his staff abandoned "Whitewater," a small-time land swindle whose principal victims turned out to be the Clintons themselves.

Approached with a tip by lawyers for Paula Jones, the former Arkansas state employee who claimed then-Governor Clinton had exposed himself to her in a Little Rock hotel room, Starr opened a new case to ensnare President Clinton in a perjury trap over his illicit consensual relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

The Lewinsky opening provided Starr with a license to intensify his scrutiny of Clinton's personal life.

During the months leading up to impeachment in 1999, the Office of Independent Counsel deployed its full forensic authority to investigate every salacious claim or rumor about him. Included in that expansion of Starr's probe were the cases of Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick.

Keen as Starr was to compile a thoroughly damning impeachment dossier against Clinton, both of those cases presented factual and legal problems that proved impossible for him to overcome. Under oath, two of Willey's closest friends directly contradicted her version of how Clinton aggressively "groped" her in the Oval Office despite her protestations.

During his investigation, Starr learned that Willey had lied to FBI agents after receiving a grant of transactional immunity from his office. He immunized her again, but by then Willey was bereft of believability.

Starr also confronted vexing problems with Broaddrick's charge that Clinton had assaulted her in a hotel room in 1978. Before the independent counsel brought her in, she had sworn an affidavit in the Paula Jones case denying any sexual contact with Clinton, and then repeated that denial in a deposition under oath.

The FBI found five witnesses who insisted that Broaddrick had told them about the rape at the time. Two of those witnesses were sisters and close friends of Broaddrick who hated Clinton for commuting the death sentence of their father's convicted killer.

A third was Broaddrick's husband, David, with whom she had been conducting an illicit affair when the alleged incident occurred. Republican operatives who had pursued the rape rumors when Clinton first ran for president also cast doubt on her story and her motives.

Whether Clinton assaulted Broaddrick was impossible to know — or to prove — from the available evidence. That was why, in a footnote to his report, Starr described his findings about the woman called "Jane Doe #5" as "inconclusive."

As for Paula Jones, various contradictions marred her testimony, notably the mythical "distinguishing characteristic" of Clinton's male equipment, which she evidently invented. Still, he agreed to pay her a settlement of $850,000, without any admission, to end the litigation.

That payment was the least of the indignities and injuries that befell Clinton. The investigations cost him tens of millions of dollars, a five-year suspension of his license to practice law, a searing scar upon his family, and a future obituary that will feature his status as the only president ever impeached over a sex lie.

Yet those who still feel an urge to flog Clinton, for whatever motive, should pursue that stern impulse with all the seriousness it deserves.

This case isn't a current legal proceeding. It's history — and the facts, not fitting any easy storyline or moral fable, are available to those willing to deal with them.

Joe Conason is editor in chief of NationalMemo.com. Click here to contact him, follow him on Twitter: @JoeConason, or click here to read previous columns. The opinions expressed are his own.

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made using a credit card, Apple Pay or Google Pay, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments and a mailing address for checks.

Thank you for your vital support.

Become a Noozhawk Supporter

First name
Last name
Email
Select your monthly membership
Or choose an annual membership
×

Payment Information

Membership Subscription

You are enrolling in . Thank you for joining the Hawks Club.

Payment Method

Pay by Credit Card:

Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Discover
One click only, please!

Pay with Apple Pay or Google Pay:

Noozhawk partners with Stripe to provide secure invoicing and payments processing.
You may cancel your membership at any time by sending an email to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.