The Whole Truth, Nothing but the Truth

The impeachment trial of US President William Jefferson Clinton, which formally began on January 7 in the Senate, is certainly the cynosure of discussions and speculations all over the world and will continue to be so until the process is over. The extent of interest and curiosity is obvious for the simple reason that this is only the second time in American history that a sitting president is facing impeachment trial. President Andrew Jackson was the first, tried and acquitted by the Senate 130 years back in 1868. One vote saved his presidency. President Richard Nixon resigned before facing impeachment. Clinton has been impeached on two charges - perjury and obstruction of justice. He will be removed if 67 senators feel what he has done amounts to "high crime and misdemeanour" and vote accordingly.

House prosecutors - 13 Republicans from the House of Representatives led by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde - have already presented their arguments before the Senate as to why Clinton should be removed from office. The White House defence team has also placed their rebuttal, hammering on the now familiar tone of what the president had done does not constitute "high crimes and misdemeanours."

Former Senator Dale Bumpers summed up defence's opening arguments. Bumper, who served the Senate until last year, said that while the president was guilty of a terrible "moral lapse", his conduct did not warrant ouster from the White House.

"You can censure Bill Clinton - you can hand him over prosecutors but you can not convict him," said Bumber, alternately the constitutional scholar and the bantering southern.

The president, meanwhile, gave his State of the Union address at the joint session of Congress on January 19, poignantly presenting the success story of his presidency and outlining plans for the rest of his tenure. The address, attracting appreciation from both sides of the isle, looks set to have a significant impact on the impeachment proceedings at the Senate, Democrats feel.

The House of Representatives approved the two articles of impeachment largely on party lines. The Republicans, the majority in the House, seem hell-bent on punishing the president for his aberration while the Democrats feel the whole affair stems essentially from irrational demands and over-blown descriptions of Clinton's "inappropriate" relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. In the Senate, although the Republicans have a 55-45 edge, the scenario is different. They have to convince the at least 12 Democrats to vote for Clinton's removal from office. At this stage, it looks highly unlikely, although possibility remains. The House prosecutors - 13 Republicans - have already placed their arguments before the jurors of the trial - the Senators -over the first three days of hearing. Now it is the White House's turn to present their case. Like the House prosecutors, the White House team will have 24 hours over three days to refute the Republican rationale for removal of the president from office.

But the trial has thrown up many interesting issues centring the characteristics of American politics and it is believed that the Clinton impeachment trial will largely influence the behaviour and conduct of politicians in the coming days. In fact, many feel that the impact will be quite evident in the next presidential election in the year 2000. And the issue of obsession with sex could also alter the political landscape of the country.

The issue of personal life and obsession with sex is nothing new in the realm of politics in the United States and other countries. Quite a few presidents in American history, including John F. Kennedy, were reported have been involved in extra-marital relationships but things seldom went out of proportions. Garry Hart, a prospective Democrat presidential candidate, withdrew from the race his relationship with Dona Rice raised quite a commotion. There are more examples but the trial of Bill Clinton has given altogether a different twist to the obsession for sex among high-ups because here is a president who has been voted twice to power. This has already made the politicians sit up as sexual dirt has spread across the country with fears of allegations that any high-up may be implicated in such scandals because of past or present deeds in private life in an otherwise free society.

Republican presidential prospects Lamar Alexander, Texas Governor George Bush, son of former President George Bush, and former Vice President Dan Quayle have already volunteered the 'most important' truth of their lives - they have been faithful to their spouses. Bush only alluded to youthful indiscretions before his marriage. Larry Flyant, editor of a popular porn magazine, has vowed to expose the private lives of many important political figures at a regular intervals. It has simply rubbed salt into the wound. Republican Bob Livingston, House Speaker-designate, first admitted that he had extra-marital affairs and then shocked the House by announcing he was standing down before Flyant could even a run a story on him. Many analysts feel that marital infidelity is set to have significant effect on the 2000 presidential elections.

But there is also the question of privacy involved in this moral cleansing. Political analyst Allen Litchmaan says that the unseemly disclosures of private life in the guise of political purity is really an invasion of privacy and he predicts that the electorate at one stage will wake up to that.

The controversy also centres round the vital issue whether private life should bring such devastating effects to the presidency and, for that matter, to any administrative position. Another issue that also comes to the fore is how far the American society is willing to see a president can go in private life. In any case, there is no denying that the Clinton affair has come as a severe jolt to political and moral fabric of the United States and its effect will certainly be discernible in the pattern of American politics in the beginning of the new millennium.