Molly Ivins January 17

AUSTIN, Texas — Not to contribute to millennial paranoia, but we do live in strange times. The president of the United States is being tried over an extramarital affair.

I know, I know. I have heard Republican after Republican solemnly declaim that this is not about sex — it is about the rule of law, about the sanctity of oaths, about role models for our children, about the preservation of the nation and about the retention of the very concept of virtue.

I have heard from Republicans that this is about absolute truth vs. relative truth; it is about where we went wrong in the '60s; it is about high crimes and misdemeanors; and it is about the law treating the mightiest in the land with the same impartial hand as the lowliest among us.

I have never listened to so much bilge in my life, and I have covered the Texas Legislature for 30 years. New records for overreaching are set hourly, with Rep. Henry Hyde — the man whom all of official Washington assured us was wise, judicious and above partisanship — appearing as the veriest buffoon.

Just take that argument about the law's treatment of the mightiest vs. the lowliest — does anyone here seriously think that if President Clinton were, say, a mechanic who committed perjury while giving immaterial testimony in a defunct civil suit, he would have been prosecuted for anything? The few, the rare cases when perjury is pursued as a criminal matter involve perjury to cover up an underlying crime. Consenual sex between adults is not a crime. Mark Fuhrman, you will recall, committed perjury in the middle of a major murder trial, was allowed to plead nolo, paid a fine of $200 and left for Montana.

The one crime of which Clinton is clearly guilty is perjury in his Paula Jones deposition. That's the count on which the House did NOT impeach him. I will never understand Republicans. They actually said they were not impeaching him for perjury in the Jones case because his lying then was an understandable impulse to protect his wife and daughter. (!)

The count of lying to the grand jury is simply that Clinton lied when he said he didn't lie in the Jones case. And that, my friends, is why they call what Kenneth Starr did "setting a perjury trap." You take a venial, unimportant legal lapse and, through prosecutorial manipulation, elevate it to a felony of some note.

The truly hilarious Republican riff on this subject is to take offense that Clinton SIX TIMES refused the prosecutor's generous invitation (so kind of him) to come and testify before his grand jury, with Clinton responding at last only to a subpoena.

Indeed, some R's believe that Clinton's consistent refusal of this charming opportunity to tell his side of the story is part of the famous obstruction-of-justice charge.

And is the target of an investigation commonly invited to testify before the grand jury hearing evidence against him? Almost never. It is practically unheard of — a ploy used only when the prosecutor wants to set a perjury trap. Clinton was well briefed by his lawyers before that appearance and is no fool; he may well have tap-danced through the whole four hours without actually lying.

As for the obstruction-of-justice charge — well, there you are. Starr considered Clinton's every legal move, his use of every right and protection provided by the Constitution (including, memorably, his right to privileged communication with his own lawyers), to be obstruction of justice.

Far from being above the law, Clinton has been so discriminated against by the law that he stands before us as a man whose civil rights have been egregiously violated while the R's talk sanctimoniously about how the mightiest among us should get equal treatment. When was the last time you saw the lowliest among us with a special prosecutor on his case for four solid years with a budget of $40 million, looking for anything he could find? Equal treatment indeed.

Of course Clinton lied to his aides — he lied to everybody, if you will recall. Try to get a jury anywhere in the Real World to call that obstruction of justice.

My other favorite argument is that Clinton mustn't be allowed to "get away with it." Get away with WHAT? Did you ever in your life see anyone more caught, more ruthlessly exposed in relentless detail?

It is mind-boggling enough that this pathetic, sordid episode is the subject of an impeachment trial; now comes the question of whether the Senate has so lost all sense of seemliness as to bring Monica Lewinsky and Company into the U.S. Senate to tell once more the tawdry tale of the 10 oral encounters that shook the world. Has none of them any sense? Clinton may have disgraced the presidency, but only the Senate can bring disgrace upon itself.

If you wanted further evidence that the House managers' presentation was aimed entirely at the public — a straight political play to erode Clinton's support — you had only to listen to Rep. James E. Rogan's constant, sneering references to Dick Morris. Morris is also a friend and consultant to Sens. Jesse Helms and Trent Lott, so you know Rogan was not playing to "the jurors."

Molly Ivins is a columnist for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. To find out more about Molly Ivins and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 1999 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.