American Crime Story finally begins to make its case for Impeachment
A talk-heavy episode inches closer to what the show means by “crime,” if anything at all.
TV Reviews Bye Bye Birdie
Just in time for Mercury retrograde, Impeachment: American Crime Story gives us a whole episode about the perils of miscommunication. The episode is cheekily titled “The Telephone Hour,” in reference to the Bye Bye Birdie musical number about small town gossip run amok.
But what happens in this episode is much darker than high schoolers shrieking about getting pinned. It examines the gaps between what we want to hear and what is actually said. It points to the vocalized intentions of people and those that dare not speak. More importantly, it shines a light on how our own amorphous use of language can obscure the unsettling and downright dangerous experiences.
If you are the kind of person who can watch people talk for hours, then this episode is a treat. Nothing much else happens. People talk. Usually on the phone. Lewinsky calling Trip. Tripp calling Goldberg. Lewinsky calling Currie. Currie calling Clinton. Clinton calling Lewinsky. Every ring of a landline or a click of a tape recorder is like a new thread in a particularly poisonous spider web, with Lewinsky trapped dead set in the middle.
All this talking doesn’t feel cumbersome. Au contraire, it is riveting and mildly nauseating because every character is being deceitful in some way. Lewinsky cannot stop herself from continuing to pursue a job in the White House, asserting that she just really loves that department. (Though we all know her unrequited love for Clinton is her fuel.)
Tripp decides to resume talks with literary agent Lucianne Goldberg, under the guise that she needs to spill everything she knows in order to protect Lewinsky. (Though we all know she is banking on this book being her hero moment.) Goldberg, the Svengali of right-wingers with a hunger for fame, convinces Tripp that she wants justice too. (Though we all know it’s that six-figure deal she’s after.)
Getting this book proposal into shape is what drives most of Tripp’s choices, making this a rare instance in which the publishing world is actually interesting. After Lewinsky sees the Newsweek article, she confronts Tripp about her participation in it. After a few back-and-forths in which Tripp warns Monica that she is being pushed out from the White House the same way she was, Monica evokes what is starting to be an incantation of sorts in this show: “No one wanted you [in the White House].”
I know to say something is “triggering” has basically lost all meaning, but in Impeachment these words are triggering to Tripp in the most straightforward of ways. Whenever they are uttered, the audience knows that she is about to pull some bullshit in response to them, and she does. She calls Goldberg to strike a deal and tries to impress her with her detailed Excel spreadsheets of tawdry presidential behavior.
This is not enough for the big leagues, though, and Goldberg will accept nothing less than hardcore evidence. This is when Tripp’s habit of taping calls begins, and we get hit with more scenes of Monica spiraling and Tripp defining her traitorous actions as concern.
The rest of the episode could have easily continued the tabloid-ish genre we saw at the start of the season, but halfway through it offers a more complicated layer. When Goldberg and Tripp meet with Isikoff to share the tapes, Isikoff engages in a debate with Tripp over the definition of sexual harassment. The reporter has been constantly used as a stand-in for old-school methods and sentiments, and in this case, he is no different. His definition hinges on the presence of a quid pro quo.
Tripp, in this instance, can be seen as having a more modern understanding by pointing out the imbalance of power between the president and an intern, and Monica’s transfer to the Pentagon. For Isikoff, this isn’t enough. As he points out, Monica still has a job. There’s been no money exchanged. There also haven’t been any attempts by Clinton to get her a better job to keep her quiet.
This scene is illuminating because it points to a question that has been lurking since the premiere: What is the crime at the center of Impeachment?
By the real Monica Lewinsky’s account, she willingly had the affair with Bill Clinton. If we take Isikoff’s definition, which may very well have been the legal one back in the day (if you’re a lawyer, hit me up!), then it doesn’t legally constitute sexual harassment either. Is it the attempted cover-up? The secret tapes? Lying under oath? The way “Arkansas” is consistently thrown under the bus?
The episode brings up other situations that leaves us with a not-so-fresh-feeling even though legal codes or society may turn a blind eye to them. When Clinton chastises Lewinsky for yelling at Currie over the phone, he tells her he thought she was a good girl. Lewinsky tells him to fuck off because she has been good—but their definition of what that means isn’t defined by any fair assessment. It’s defined by who has more power, and that is Clinton.
In an even more heartbreaking scene, we confront the concept of consent—or lack thereof—as Lewinsky tells Tripp about her high school relationship with a school staff member (definitely criminally bad). She then doubles down and reveals “maybe” losing her virginity to a camp counselor at 14—the “maybe” hiding what appears to be sexual assault though Lewinsky doesn’t name it in such a way. It’s understandable why she is hesitant to do so. All these contested words intersect in the persona of Monica Lewinsky, who has rarely felt empowered to define what any of these concepts are for herself.
The very idea of what constitutes virginity is under dispute, which is not necessarily a bad thing. Patriarchal concept, heteronormative, given unnecessary importance, yadda yadda yadda. But what all these contested words do in this episode is intersect in the persona of Monica Lewinsky, who has rarely felt empowered to define what any of these concepts are for herself.
Regardless of criminal definitions, we know that Lewinsky has been, is, and will be wronged. And as she shows that blue dress to Tripp, we understand the persistent shadow it will soon cast over her whole existence. As Clinton said, “life is long” and a 24-year-old intern is about to bear the full weight of it.
Stray observations
- We get it, we get it! That A badge Monica wears all the time is like the White House version of a scarlet letter.
- Early in the episode, Tripp receives a list on her cubicle with names of people associated with the Clintons who died under suspicious circumstances. Then just as quickly it was dropped. Did I miss something? Will it show up again in later episodes? It was just odd to plant that there and have no mention of it later.
- Lewinsky’s comment about Clinton giving her the ugliest presents is once again evidence that he truly is the essence of your terrible boyfriends in your 20s.
30 Comments
One nice subtle touch is that Ann Coulter’s crony mishears Monica’s name as “Lewisky.” That’s just how little the name itself meant to him once he heard the meat of the story.
What is the crime at the center of Impeachment? Perjury, witness tampering, and obstruction. Serious federal crimes.(1) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to execute a sworn affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false and misleading.http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/johnson/clinton_impeachment_articles.htmEverybody deserves a fair trial, even some hick from an Arkansas trailer park.
Ah, yes. Fruit of the poisoned tree. The initial investigation was a fishing trip looking not to investigate a known crime but to encourage the creation of one. Having nothing to go on, the usual “Resisting Arrest” charge from the cops doing the beating.
Are you seriously saying Jones coerced Bill into “Resisting Arrest” by suing him?Cause that’s what he was resisting when he committed perjury, witness tampering, and obstruction.By that logic, all obstruction is “created” by an investigation. Like Watergate.
Was Jones conducting an impeachment trial?
The impeachment trial happened after the crimes MTNL is talking about, so can hardly be the cause of them.
As it turned out – the case by Jones was dismissed and the Lewinsky testimony was discounted as immaterial. It is likely that Jones was the initial push from the GQP to undermine Clinton as it started with a conservative magazine article making the allegation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_Spectator#1990sIt surely made sense that Jones was too afraid to go after Governor Clinton, not concerned enough about it to torpedo candidate Clinton, but suddenly felt the need to go after President Clinton. /sOn the one hand, Clinton should not have asked Lewinsky to lie – on the other hand it seems very likely that Jones was lying and the Republicans were going to manufacture as much evidence as necessary to undermine the Clintons – a practice they continue to this day.
…you’re seriously going with “she must be lying, or why wouldn’t she have come forward sooner?” ?OK, have a nice day.
This is why fair-minded people hate the special prosecutor concept. Want to investigate a politician for a suspected crime? Fuck yeah, all in. Use that appointment as a license to run down anyone and everyone associated with that politician as part of a politically-motivated witch hunt? Hard pass.
Pretty sure that Clinton, Lewinsky and Tripp all committed a bunch of crimes, and there’s probably at least half a dozen people involved in all this that might plausibly also be guilty of something illegal… there may not be a single, capital-C, proven-in-court Crime to focus on, but there were plenty of crimes going on…
It’s funny when Bill looks wistfully at the portrait of JFK, who boned anybody he damn well pleased with impunity.
Not sure if I’d call someone’s brains flying across a car “impunity”.
Are you suggesting one of his conquests’ husbands or boyfriends shot Kennedy out of revenge?Because that’s actually a not-unreasonable perspective.
Confirmed – buried deep in the fourth paragraph:“…a consortium of jealous husbands fired from an estimate 13 sites on the sidewalk along the route…”My apologies, I retract my previous comment.
i can’t believe marilyn monroe did this
Oh god the Clinton death list. That shit is absolutely bonkers nuts and such a bullshit conspiracy theory.
I thought it was a matter of public record
Or so the German’s would have us believe.
Even after all these years, the stained dress, kept by her like a trophy, will never not be gross. But it’s also a little funny, fascinating, and salacious. Goldberg on learning about it: “I can die now, I’ve finally heard everything. I’m finished.”
To me that’s always been the crazytown topping on this whole story. Nevermind walking into a white house internship planning to hit on the goddamn president of the united states, once she succeeds in hooking up she keeps a dress in her closet with his goop on it? That’s just unhinged.
The Clinton death list had to have been Drudge, right?
“The way “Arkansas” is consistently thrown under the bus?”As an Arkansan, that hits close to home.
Does anyone know the significance of the birthday gift Monica gets Tripp.It looks like a silver feather with a tassel on it. Like a graduation thing maybe?
I’d also like to know!
It looks like a giant sperm.
We also learned Linda Tripp doesn’t like good music
But she otherwise seemed so cool!
Can someone clarify how Monica got on the witness list at the end, but not Linda, or…basically, how did it get from Tripp/Goldberg casually talk to Isikoff to then Coulter’s elves getting her name (who I guess then get her subpoenaed right away?)
“Early in the episode, Tripp receives a list on her cubicle with names of people associated with the Clintons who died under suspicious circumstances….”That was the infamous (maybe not so much anymore) Clinton Body Count: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Body_Count https://www.nydailynews.com/archives/opinions/conspiracy-nuts-hit-new-body-count-article-1.822876— back in the day you would get it in a RE: RE; RE; RE; [FWD}: RE e-mail from your crazy uncle. The version shown on the show is just a list of names, but the actual list (or vision of it, I suppose) had paragraphs talking about each death.
“If we take Isikoff’s definition, which may very well have been the legal
one back in the day (if you’re a lawyer, hit me up!), then it doesn’t
legally constitute sexual harassment either.”It’s still the legal one. Sexual harassment can be in the form of quid pro quo or creating a hostile work environment. A power imbalance can inform those things, but it’s not sufficient in and of itself.