Comments on: It’s the crime http://archpundit.com/blog/2007/03/26/its-the-crime/ Illinois, From Misery Sat, 11 Oct 2008 21:41:48 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Daniel Biss http://archpundit.com/blog/2007/03/26/its-the-crime/#comment-8694 Daniel Biss Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:27:37 +0000 http://69.89.31.63/~archpund/2007/03/26/its-the-crime/#comment-8694 I think there are two different phenomena here. With Clinton, you're absolutely right, and the reason you're right is that the cover-up was actually worse than the crime. Josh's point, I think, is that this state of affairs is in fact quite unusual. With Watergate, though, saying that Nixon should have just thrown certain people under the bus is just another version of Josh's "recognition." In other words, Nixon actually was responsible for Watergate, and he couldn't afford to take responsibility. He could have -- maybe -- gotten away with unfairly foisting responsibility on somebody else, but that's just another way of saying what Josh said, namely that "a full revelation of the underlying act [was] not survivable." I think there are two different phenomena here. With Clinton, you’re absolutely right, and the reason you’re right is that the cover-up was actually worse than the crime. Josh’s point, I think, is that this state of affairs is in fact quite unusual.

With Watergate, though, saying that Nixon should have just thrown certain people under the bus is just another version of Josh’s “recognition.” In other words, Nixon actually was responsible for Watergate, and he couldn’t afford to take responsibility. He could have — maybe — gotten away with unfairly foisting responsibility on somebody else, but that’s just another way of saying what Josh said, namely that “a full revelation of the underlying act [was] not survivable.”

]]> By: Eric Zorn http://archpundit.com/blog/2007/03/26/its-the-crime/#comment-8693 Eric Zorn Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:15:09 +0000 http://69.89.31.63/~archpund/2007/03/26/its-the-crime/#comment-8693 Not necessarily. The phenomenon at work here usually is that someone has a choice of quickly coming clean, getting out in front of bad news, apologizing, knocking heads together and so on....or trying to help it all go away. Watergate is the classic example. Nixon would have survived Watergate if he'd thrown the right people under the bus on Day One -- said "I deplore these illegal, rogue tactics...I have fired everyone involved." Or Monica-gate. Had Clinton come clean right away, not lied to the grand jury (which, yes, come on, he sure as hell did) and taken his lumps as a horndog, he never would have been impeached. It comes from a misapprehension of the public's ability/willingness to forgive those who appear contrite. The "recognition" that Josh writes of is often a false impression. Not necessarily. The phenomenon at work here usually is that someone has a choice of quickly coming clean, getting out in front of bad news, apologizing, knocking heads together and so on….or trying to help it all go away. Watergate is the classic example. Nixon would have survived Watergate if he’d thrown the right people under the bus on Day One — said “I deplore these illegal, rogue tactics…I have fired everyone involved.” Or Monica-gate. Had Clinton come clean right away, not lied to the grand jury (which, yes, come on, he sure as hell did) and taken his lumps as a horndog, he never would have been impeached. It comes from a misapprehension of the public’s ability/willingness to forgive those who appear contrite. The “recognition” that Josh writes of is often a false impression.

]]>