One
of the most common criticisms of the Starr Report was that it had too
much sex in it--far more than necessary to serve legitimate
prosecutorial goals. Does this criticism have merit?
Without a doubt, some discussion of the sexual nature of the
relationship between President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky was needed
to establish that Clinton had lied in his deposition in the Paula Jones
case and in his subsequent grand jury testimony. In both
instances, Clinton denied under oath that he touched Lewinsky
erotically. To expose these lies, Starr could have simply listed
sexual encounters by date and place, including a brief description of
the sexual content, such as "Lewinsky fellated the President" or the
"President touched Lewinsky's breasts."
The Starr Report, however, went far beyond establishing that the
President lied when he denied having sexual relations with Lewinsky,
and included sexual details of various encounters that suggest the
Report also had as its purpose to embarrass Clinton and thus limit his
effectiveness as President. Perhaps no detail revealed in the
Starr Report better illustrates this prosecutorial overkill than the
decision to include a description of Clinton putting a cigar in
Lewinsky's vagina, then putting it in his own mouth and saying that it
"tastes good" (3-31-96). The cigar incident would inspire
countless jokes by late-night comics and greatly weakened the ability
of the President to ever again be seen as "presidential." The
same good be said of the Starr Report's description
of the President masturbating in a sink in his bathroom, its
description of Clinton taking calls from members of Congress while
receiving oral sex, or its mention of a more traditional form of "phone
sex" between Lewinsky and the President.
The American people--most of them, anyway--learned far more about the
President's private behavior from the Starr Report than they ever
wanted to or needed to. As Judge Richard Posner (a respected
federal appeals court judge appointed by President Reagan) observed in An Affair of State: The Investigation,
Impeachment, and Trial of President Clinton, the details "are a
distraction to anyone who wants to understand and evaluate Clinton's
Presidency or the role and function of the President in American
government and society." Posner also noted that details such as
the cigar story were no doubt difficult on Clinton's family and close
friends because they made it more difficult for them to "avert their
eyes, as it were, from the relationship with Lewinsky."
One can only speculate on Starr's reasons for including such
distracting and embarrassing details in his report. It is
conceivable that he somehow believed them critical to making his case
for Clinton's guilt, but it is far more likely that he had come to
detest
the President and the President's most vocal supporters,
probably for the very understandable reason that he had been
viciously--and at times unfairly--attacked by them. Yet, as Judge
Posner observed, "We expect better from our prosecutors;...they are not
to hate their quarry."
|
