And the whole Starr endeavor and the support given to it both by the Right and by some on the Left has been based on trying to get Clinton on a bogus charge because of political disagreements with him. This is an incredibly dangerous enterprise that brings exactly the abuses that have pervaded the Starr investigation: denying Monica a lawyer in initial interviews, threatening her and other witnesses unless they cooperated, and a broad investigation seeking a crime to fit the target (a chilling process to watch whether applied to a President or a dissident).
And who is the victim of the crime that Hitchens is so gallantly defending?
Monica? Monica had the absolute ability to drop a dime on Clinton at any time in the last year. This week, she could have said she was asked to lie and Clinton would likely be on his way out of office. THe justification for Hitchens confession (according to some on this list) is to punish "ungallant" activity by Clinton and Blumenthal. Since Monica obviously has decided that on balance she does not want Clinton removed or (heaven forbid) that he actually did not do anything wrong towards her, what business of Hitchens is it to intervene in this personal affair.
The other possible victim of Clinton is Hillary who, like Monica, could have taken Bill down without any help from Hitchens, but again for her own reasons decided not to. Frankly, these are the only two possible victims of Clinton's non-crime, and neither has decided to take on that role. The only way they have been victims is by the very grand jury and legal assault that has attacked them as well as Bill during this four-year search for a crime to fit Starr's political target.
The only answer to explain Hitchens actions is not on behalf of Monica or anyone else but for his own political purposes -- to join Starr in their joint hatred of Clinton in order to pursue by criminal law means what was not accomplished by political means. There is no defense of other people here, just the naked assault on political enemies by twisted use of grand jury threat and Congressional contempt threats.
This is McCarthyism and it has exactly the same qualities as many would cite against Kazin - with the exception that Kazin had at least some worries about his own self-preservation that make his betrayals of friends craven but not the complete cavilier participation in abuse of the legal process that Hitchens has engaged in.
I don't defend Clinton. He'll burn in hell for signing welfare reform and he has his political betrayals all over the place. But I also recognize that his enemies are far worse and the Left is apparently too busy turning former friends over to grand juries to organize a viable alternative.
That people defend Hitchen's collaboration with this abuse of the rule of law just indicates to me how many folks would have approved of McCarthyite tactics as long as it was directed at enemies rather than political allies.
Clinton has been on the side of the devil many time in his Presidency, but in this case he is on the side of the Constitution and rule of law, and his enemies - Hitchens and Starr - are establishing precedents of political repression that the Left will long regret.
--Nathan Newman