Last Thursday, for only the third time in the nation’s history, the House of Representatives approved the beginning of a presidential impeachment inquiry. At issue was Bill Clinton’s grotesque and illegal manipulation, in the Monica Lewinsky matter, of the English language, the Oval Office, and the executive and judicial branches of the federal government generally.
All 227 Republicans present in the House chamber voted in favor of this necessary inquiry, Resolution 581. They were joined by 31 of the House’s 206 Democrats. Among those 31 were the only two congressional Democrats who have so far proved honorable enough to call on the president to resign — Gene Taylor of Mississippi and Paul McHale of Pennsylvania. McHale, for his part, was the only House Democrat, during Thursday’s two hours of debate, to offer unqualified criticism of Clinton’s appalling conduct.
Because he refused to excuse the inexcusable, and because he spoke for principle and not for party, Rep. McHale also spoke for this magazine.
In the House of Representatives
Thursday morning, October 8, 1998
Mr. Speaker:
Franklin Roosevelt once said that the presidency “is preeminently a place of moral leadership.”
I want my strong criticism of President Clinton to be placed in context. I voted for President Clinton in 1992 and 1996. I believed him to be the “Man from Hope” as he was depicted in his 1992 campaign video. I have voted for more than three-fourths of the president’s legislative agenda — and would do so again. My blunt criticism of the president has nothing to do with policy. Moreover, the president has always treated me with courtesy and respect, and he has been more than responsive to the concerns of my constituents.
Unfortunately, the president’s misconduct has now made immaterial my past support or agreement with him on issues. Last January 17, the president of the United States attempted to cover up a sordid and irresponsible relationship by repeated deceit — under oath — in a federal civil-rights suit.
Contrary to his later public statement, his answers were not “legally accurate”; they were intentionally and blatantly false. He allowed his lawyer to make arguments to the court based on an affidavit that the president knew to be false.
The president later deceived the American people — and belatedly admitted the truth only when confronted, some seven months later, by a mountain of irrefutable evidence. I am convinced that the president would otherwise have allowed his false testimony to stand in perpetuity.
What is at stake is really the rule of law.
When the president took an oath to tell the truth, he was no different at that point from any other citizen, both as a matter of morality and as a matter of legal obligation. We cannot excuse that kind of misconduct because we happen to belong to the same party as the president, or agree with him on issues, or feel tragically that the removal of the president from office would be enormously painful for the United States of America.
The question is whether or not we will say to all our citizens, including the president of the United States: When you take an oath, you must keep it.
Having deliberately provided false testimony under oath, the president, in my judgment, forfeited his right to office. It was with a deep sense of sadness that I called for his resignation.
By his own misconduct, the president displayed his character and defined it badly. His actions were not “inappropriate.” They were predatory, reckless, breathtakingly arrogant for a man already a defendant in a sexual-harassment suit — whether or not that suit was politically motivated. And if, in disgust or dismay, we were to sweep aside the president’s immoral and illegal conduct, what dangerous precedent would we set for the abuse of power by some future president of the United States?
We cannot define the president’s character. But we must define our nation’s. I urge an affirmative vote on the resolution.
Rep. Paul McHale, Democrat of Pennsylvania
