Thank you Lorna. I think you describe the Coulter phenom well, and the context she operates in. I will say that I don't think all conservatives play this game--there are a number I respect--but many do, and others look the other way and hold their noses while these mud-slinging tactics are carried out.

Also, thanks for bringing that Larry King debate to my attention. I did a Nexis search and pulled it up and it's an eye-opener for Coulter ignorance. Here's the interview:

KING: Welcome back to LARRY KING LIVE. We're joined by Ann Coulter, constitutional attorney and author of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" published by Regnery Publishing. It's the case against Bill Clinton. There you see its cover. And Alan Dershowitz in Boston, defense attorney, professor at Harvard, constitutional expert himself. He's gotten the book, the tentative title that's coming shortly "Starr Versus Clinton; Clinton Versus Starr."

What, Ann Coulter is the thesis of your book. What is a high crime and a misdemeanors, and why has this president committed both or one?

ANN COULTER, AUTHOR, "HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS": You asked that in the right order. That's the important thing to understand, that it's actually quite surprising about a high crime and misdemeanor. And certainly surprising, as far as I can tell, to all the attorneys and congressmen talking about a high crime and misdemeanor, and that is that it has nothing to do with the criminal law. It certainly doesn't have to be a felony. It really has to do with a betrayal of trust. It has to do with personal morality. Impeachments are tried on, as Edmund Burke said, enlarged in solid principles of morality.

KING: Why do they use that term then Ann, "high crimes."

COULTER: It's always been used. There's no such thing as a high crime in the criminal law. There's no such thing as a high misdemeanor. For 600 years since the impeachment of Michael De La Pull (ph) in 1386, that little phrase has always been used together to refer to impeachable conduct. And in fact, I mean, I didn't particularly look for a distinction between a high crime and misdemeanor but I never came across a distinction. It's always used together.

KING: Speeding ticket is a misdemeanor, is it not?

COULTER: Right, but that isn't the sort of misdemeanor it refers to. It's misdemeanor meaning misbehavior, bad behavior. And you know, this is clear -- the founders debated impeachment for a couple of months at the constitutional convention. It's mentioned in the Federalist papers and in the Rodino report drafted in part by Hillary Clinton and Bernie Nussbaum.

KING: So your thesis then, is whether a crime is proved, that's immaterial. This is obvious, to you, a case of a high crime or misdemeanor just on the face -- that he's lost credibility?

COULTER: Yes. Actually, there are a number of them. Everyone keeps saying oh, the sex alone, the sex alone as if it's an outrage to expect the president to have a minimally decent personal life.

But interestingly, the president was supposed to be a man of virtue most of all. It was one thing to have scoundrels in the Congress or scoundrels as governors, but the president because he'd have vast powers. He's the man with his finger on the nuclear button. He's the man who can -- is going to look the American people in the eye and say we're sending your boys into war, they're going to fight and may die for this.

His word has to be believed. In fact, the Framers were considering having a board of presidents or a committee, rather than a single president because they were so fearful of recreating a monarchy. But they put all of it in one man not to make that one man more powerful, but more responsible.
A man of virtue most of all? Get real Ann. A quick glance at 200 years of history shows that most of our presidents had plenty of vices, from alcohol abuse to sexual misconduct.

KING: Mr. Dershowitz, is Ms. Coulter wrong?

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, HARVARD LAW PROFESSOR: Well, she is -- she's right in certain respects. It certainly doesn't have to be a crime if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don't need a technical crime.

But remember that because the executive power is vested in one person, the president, unlike the judicial power which is vested in justices of the Supreme Court and inferior judges, or the legislative power in 100 senators and 400 and something representatives, we have one president.

And to impeach a president is like a non-violent revolution. It is the most dramatic act of undoing democracy that is possible. That's why the Framers use the term "treason," "bribery" "high crimes and misdemeanors" to suggest the English analogy to great offenses of state.

It would have been laughable for the Framers to have been told that they'd think about an impeachment because of sexual improprieties or attempts to keep secret sexual improprieties. We know that they existed all through English history. We know that Thomas Jefferson was surrounded by scandal which he denied to people who asked about whether he follow fathered a child.

KING: If then were now, they couldn't make a case against Thomas Jefferson.

DERSHOWITZ: No.

COULTER: He was never president.
Thomas Jefferson, elected 1800, never president? What history books was Coulter reading?!? This is amazing. One assumes she's since been given a little American History 101 brush-up course.

KING: One at a time. Alan then Ann.

DERSHOWITZ: I hope history would not conclude that we would not have wanted to make a case against Thomas Jefferson. You don't use this grave impeachment power against a president. Never used in our history successfully at least to remove a president unless there is such a threat to the liberty, such a threat to the integrity. You know, I have to tell you what happened in Iran-Contra was much closer to an impeachable offense than anything charged against Bill Clinton.

KING: Ann. Good question, what is the threat against Bill Clinton?

COULTER: Well, in fact policy matters are specifically off the table for an impeachment. Greta Van Susteren kept saying during the last half of the program that well, we elected him -- you hear this a lot -- you can't impeach him. We elected him.

And to an extent, the Clinton defenders are right on this point. They're just using it to defend the wrong president. And that is, even sort of egregious, perhaps, extensions of a president or a judge or justice's power have never been grounds for an impeachment in this country.

What have been grounds for impeachment in this country, and is consistent with not only what the Framers or the Rodino report said are things like drunkenness and consorting with harlots. And I think it's kind of a relief that the Framers were right that we haven't had presidents who warranted impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors before. But it is this Iran-Contra...

KING: Are you saying, Ann, that if we had an alcoholic president, who nevertheless, the public like and did a good job during the day, but was drunk every night, we should toss him?

COULTER: Yes.

KING: OK. Is she right there, Alan?

DERSHOWITZ: No. That just makes no sense. She would urge the impeachment clearly of president Kennedy. She would have urged the impeachment, probably of Richard Nixon, who we know had a drinking problem.
Nixon was also reputed to be an excellent poker player; one more vice to impeach him for, at least in Coulter's world-view.
You know, that's not why we impeach presidents. We look at their acts of state. We look at how they conduct foreign policy. We look at whether they try to subvert the Constitution the way Iran-Contra did by going behind the back of Congress, by lying repeatedly and by misstating to the American public matters of great state issues...

KING: Well, maybe.

DERSHOWITZ: ... and we didn't impeach, and we shouldn't, frankly, if it were my view, we shouldn't have impeached the presidents for Iran-Contra, but it's not even a close question, historically as to whether we should impeach Clinton.

KING: Ann, are you favoring impeachment because he was caught?

COULTER: Well, I suppose that's the only reason we can talk about it. If he weren't caught, there's nothing we can do, but if I could just say again, I mean, on this Iran-Contra, that is precisely what impeachment is not for.

No matter how many people don't like what happened in Iran-Contra -- I mean, assuming the very worst-case scenario -- I don't want to get into a big debate about the facts of Iran-Contra -- but, that really is coming down to policy, and a president is elected for that reason. And moreover, I mean, of all the outrageous Supreme Court rulings including, you know, supporting slavery, and they don't get impeached for that?

I believe the reason for this is because of the one impeachment of a president, of Alexander Hamilton, was over Hamilton's refusal to enforce an unconstitutional law, so Congress was accusing the president...

DERSHOWITZ: You've got the wrong president, Ann. Ann, you've got the wrong president. It wasn't Alexander Hamilton, it was Andrew Johnson.
Oops. Egg on Ann's face here.

COULTER: Sorry, sorry. He wasn't -- Alexander Hamilton wasn't impeached.

DERSHOWITZ: He was shot.
Not to mention, Hamilton was never president.

COULTER: It was because they thought he had acted unconstitutionally, and now, sort of, history looks back and says "Well, no. Andrew Johnson was the one who was acting constitutionally and the Congress wasn't." And I think that was part of the reason, as well as the point that's always being made that, "Well, we elected him. You can't impeach him for that." But what you can impeach him for is misconduct in office.

KING: Are you -- Ann -- you're saying a moral problem is an impeachable problem?

COULTER: It is, as Edmund Burke said, that is the purpose of impeachment.

KING: And Alan, you're saying that a president's sex life is never impeachable?

DERSHOWITZ: It is never impeachable...

KING: If there were 12 interns?

DERSHOWITZ: ... And if it were impeachable, let me tell you, we'd have a lot of presidents impeached and we wouldn't have a quorum in the House or Senate to impeach them.

KING: How do you know that?

DERSHOWITZ: Because every congressman and senator would have to raise their hand, because they're like jurors, and swear they had never committed adultery, swear they had never lied to their constituents, swear they had never lied to their spouses. I don't think you'd get a quorum.

COULTER: Well, could I say a couple...

DERSHOWITZ: We'll take a break -- hold it -- we'll come back with Ann and Allen.

This is LARRY KING LIVE. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: When the House Judiciary Committee in 1974 asked for a report on impeachment, Hillary Rodham Clinton, also Bernard Nussbaum, were two of those people participating. And in that report, they said some of the most grievous offenses against our constitutional form of government may not entail violations of the criminal law. Do you agree with that, Alan?

DERSHOWITZ: I do. I think if you find offenses that subvert the very essence of democracy -- again, for example, Iran-Contra, going behind the back of Congress, that would be...

KING: Staying off that a second, Alan, what if I find as a voter in the Senate or the House, I find -- I'm in the Senate...

DERSHOWITZ: Yes.

KING: ... that lying to me and to the public is, to me, impeachable? Is impeachable what I think is impeachable? DERSHOWITZ: Well, you know, President Ford, when he was the House leader, said -- when he tried to impeach, of all people, Justice Douglas, whose only sin, I think, was getting married three times to younger women -- Larry, be careful. What he said at this point was an impeachable offense is anything a majority of the House of Representatives believes is an impeachable offense.

Now, that's wrong. The verdict of history has ruled against that. I think Ford himself acknowledged that was wrong during the Nixon proceeding. You need a standard to be met. Even Ann agrees with that.

KING: But can my -- Ann Coulter, if my standard is fidelity then I can vote against him, right?

COULTER: Well, it's right in the sense that...

KING: I mean, it's my vote.

COULTER: Right. And the same way if you were a Supreme Court justice, if you wanted to interpret a law or the Constitution a particular way. All that really means is there's no appeal from an impeachment conviction, but my book argues pretty strongly against the idea that the words "high crimes and misdemeanors" have no meaning, and incidentally on this sex part, I...

DERSHOWITZ: We agree with that.

COULTER: I'm just raising the points on the sex as an example of what a high crime and misdemeanors is, that it has to -- it's specifically designed to go after scandalous conduct in one's personal capacity as impeachments in this country were.

DERSHOWITZ: Well, would you have -- would you have advocated...

COULTER: But, we have a lot more than that here. I mean, I don't want to limit it to that. This is a president that lied to the American people, dragged them through it for seven months. I think there's incontrovertible evidence that the president has actually perjured himself, is an actual felon -- the president of the United States -- however else...

DERSHOWITZ: Ann...

COULTER: ... President Nixon committed a high crime and misdemeanors, as apparently the House was about to vote, it couldn't have been by perjuring himself, because he never gave a statement under oath?

DERSHOWITZ: Ann, can I ask you a question? Look, I acknowledge, on this issue, I am not disinterested. I am an advocate. I do not want to see President Clinton impeached. I believe you are an advocate, too: of the impeachment.

Now would you have advocated the impeachment of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Dwight D. Eisenhower, both of whom, according to historians, had affairs, kept them secret, may have lied to their wives, and certainly, lied to people who asked them direct questions about it?

COULTER: You know, one of the most despicable things I think the president has done to this country is to drag every president down in the mud with him. It is not the case that either FDR or Eisenhower committed adultery while they were president, nor...
Well, no, there really is some evidence that they did. And Kennedy clearly did. As did many earlier presidents. Should I bring up Ulyses Grant's alcoholism?

DERSHOWITZ: Wait a minute.

COULTER: ... President Harding, I might add. They might have had affairs, but not when they were president, because...

DERSHOWITZ: No, that's just not true.

COULTER: ... as the founders anticipated...

KING: All right, I think...

DERSHOWITZ: You don't have your facts right. You don't have your facts right.

KING: All right, let me get a break. We're running short on time, we're going to have both of these back.

We'll be back with our remaining moments with Ann and Alan after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Franklin, Pennsylvania, as we get a call for Ann Coulter and Alan Dershowitz -- hello.

CALLER: Hello. I would like to know, besides the infidelity issue, are there actually any facts that could call for impeachment of President Clinton?

I think it's very important to...

KING: Ann.

DERSHOWITZ: Oh, go ahead.

KING: No, well, well, that's a question -- I guess it should start with Ann, then Alan. Besides infidelity, now admitted, any other thing?

COULTER: I have 330 pages describing those. Yes, well, as I was just saying, I was only using -- and it's more than infidelity, I might add. I think this is really pretty disgusting behavior with a 21-year-old, but leaving that aside.

No, he lied to the American people. President Nixon lied on one point. It wouldn't even be considered a lie under Clinton's standards, and he was almost impeached for it. That was the first item in the first article of impeachment against Richard Nixon: that he'd lied to the American people.

This is the man who can -- has all of the powers of the executive branch. People must believe his word, and it's the idea that you scratch any man, even any congressman, and end up with a Bill Clinton, for one thing, I don't believe, and for the other thing the Framers weren't expecting that. They were expecting the president to be virtuous.

DERSHOWITZ: Let's understand that. Let's...

KING: And, Alan we do make moral judgments, don't we? We do all the time.

DERSHOWITZ: Of course, we do. Of course, we do. But, let's remember that Richard Nixon would never have been impeached on the basis of those articles. We like to cite them because they may have been written in part by Hillary Rodham Clinton, but he was kicked out of office because a tape proved that he obstructed justice about important matters of state and, you know, CEO's -- everybody makes the CEO argument -- you don't -- you throw a CEO out for all kinds of minor derelictions. He's not the president of the United States. It's not a silent revolution, and one word of caution: when this report comes out, let's remember what it is, it's a pleading. It's an adversarial one-sided document.

All we now know now for sure is that the president had an improper relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Everything else that's going to be in that record may well be disputed. It has not been subject to cross-examination or the adversary system.

COULTER: Wait a second, the obstructing justice on important matters of state -- excuse me. That was delaying an FBI investigation for two weeks into a third-rate breaking and entering into the Watergate Hotel, into the DNC headquarters that wasn't even committed by the president himself...

DERSHOWITZ: Third rate. My, God.

COULTER: ... and the reason we cite the articles of impeachment against Nixon isn't because Hillary Rodham and Bernie Nussbaum worked on them, it's because it's the most recent precedent, and a two-week delay into a third-rate burglary that the president didn't even commit. Here we have the president himself engaging in reprehensible acts and lying, perjuring himself, suborning perjury and tampering with witnesses to cover it up.

DERSHOWITZ: I thought the third-rate burglary was a phrase used to mock people describing what happened in Watergate. What happened in Watergate was an attempt to break into the opposing party's political headquarters. It was an attempt to go and break in...

COULTER: Not by the president.

DERSHOWITZ: Wait a minute. With his authorization.

COULTER: No, it wasn't. No one thinks that. DERSHOWITZ: And to break in, to set up the plumbers -- wait a minute -- to set up the plumbers to break into private people's homes, and a tape recording showing that he was going to create a fake cover story using national security to protect himself.

KING: All right, we...

COULTER: It's just not true.

DERSHOWITZ: What is the difference?

KING: Ann. We're close on time. Ann, do you think there will be a bill of impeachment?

COULTER: I think there will be, and I think the president won't finish his term, and I think that's right because it's bad for country if he does.

KING: Alan, should he consider resigning?

DERSHOWITZ: Absolutely not. There will not be a bill of impeachment, because he who is without sin let them cast the first stone, and there are not enough people without sin when it comes to this kind of sin.

KING: What kind of presidency -- we've only got 20 seconds -- Ann, if he remains in office is it a very weakened president.

COULTER: Yes, and I wanted to say when Alan was trying to lure me into admitting that this was merely a partisan attack -- it really isn't. I mean, what policies could I possibly oppose? The name he came up for for his dog? I don't oppose him on policy. I think it's bad for the country.

DERSHOWITZ: He's going to be a great president.

KING: Thanks you both very much. Thanks a lot. This is Larry King in Los Angeles.

©2002 Carl Skutsch. All rights reserved.
All opinions expressed herein are those of the author unless otherwise noted
(and it goes without saying that they make more sense than Coulter's opinions.)

graphics & design by pixelforge