With indictment looming, will Pres Clinton pardon himself while he still is Pres?

PARDON?

WILL BILL PARDON HIMSELF?

Friday,December 22,2000, NYPost.com

by Dick Morris

THE grinch may be stealing Christmas, but Bill Clinton just might have a surprise in store for us all - pardons for his Whitewater cronies and possibly for himself!

Consider that presidents traditionally use the holiday season to exercise their power to pardon offenders and that Clinton loves to do unpopular things when nobody's watching and everybody's distracted eating holiday turkeys. Factor in that Bill's job approval is hovering in the high 60s - an all-time record for his eight years in office - and the chances of Whitewater pardons in the next few days are quite good.

In February 1997, Clinton and I spoke by phone, and he told me that if Harold Ickes and others on his staff were indicted that he would pardon them "along with all the others who have been caught up in this mess" (he used a stronger word). He asked me what I thought the public reaction would be, and I said that he'd drop in the polls but he'd live to tell about it.

Clinton might be in the mood to pardon Susan MacDougal and Web Hubbell, two stand-up allies who have gone to jail to protect him and refused to offer real cooperation in the Whitewater investigations. Might the president's pen slip and might he not grant himself a pardon at the same time?

Clinton faces a real risk of indictment. Special prosecutor Robert Ray has impaneled a grand jury in Virginia (read: largely white) to investigate him and has summoned information from Monica Lewinsky and Gennifer Flowers. He's not doing that for his health. While Ray has indicated that he will not move against Clinton while the president is in office, he has specifically reserved the right to proceed after the new president is inaugurated.

Will Bush pardon Clinton? Bush would be wise to delay any consideration of a pardon until after a possible indictment and after a trial. He should give Clinton a chance to vindicate himself and give Ray a chance to make his case. It would then be wise and appropriate to pardon the former president, if he is convicted, so that there is no chance of an ex-president languishing in jail. Only in a banana republic should chief executives go to prison except for horrendous crimes.

But were Bush to proceed before the process has run its course, his supporters would feel betrayed. The very argument used to keep Clinton in office - one that I made vigorously myself - was that it was fitting to hold him to the law after he left office but that it was wrong to remove him while he was serving in response to the voters' mandate. If a pardon by Bush spares Clinton of an indictment and a trial after he leaves office, he will have been shown to be above the law, a bad idea in any democracy.

The current speculation about a Bush pardon of Clinton begs the question of whether Clinton will pardon himself first. Clinton knows that Bush would be politically unwise to grant a pardon. He knows that if a pardon is to be issued to protect him from legal culpability, he will have to be the one to do it.

Will Clinton use our distraction over Christmas and his current high ratings to pardon himself? Its anybody's guess, but let us all be forewarned, so we are not taken by a surprise visit from Santa Claus to the pardon office.

-- Lars (lars@onemain.com), December 22, 2000

Answers

A self-pardon will put him in infamy. Cancel those plans for the Bill Clinton Memorial hot-tub/library. He'll never work again, unless he can learn to say "You want fries with that?"

-- Johnn Littmann (littmannj@aol.com), December 22, 2000.

Billy will be back in 2004....as first gentleman.

-- (oh@brother.oy!), December 23, 2000.

Clinton loves to do unpopular things when nobody's watching

When nobody's looking? HAH!

Every move he made in the last 30 years has been dug into and analyzed. Can we do the same for GW Bush? For 8 years the repugs have gnawed Clinton's past like a bone, and NOW we are being asked by those same people to pretend it did not happen and are being TOLD that we would be un-American to do even a fraction of the same to someone with a past he is so afraid of revealing that he has lied on federal documents to hide it.

The question should be, who is going to pardon Bush when he is tried and convicted of going AWOL? Or is he going to pardon all of the draft dodgers military personnel who went AWOL during the VietNam war and even in times of peace?

-- Cherri (sa,s@brigadoon.com), December 23, 2000.

Cherri--

Do you have a non-partisan link that documents Bush's AWOLism? I'm sure you do. Here is one non-Republican source that concludes he was not AWOL.

Bush AWOL?

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), December 23, 2000.

Lars,

What do you conservatives think would be a suitable punishment for accepting a blow job from an enthusiastic intern?

-- (curious@just.wondering), December 23, 2000.

Cherri--

The BJ is not why the slickster was impeached. Now, do you have a link that demonstrates that Dubya was AWOL?

-- (larsguy@yahoo.com), December 23, 2000.

BTW, as a Feminist, why do you refer to Monica as "enthusiastic". Don't you think that Clinton sexually harrassed her? Sure, she came on to him, but he is twice her age and just a little superior rank-wise. And he dissed his wife and daughter by pulling this prank in the White House. Where is the righteous Feminist indignation?

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), December 23, 2000.

>> Don't you think that Clinton sexually harrassed [Monica Lewinsky]? Sure, she came on to him, but he is twice her age and just a little superior rank-wise. <<

Sexual harrassment, by legal precedent, permits the employee who is harrassed to define the threshold of behavior that they believe is objectionable. By definition, if both parties are pleased and they find the sexual attention to be desirable, then it isn't sexual harrassment.

AKAIK, Monica has never said she found Bill Clinton's behavior to be objectionable or to create a climate where she was upset or found the fullfillment of her job to be upsetting and onerous.

Your point is well taken about how most feminists weakly objected to the humiliating position that Bill Clinton put Hillary and Chelsea into. On the other hand, infidelity is just about the oldest story going. Married people get into sexual escapades pretty often. It is OK to condemn a man or woman for indulging in an obvious moral weakness, but realism should require that no one be crucified for what amounts to a dalliance.

I always said this was Hillary's fight, not mine. If she can forgive him, who am I to get mixed up in it?

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), December 23, 2000.

Btrian, I can buy that, barely. But then why was Clarence Thomas nearly lynched by the Feminists because of an alleged pubic hair on a coke can? C'mon, we all know it's politics that defines this stuff. Feminists (capital F) are Democrats, period.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), December 24, 2000.

Monica Lewinsky was VERY enthusiastic, in fact she had also initiated at least one other affair with a married man BEFORE chasing after Clinton.

Now, conservatives will always say that Clinton should be executed because he did not feel it was appropriate to reveal the truth about his intimate personal affairs. They claim this is perjury and treason... what a joke! What the hell business was it of theirs to go sticking their noses into Clinton's romantic life in the first place? Why did Linda Tripp get pardoned by Republican judges for committing a much more serious crime, illegal wiretapping? Why didn't Kenneth Starr get charged for releasing secrets to the media about a case that was in progress?

I'll tell you why... BLATANT HYPOCRISY, so typical of Republicans. Now they have the nerve to suggest charging Clinton as a criminal? HAH! Give us a BREAK!!

-- (Republicans@are.scum), December 24, 2000.

Mad cow disease is a turrible thing.

-- (nemesis@awol.com), December 24, 2000.

"Mad cow disease is a turrible thing."

Yes, almost as bad as Republican disease.

-- (Repubs@self-righteous.puritanical.hypocritical.scumbags), December 24, 2000.

" What the hell business was it of theirs to go sticking their noses into Clinton's romantic life in the first place? "

Well I'm a Republican and I know several dozen other Republicans, male and female, and none of us would "stick our nose into Clinton's romantic life". Certainly sounds unsanitary.

BTW, "romantic life"? LOL. He was a married guy getting his rocks off on an impessionable bimbo-eruption while talking to Senators about national business on the telephone. Tacky, tacky.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), December 24, 2000.

LOL, don't tell me Republicans didn't stick their nose into Clinton's business, we watched it all over the media for 2 FUCKING YEARS!

"Tacky"?? If you say so, guess Republicans never do anything tacky! What is the punishment that you Republicans recommend for a president being tacky, execution? LOL, I wouldn't be at all suprised.

-- (repubs@are.scum), December 24, 2000.

Catch a sense of humor, dude

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), December 24, 2000.

What is the punishment that you Republicans recommend for a president being tacky, execution?

No, just cut off his dick. :) (But I think that his wife will do that task pretty quickly here; we're going to see some fireworks)

The prosecution was working on a sexual harassment case. As such they need to dig as far as they can into other possible allegations of sexual harrassment, it's call discovery. Every lawyer does it, further, it must be done completely otherwise the lawyer could face charges himself. This is how our legal system works. Clinton cannot lie about anything while under oath and that includes during discovery. He lied. Could care less about his sexual behavior. But in a sexual harrassment case, guess what, the lawyers need to know about sexual activites to support their side. If Clinton has a history a sexual harrassment, that goes to his modus operandi and supports the possibility that it could have occured.

Brian we'll soon find out about Hillary's side in all this in her new tell all book. I wonder who she'll not pay to be the ghost writer. :)

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), December 26, 2000.

Mr. Clinton was walking down a Washington, DC Street when he came upon a group of about a dozen boys, all of them between 10 and 12 years of age. The group surrounded a dog. Concerned lest the boys were hurting the dog, he went over and asked "What are you doing with that dog?" One of the boys replied, "This dog is just an old neighborhood stray. We all want him, but only one of us can take him home. So we've decided that whichever one of us can tell the biggest lie will get to keep the dog." Of course, the president was taken aback. "You boys shouldn't be having a contest telling lies!" he exclaimed. He then launched into a ten minute sermon against lying, beginning, "Don't you boys know it's a sin to lie," and ending with, "Why, when I was your age, I never told a lie." There was dead silence for about a minute. Just as the president was beginning to think he'd gotten through to them, the smallest boy gave a deep sigh and said, "All right, give him the dog."

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), December 26, 2000.

Maria, you are on the money as usual. Clinton was not impeached because he was fellated by Monica. He was impeached because he perjured himself to a Grand Jury that was investigating his past behaviors persuant to a sexual harrassment suit by, I think, Gennifer Flowers.

However, I do think his behavior in the Oval Office is is relevant in several other ways. First is the example he sets for the yoot of America. Second is that a President risks National Security with such behavior. He didn't know who Monica was. She could have been a foriegn agent wired to record his every High Schoolish ooh and ah---thus opening himself snd his country to blackmail. Monica, or the next bimbo, could have been on the Chinese payroll, the Bin Laden payroll or the Russian Mafia payroll. Then there is the pillow talk angle. Sooner or later, a skillful female spy would have extracted information from this helpless man.

Alas, there are many precedents. The great JFK actually had a mistress while he was President that was also the girlfriend of Sam Giancana, the boss of the Chicago mob. Amazing.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), December 26, 2000.

Lars

It is not the job of the president to worry about spies or ties with the enemy-if that person is in the whitehouse, or in any government building or job for that matter, she would have been screened by a number of folks. I think that argument is weak.

Also, as the impeachment trial proved, perjury is not a "crime" which should lead to the removal of a president. Sure it was despicable, and unbecoming a president, but I will put his perjury up against Iran-Contra(selling arms to the enemy) any time.

-- SydBarrett (dark@side.moon), December 26, 2000.

Syd, you are right. Clinton was impeached by the congress for perjury but not convicyed by the Senate. I am no lawyer and do not have an informed opinion on the case.

As far as this statement is concerned, we'll just have to agree to disagree. At the very least, I think what Clinton did showed remarkably poor judgement.

It is not the job of the president to worry about spies or ties with the enemy-if that person is in the whitehouse, or in any government building or job for that matter, she would have been screened by a number of folks. I think that argument is weak.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), December 26, 2000.

That's a stretch, Lars. I don't think anyone currently on the scene at that level is capable of letting themselves be blackmailed into something like that. That includes "W" and his minions, also - because what you're talking about is actually treason, whereas lying about an inconsequential blowjob is merely... unseemly.

(At this point I should probably interject that I know that:

1) Republicans never lie about personal matters, and

2) Republicans never commit adultery, and

3) Republicans don't ever, ever get blowjobs - making the above points moot.)

These guys & gals think about their place in history. Often, as in Clinton's case, they're students of history, and have an idea about how they want to be remembered. If they saw themselves put into a blackmail situation where there were no good choices, they would choose the path of least national damage, even if it meant great personal damage. Repubs or Dems.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), December 26, 2000.

Bemused--

Really? You don't think that femme-fatales, even chubby Lolitas, are ever used in espionage? Apparently Monica was not a spy but she could have been. For chrissake, she could have been an assassin. Truly, Bill's brains are twixt his legs.

Could this happen to a Republican? Of course.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), December 26, 2000.

Lars, I think that the spy angle is very accurate. That's the first thing that popped into my head when I heard about his talking on the phone with Monica in the room.

Syd, so what she had been through a background investigation. Ever hear of Walker? He had the appropriate clearances and still sold many secrets to Russia.

The pres should absolutely worry about spies! Monica could have easily overheard some national security stuff and sold to the highest bidder. If the pres is permitted such carelessness, all the security measures we have in place are worthless. Syd, have you ever held a top secret SBI clearance? I have. Nobody with a clearance is above the security procedures. Need to know is most crucial and Monica had no "need to know".

Bemused, "If they saw themselves put into a blackmail situation where there were no good choices, they would choose the path of least national damage, even if it meant great personal damage. Repubs or Dems." I don't think Clinton gives a shit about "national damage"; he cares about his wet dick and "personal damage". Just my opinion of the slime but he would lie, cheat and steal to get his personal needs satisfied. He would do it at all costs, national security included.

BTW, nobody is saying that adultery never happens. It happens quite frequently (and most frequently in Clinton's case) but what I'm saying is that we can't be above the law. We are not permitted the luxury of making false statements, when under oath, to suit our needs.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), December 26, 2000.

Maria, let's start a newsletter. Carlos and Flint, you can be contributors.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), December 26, 2000.

Bemused, "If they saw themselves put into a blackmail situation where there were no good choices, they would choose the path of least national damage, even if it meant great personal damage. Repubs or Dems." I don't think Clinton gives a shit about "national damage"; he cares about his wet dick and "personal damage". Just my opinion of the slime but he would lie, cheat and steal to get his personal needs satisfied. He would do it at all costs, national security included.

I disagree. In fact, one of the worst presidents this country has ever seen, Richard Nixon, never even stooped this low.

I don't like Richard Nixon, but I have a hard time finding hate in my heart for him. Why is it so easy for you to hate Clinton? What exactly is the problem here?

If you look carefully at his record, you'll find a guy who had incredible success. I see why the prudish set would like to string him up, but I fail to see why he isn't lauded for what amounts to a great american executive success. Greenspan is waiting this one out for obvious reasons, "W" is vulnerable, but I maintain that you'll be surprised when you hear what he has to say about Clinton. Rumour has it Greenspan is a big fan. And when all is said and done you'll be recalling these years as a pretty good time, economically, socially, environmentally, and any other way you want to measure.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), December 26, 2000.

Bemused--

Time heals most everything. You don't hate Nixon now but I bet that you did in 1973, if you were around then. You are right, many opponents of Clinton don't merely disagree with him---they viscerally hate him. It is hard to say why. In my case, I see a disingenuous, smarmy, supremely ambitious slickster. If I don't hate him, I certainly don't trust him.

You are right, the economy has been good in the 90s. To the extent that Clinton helped that to be true, I salute him. But IMO the economy was good in spite of him, not because of him.

You are wrong if you think that his enemies come mostly from the "prudish set". In fact, that mindset that is exactly what some of us find so offensive about the Clinton crowd (ie, "naaa naaa naaaa, we're cooler than you are"). Gag me on a spoon.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), December 26, 2000.

Just admit it Lars, you seniors can't get it up without Viagra, and that's why Clinton pisses you off. Hee hee hee - it's obvious you're jealous!

-- Uncle Slob (unclsl0b@aol.com), December 26, 2000.

And Uncle Slob, are you jealous of Monica?

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), December 26, 2000.

Lars, a newsletter sounds good, count me in :)

Bemused, I'm far from prudish, as a matter of fact I can swear as well as Hillary. (My four year old called her two year old brother a fucking asshole one time, I'm now careful around the kids!) I've had my share of drugs and sex and enjoy a very unprudish life style. For the record, I don't hate Clinton. I think he is a slime but I don't waste my time hating him. I could give a shit what he and his family do. What I hate is what he did: postpone, lie, coerce others to lie. For six months he denied to all around him, wasting tax payers dollars, for personal reasons. Adultery, no big deal, the public forgave him Gennifer, they would forgive him this too. But for personal reasons (not the nation), he wagged his finger claiming right wing conspiracy, driving a wedge between the parties, for his personal gain, nothing more. That's what I hate.

And Lars said it pretty accurately, the economy is good, not because of him, not because he "saw" an opportunity to put into place some great economic policies. He had no motivation to do any of that. He had no "political" choice after the repub took congress. (What a powerful message that was! The first prez in 30 years to turn the congress.) After he saw that, with his desire for another four in the WH, he knew he had to work with them.

The other thing I dislike about Clinton is his womanizing. I'm pretty much a women's lib kind of gal. Womanizers are lower than whale shit in my mind. They have no respect for women and I in turn can't respect them. I can't praise a guy who does that to women. Clinton is a very smart politician and he knows how to play the public. Too bad he's such a sociopath.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), December 27, 2000.

DON'T WIMP OUT

-- (Paracelsus@Pb.Au), December 27, 2000.

Lars/Maria,

Well, it's pretty apparent that there are some very harsh feelings, if not hatred, for Clinton here... Whatever. I do have to take issue with your point, Maria, about Clinton's record with regards to womans' rights. Are you serious? Have you taken a peek at his record on that? You're saying that the first Bush administration was better, and you're anticipating that the 2nd will be also? Speaking of drugs.... :^)

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), December 27, 2000.

Hey there Bemused,

If you were shown irrefutable evidence that Clinton had an habitual pattern of almost casually lying about important (as well as unimportant) matters, how would you then feel about him?

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), December 27, 2000.

Bemused, no harsh feelings, more along the lines of apathy, I call as I see it. And no I'm not kidding. This is the most womanizing prez since Kennedy. Clinton speaks of woman's rights, paying lip service to his wife's demands, once again motivated by that little dangly thing between his legs.

One big difference between Clinton and GWB, Clinton ran the show, Bush will allow his cabinet to do their jobs. In Clinton's case it didn't matter who he picked; he was going to dictate how things were run. His cabinet has many women, window dressing picked by Hillary. I see through the window dressing. He had his hand in every move including Elian.

I don't mean to preach here but... When a man has a little fling, no big deal. When he has a couple more, ok we can look the other way. But when he starts to add up into the hundreds, then something's wrong. When there are allegations of rape, something's wrong. His behavior has gone past the "boys will be boys" stage. I have seen a few womanizers in my life and find them very charming. They have to be. They learned how to get women by acting a certain way. They could give a shit about women's rights. They have no respect for women and only look at tits and ass. I know women's rights; I blazed a few trails in an industry that only had the boys club. I also know about womanizing, being well endowed. I've seen the looks from guys whose eyes stopped at chest level, never hearing what I had to say. If you don't know the difference between womanizing and woman's lib, no amount of written words will show you.

Name one thing he did for women's right.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), December 27, 2000.

Maria... Are you projecting some personal events onto Clinton here? No? You sure? You wouldn't be alone if so, but is that clear thinking?

Eve, nice to hear from you again. As usual, I find you slightly opposed to my good ideas. What will I do with you?

Clinton's a liar. Name someone who hasn't lied. What do you think happened to Gingrich? He found himself in a glass house, with a six year supply of stones.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), December 27, 2000.

Bemused, not projecting, just giving you a little of my background to show where I'm coming from, what I've learned over the years. Take it at that and nothing more. Don't try to analyze me because you have no clue who I am. Stick to the words on the screen.

Further, I don't care that he lied. All of us do from time to time, some more than others. I don't care that he cheated on his wife. I've already explained my views on that aspect of his personality. He lied under oath, a criminal act.

BTW I think that he should be pardoned. I hope that Bush agrees to do this.

Now, try to answer my request... name one thing he did for women's rights.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), December 27, 2000.

Maria, you said,

name one thing he did for women's rights.

Can I chip in? One thing he did was show what a bunch of self-serving hypocrites the "women's rights" organizations are. Not a peep from a one of them throughout his antics.

Also, in addition to perjury being a *real* crime he committed, I think that him having *any* sort of affair with an intern should be cause for removal from office. There's too great a power differential there to NOT consider it an inappropriate relationship, even if "consensual".

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 27, 2000.

It's good to see you back here too, Bemused. I really missed ya. And, hey -- don't lose faith -- maybe we'll end up completely agreeing on this. You know, something like you finally saying, "You know, you were right all along, Eve. You helped me to realize my intense dislike of Clinton as well as the fact that I was a conservative at heart all along, in one fell swoop." :)

Ok...you agree that not only has Clinton lied, but that he's "a liar." By the way, yes, I'll certainly agree that Gingrich and others have lied from time to time -- but could we focus on Clinton for now?

Now, look deep within yourself and tell me -- if a conservative republican was in Clinton's position and told the lies Clinton has, would you feel precisely the same about him/her, as you do about Clinton? In any case, though, could you name/describe the feeling (assuming there is one of any significance) this gives you?

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), December 27, 2000.

Frank, You are never short of outrageous beliefs and statements, are you:

"I think that him having *any* sort of affair with an intern should be cause for removal from office"

You would rewrite the constitution, wouldn't you, because, after all, it is YOUR value system that should be implemented, and it is the lack of YOUR system of morals that explains the fall of our country.

It is great you have your own opinion, but when you start saying perjury, or infidelity are reasons for removal from office, that reeks of the Gestapo.

Stop with your bullshit of trying to tell everyone that as soon as the take up your catholic system of morals the world will be well and all will behave properly.

I think YOU should be removed from this bulletin board for excessive stupidity.

-- Keep Digging (you@will.find.dirt), December 27, 2000.

Maria: I'll try to stick to the words on the screen. But you're fun to analyze. And don't ask me to "name one thing he did for women's rights", because then I'll have to provide a bunch of damn links and everyone will be clicking, cutting, and pasting instead of writing.

Eve: You know, something like you finally saying, ... Do not, please, hold your breath. You asked a tables-turned question. You know the answer, Eve - I'd have a great time with a repub that found him/herself in Clinton's shoes. But that's turnabout==fair play stuff, I'd get over it and probably end up defending his/her sorry ass. Because it's an issue that doesn't merit national discourse for more than a weekend. By the way, saw your etching over there... Nice, But you don't get off the hook by being cute.

Flint: You've stolen my theme (hypocracy)! I do need to say that confusing interest with harassment isn't usually in the liberal bag of tricks, but Clinton has managed to muddy the waters there. I think the feminists were being pragmatic in their support of him, knowing that their cause would get buried in a repub administration.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), December 27, 2000.

Bemused, we disagree -- as I see a pattern of lying as being of absolutely crucial and lasting significance regarding one's overall character. And I'd seen enough dishonesty from Clinton that after a point, nothing he said meant anything to me anymore.

Oh, well. In any case, your reply came across as honest (as well as have your other posts), and for that I thank you.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), December 27, 2000.

Bemused:

I admit I'm not sure what the feminist "cause" consists of anymore. The glass ceiling is rising, and the pay discrepancy for equal work is shrinking. Both of these are happening slowly, but I don't think government policy has had much influence one way or another. As an example of what still happens in the workplace, Clinton's behavior doesn't strike me as either unusual or something that should be politely ignored for pragmatic reasons. This kind of thing happens *because* those who should raise the biggest stink find good, pragmatic reasons to say nothing (like keeping their jobs, or being promoted).

Feminists are getting to be like blacks -- they look at a Republican cabinet full of blacks and women, replacing a Democratic cabinet containing one woman (Reno) and no blacks, and they simply continue their tirade about how Republicans are discriminatory and against their interests. When empirical data do not count, such antics lose their purchase.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 27, 2000.

Dear "Keep Digging", you said,

It is great you have your own opinion, but when you start saying perjury, or infidelity are reasons for removal from office, that reeks of the Gestapo.

I try not to commit too many ad hominems myself, but your statement that committing PERJURY IN A COURT OF LAW is NOT a good reason to remove the Chief Executive Officer of the United States has to be one of the most idiotic things I've seen on the net in some time -- and that's really saying something.

You, my friend, need a vacation.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 27, 2000.

Frank-get over it-Clinton WAS NOT removed from office precisely because perjury was not considered a high crime by enough senators. Our system of law surrounding removal from office was designed to STOP petty moralists like yourself from simply removing sitting presidents and federal judges because you do not agree with their morals.

And you can say what you wish that the impeachment was about perjury, but I know you-know you too well-for you it is about Clinton's IMMORAL behavior. I am in no need of a vacation here. And my "attack" was not ad hominem-you grandstand about on this board with your holier than thou attitude, spouting on and on about the destruction of the moral fiber of America, and how you would "solve" our problems by imposing your morality. All who know you know this, Frank, so do not make a fool of your self and claim it is not true.

It is a SERIOUS fault in your character that you would impose your own scheme of things on the rule of law surrounding removals from office. If perjury were an offense commensurate with removal from office IT WOULD HAVE SAID SO IN THE RULE OF LAW COVERING SUCH REMOVALS. I am shouting as I know you are a little hard of hearing, Frank. Perjury is not mentioned as an impeachable offense. And I should say here, that at least until this point in time Mr. Clinton has not been convicted of perjury.

But I forgot, you republicans only believe in "innocence until proven guilty" if it is one of your own. You have cleverly persuaded many folks into thinking that everyone associated with Clinton is guilty until proven innocent. You spout off about the "rule of law" and then pull this shit with speaking of folks as if they are already guilty.

-- KeepDigging (you@will.find.dirt), December 27, 2000.

KeepDigging:

Please don't generalize so freely. Frank may be led around by the religious ring through his nose, but the Republican party is fairly inclusive. I think Clinton's womanizing, unlike Kennedy's, was blown all out of proportion by his enemies. And his enemies knew the position he was in -- a perjurer if he denied it, yet suffering serious reversals at the polls if he admitted it. So the country just kind of marked time, drifting in circles while our leadership battled over irrelevancies, their PR machines spinning like mad. There's lots of blame to spread around, but if you clear all that away, what's left is people like Frank -- those the PR machines snag, the real audience for all that nonsense.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 28, 2000.

Can someone help me here---either by providing a link or by recounting the sequence of events (without editorializing) that lead to impeachment of Clinton by the Congress which lead to the trial in the Senate which lead to acquital?

It's all sort of a blur to me. I didn't pay total attention as it unraveled. As I recall, Gennifer Flowers filed a sexual harrassment suit against Clinton for something she alleged to happen while he was Governor. As part of this suit, Clinton was obliged to testify in absentia (by video?) to a Grand Jury. His sworn testimony was later shown to be false, ie perjury. (I don't remember how that happened; I don't remember when Monica became an issue; I don't know if Presidential perjury is grounds for removal of the President). If anyone can recall the sequence of all this, please enlighten me.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), December 28, 2000.

More than half of married men cheat on their wives, and most of them lie about it unless it becomes impossible to conceal the truth any longer. Clinton did what the average man would do in a similar situation, tried to conceal a matter which was no one's fucking business but his own.

You puritanical holier-than-thou conservatives now claim he has a "pattern of lying". Prove it. Prove that he has lied about anything besides a personal matter which was none of your fucking business in the first place.

Republicans on the other hand, lie about issues which are of great importance to the public, issues that we elect a president to honor. They lie about no new taxes, about wiretapping and coverups, about supplying weapons to our terrorist enemies, about their own criminal record when testifying in a court of law... the list goes on, and on, and on. The hypocrisy of those who are now pointing their fingers at others is absolutely despicable and disgustingly low.

-- (repubs @ are. low-life scum), December 28, 2000.

Flint:

I reread my last post. You are right. I generalized too freely. There is a certain segment of the republican party that is most guilty of the charges I raised. The religious ring comment was funny. Thanks.

-- KeepDigging (you@will.find.dirt), December 28, 2000.

repubs,

Ok -- here's a few for starters...

Judge for yourself...

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), December 28, 2000.

Bemused, now you have me amused. Nice try. Please continue with your analysis. :)

Keep Digging, when did moral and religious beliefs measure a person's intellect? As I recall Flint couldn't get the puzzler that Frank solved (the one with 12 balls, one weighted). The puzzler measures a person's intellect more than his opinions. Please learn to know the difference between opinions and knowledge.

Repub, "You puritanical holier-than-thou conservatives now claim he has a "pattern of lying". Prove it. Prove that he has lied about anything besides a personal matter which was none of your fucking business in the first place." Did you read any of this thread? It was the publics business because he was brought up on sexual harassment charges. Guess what, during discovery lawyers are required by law to dig in any direction to uncover facts on the case. As in this case it meant into his sexual activities. Get the connection? (Gawd, liberals are so stupid, I guess it's that lax education they go through) If lawyers don't do discovery, they could be brought up on charges. That's how our legal system works.

Lars, It wasn't Gennifer who brought up the charges against Clinton; she was the reporter who had a twelve (12) year affair with him. Another woman charged Clinton with trying to get sexual favors from her and when she didn't respond, he got her fired (or some such retribution). During the investigation, council found out Monica was giving head to the prez. (Another possible "sex for a job" activity, hence applicable to the case). Her co-worker, Linda, taped her talking about the prez trying to get everyone to lie about it including his personal secretary who hid a stained dress. That's about as simple as I can make. Hope it helps.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), December 28, 2000.

Sorry Lars, you asked about the impeachment too. Well, there was an investigation, reams and reams of document that were published on the internet, detailing all of Clinton's activities. He was impeached. He was found guilty of perjury but not enough evidence to find him guilty of coercing others to commit perjury. Congress found that this wasn't grounds for removal from office, not enought for high crimes and misdemeanors. His legacy will be the first elected prez ever impeached.

Side comment, even though he may be pardoned, I think that he will (and should) loose his license to practice law. I know that won't matter much to this most charming man.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), December 28, 2000.

Eve:

And how many times have you lied?

-- KeepDigging (you@will.find.dirt), December 28, 2000.

Keep,

As I believe honesty is one of the most valuable and precious of virtues, I try my very best to never lie, no matter how much it hurts (I don't always succeed), with two exceptions to my principle.

I believe it can be ok to lie at times in order to protect one's privacy (unless it involves perjury) -- note there's usually no victim here. And I think we have a moral "imperative" to lie to a criminal or kidnapper, etc. if that's what it takes to protect ourselves or our loved ones, or even strangers.

In any case, the focus of this thread is Clinton, not me.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), December 28, 2000.

No KD, the questions should be: Eve,

how many times have you lied under oath,

how many times have you to tried to obstruct justice,

how many times have you coerced others to lie,

how many times have you postponed giving documents to lawyers during investigations only later to discover them (oh my imagine that) in the basement,

how many times have you shredded evidence,

how many times have you made a thousand fold profit for a nine month investment?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), December 28, 2000.

your both right. Eve's character is not at question, here. But eve, I must ask how you could post a link to an op ed piece that has this wonderful line in it:

"So whores like Sharon Stone and sluts like Madonna can make millions freely..."

I am really surprised you would link an ass like this. And I am also surprised you would link to something that again is full of allegations and does not refer to any convictions. I will change my tune the day Clinton is convicted of perjury.

-- SydBarrett (dark@side.moon), December 28, 2000.

I think it is your duty to lie when you get an ugly sweater as a holiday gift. Even if it means potential jail time, and the fate of the Western world depends on your opinion of that sweater - lie.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), December 28, 2000.

Pardon him, pardon her, pardon you,

Pardon everyone Bill ever knew.

No need to be frugal:

Pardon Hubbell, McDougal.

Pardon Gore, pardon Hillary too!

— F.R. Duplantier

-- (nemesis@awol.com), December 28, 2000.

Syd,

I really didn't read the whole link, so I don't know the context of what you're referring to. I still felt it was ok to do the link, though, because I skimmed it and found more than enough relevant stuff there, with sources quoted, and what appeared to be fairly objective commentary. I'm sorry that this quote was offensive to you, but I'd need its context to comment on it.

And to the extent there's stuff in it that's questionable or untrue, my apologies.

Personally, though, the 1992 middle-class tax cut campaign promise, followed by the 1993 middle-class tax increase did it for me. The whole thing was pretty blatant and casual, with the tax increase coming not long after he took office.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), December 28, 2000.

Keep Digging,

Frank-get over it-Clinton WAS NOT removed from office precisely because perjury was not considered a high crime by enough senators

Keep, here we disagree in a very profound way. Clinton's actions themselves don't bother me that much in that this country will always have criminals -- murderers, rapists, perjurers, the important thing is that society punishes them for their actions so that their behavior doesn't spread throughout the populace. What to me is most disturbing is the fact that (as you say) the U.S. Senate (here to me reflecting society as a whole) doesn't think perjury in a court of law is grounds to remove a President! I doubt if it's possible for us to disagree more completely on this.

And my "attack" was not ad hominem-you grandstand about on this board with your holier than thou attitude, spouting on and on about the destruction of the moral fiber of America, and how you would "solve" our problems by imposing your morality. All who know you know this, Frank, so do not make a fool of your self and claim it is not true.

Expressing my opinion is "grandstanding"? Does this apply to others to, or just me? Are you "grandstanding" right now? All I can say is that in many ways (teenage pregnancy, abortion, decreasing educational standards, increased drug use, etc.) our society is worse off now than it used to be in things that can be measured objectively. I have proposed my solution, I have yet to hear yours.

And while we're at it, if you've been around this board long enough to have grown sick of my opinion, why not post this under your regular handle instead of taking a pot shot at me from a new (anonymous) one? If you're ashamed to post something under your regular handle, why not consider not posting it at all? Or is attacking in the dark an acceptable part of your "new morality"?

Perjury is not mentioned as an impeachable offense.

Hee, Hee. How many crimes did the founders SPECIFICALLY list as impeachable offenses, Keep? If you feel like playing games, the pres could rape and murder someone in public and not be impeached by your standards. Is that o.k. too? (BTW, the only crimes the constitution lists by name are treason and bribery, but it also allows for other "high crimes and midemeanors" which I think applies here). Also, why couldn't the pres. simply say yes, I did it, but I pardon myself completely to ANY crime for that matter? (I don't know the answer).

But I forgot, you republicans only believe in "innocence until proven guilty" if it is one of your own.

Nope.

Flint,

No, I don't think that I'm led around by the nose, that implies not being able to do other than ordered. I act the way I do of my own volition.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 28, 2000.

Oops,

Does this apply to others too ,

"Pres.", etc.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 28, 2000.

Frank:

Your view of the impeachment requirements is simplistic, at least from my reading. "High crimes and misdemeaners" is a phrase that is very deliberately vague, since we are talking about the essence of politics, the ability to govern effectively. It's entirely possible that an apolitical crime (even murder) would not be sufficient for impeachment, but sufficient for the death penalty.

Lying, even under oath, about getting a blowjob from an intern, has nothing to do with the ability to govern, to forge agreements, to make compromises, or to lead. Nor does it have anything to do with selling out to a foreign power. Sure, politicians have political enemies by definition, who will do all within their power to blow molehills into mountains if the public will buy it. In Clinton's case, the public wasn't buying it. The man was doing a damn fine job as President, the economy was healthy, the public was happy. Yeah, he's a skirt chaser. So was Kennedy. So was FDR. This is NOT a political failure. The impeachment was a Republican circus, but never had the necessary public support.

So sure, if you wish you can sit there convinced that by violating your moral code he should have been kicked out. (Yes, I know you now claim it wasn't the blowjob, it was lying about it. Right. As if you could find *anyone* who wouldn't lie under the circumstances). But fortunately, "high crimes and misdemeaners" are defined by the political process and not by Mrs. Grundy. We are all fortunate that politics is wide even though some minds are narrow.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 28, 2000.

Very well-said, Flint. (Not that you were sitting there waiting for *my* approval or anything.....)

Yes, it would certainly seem that we agree on something. [Mark this date on the calendar ;-)]

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), December 28, 2000.

Patricia:

I only criticize people when they're wrong. Maybe, like you, I should compliment them when they're right as well. You *are* right now and then, you know. In fact, often enough to make your more extreme and selectively-informed positions all the more puzzling. And in those cases, we are all fortunate you've missed the boat so badly, you know?

In my opinion, Nixon deserved to be impeached (and convicted, had he not quit first). He set up his own private bureaucracy in the White House to do an end-run around all precedent and procedure. He handed the real reins of power to people Congress had never advised nor consented to. He tried very hard to circumvent the feedback checks and balances our system depends on. Watergate and the subsequent coverup were *both* symptoms of the same conviction that Nixon was above the law, that his goals were the only worthy goals and anyone who disagreed was out to sabotage his efforts.

The highest crime in politics is to try to ignore or circumvent the political system itself, to silence the voice of the people, as Nixon did. In contrast, nobody will ever claim Clinton took his eyes off the polls even for a moment.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 28, 2000.

Flint:

How To Give A Compliment

Lesson One -- The Basics

DO NOT mix it with a bashing; simply state the compliment graciously. It will stand on its own merits.

Tomorrow: Lesson Two -- Patricia Is Right More Often Than You'll Admit and How To Gracefully Admit It

:-)

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), December 28, 2000.

Flint, you said,

Your view of the impeachment requirements is simplistic, at least from my reading. "High crimes and misdemeaners" is a phrase that is very deliberately vague, since we are talking about the essence of politics, the ability to govern effectively. It's entirely possible that an apolitical crime (even murder) would not be sufficient for impeachment, but sufficient for the death penalty.

Here's what the Constitution says (Article II Section 4)

Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

My interpretation may very well be simplistic, not only am I not a Constitutional scholar, I'm not even a lawyer. I can read though. I agree that the essence of the impeachment process is to allow for the removal of a President who cannot lead effectively. I believe that a President who commits perjury in a court of law IS unable to lead effectively -- as a lawyer himself, to show such blatent disregard for the laws of the land, and his personal oath of office, are to me unpardonable in the nation's leader. IMO, a shepherd should be held to a higher standard than his sheep.

While you may disagree with my cut-off for impeachment, would you please tell me how this is more "simplistic" in nature than your own enlightened view?

One other thing: since you ARE a Constitutional scholar, can you tell me why a sitting President couldn't commit (murder for example) then pardon himself immediately afterwards? That wasn't covered in my high school civics class.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 29, 2000.

Frank:

[I believe that a President who commits perjury in a court of law IS unable to lead effectively...]

Clinton, as far as anyone can tell, is a clear, obvious demonstration that your belief is false. He committed perjury, he continued to lead effectively, his approval rating is still the highest any President has ever had after 8 years in office. On the other hand, you seem to be developing a reputation around here for rigid, irrational beliefs, impervious to observation.

I think the hypothetical notion of committing murder and then pardoning himself would need to be tested before we'd know how it worked out. I suspect the surrounding firestorm would make effective political leadership impossible -- murder is too serious, just as a blowjob was too trivial except as a symbol for the opposition to rally around. Murder is not symbolic, so public reaction would depend entirely on the fact situation *as presented* to the public (spin is everything). For example, what if it turns out the public can be convinced (it might even be true) that the President killed a spy in the act of stealing top secret information?

I can tell you one thing, though. The Constitution contains many words, some more important than others. The part you quote (about treason, bribery, etc.) is less important. The part about being tried by Congress is more important, because ultimately this means a President is impeached (and possibly convicted) by *public opinion*. Lying about a blowjob is not a high crime unless the public thinks it is. The public knows better -- even the most pious of us have at least considered cheating if the right circumstances should present themselves.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 29, 2000.

Flint, you said,

Clinton, as far as anyone can tell, is a clear, obvious demonstration that your belief is false. He committed perjury, he continued to lead effectively, his approval rating is still the highest any President has ever had after 8 years in office.

But Flint, this isn't valid at all! You could just as easily say (in a different situation) "Yes, the President committed Treason, Bribery, and a host of other crimes, but his approval ratings are good, and he's still an effective leader, so he really isn't impeachable". Are you saying that the only reason to impeach someone is if the public doesn't like him?

On the other hand, you seem to be developing a reputation around here for rigid, irrational beliefs, impervious to observation.

Really? I hadn't noticed. Another take on this though might be someone who actually HAS a real belief around here about something will be personally criticized by those who don't.

-- murder is too serious, just as a blowjob was too trivial

Wrong again. If you don't think that breaking the law in itself is cause to remove the President, the actual CRIME he commits is irrelevant. It could be ANYTHING, even murder, so long as he could put out good enough spin to convince the public it was no big deal.

The part about being tried by Congress is more important, because ultimately this means a President is impeached (and possibly convicted) by *public opinion*.

Unfortunately, I agree that that is what's happening, although I DISAGREE that that was the founders' intent. Can you point me to a citation other than your opinion that Congress was supposed to be led by the current public opinion in determining whether or not to impeach a President?

Flint, one thing we agree on is that *public opinion* is determining one of the most serious actions of Congress. Doesn't that scare you at all? Don't you think that Congress should uphold SOME standard other than what people want at that instant?

Keep Digging,

Why'd you fade back into the woodwork? I was awaiting your response.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 29, 2000.

Maria--

Thanks for the update. How soon we forget all the "news" of the moment. I do now remember that the person who filed against Clinton was Paula Jones, not Gennifer. I also now remember that Paula originally only asked Clinton for a public apology and did not file suit until 3 months later when none was forthcoming.

To me, one of the many ironies of the Clinton melodrama is his taste in women---he seems drawn to big-hair, down-home types that are the antithesis of his Feminist apologists. Not a major irony, just an entertaining one. I guess the Feminists don't think that such females qualify for their tender mercies.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), December 29, 2000.

Lars, yea I think that too. :)

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), December 29, 2000.

Frank:

We'd communicate better if you tried to understand, rather than misunderstand, what I'm trying to say.

Ultimately, I believe the founders *did* intend that a Very Bad President be impeached, at least indirectly, by the public. You will notice that *Congress*, and NOT the Supreme Court, makes this decision. That's because it's a political decision and not a legal decision. Congress isn't intended to act as a court, to determine whether a law was broken according to the facts. They are intended to make a decision for which they must be *answerable* in the next election, which the Supreme Court is not. And this distinction is critical.

Now, I presume the founders understood that all politicians will have enemies. *They* certainly did. They provided that the President must stand before the public every 4 years and get re-approved (since amended to a 2-term limit). This isn't very long. The President can be really detested by the opposition (and *every* president will be truly detested by *some* of the opposition), but that alone shouldn't be cause to reduce his term of office. For that, he must do something so seriously bad that Congressmen from his party, and from districts that overwhelmingly supported him in the last election, can convince their constituencies that he is intolerable.

You act like this is a purely mechanical decision. The President broke a law, breaking a law is illegal, he should be impeached. In reality, the question is whether what the president did wrong genuinely undermines our governmental processes. Please read what I wrote about Nixon, for an illustration of this.

Most of the public has enough sense to recognize that a blowjob is part of someone's private life. Even avid Republicans could see that there was nothing dangerous about this, and that Clinton's enemies were invading his private life to fabricate some excuse to get him out of there.

Yeah, Clinton should have had enough sense to recognize that what he was doing was very marketable, sufficient to make some people famous if they were willing to stoop low enough -- and for money, there just isn't any level too low for some people to stoop.

So impeachment isn't simply a matter of low enough ratings at the polls. There must also be some serious action or pattern of abuses that *endangers the nation* in some real way. You sound like you'd have him impeached for a speeding ticket. And this is precisely why it's a political and not a judicial or mechanical process. Political processes require a lot of common sense, something glaringly lacking in your (or anyone's) fixed position.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 29, 2000.

Have you folks recently discussed this action?:

"Clinton Lifts Lobbying Restriction By Jesse J. Holland Associated Press Writer Thursday, Dec. 28, 2000; 8:20 p.m. EST

WASHINGTON –– President Clinton on Thursday lifted his ban on former government employees lobbying federal agencies for five years, saying that President-elect Bush's administration won't be giving Democratic employees special access anyway.

The president said he put the five-year ban in place in 1993 to keep former employees from using their access to the Democratic administration to lobby for outside interests. With a Republican coming into the White House, Clinton employees won't have special access to tout to potential employers."

Lars,

You could eat this quote from the article with a spoon, I'm sure:

"For him to set a higher standard and then quietly remove it at the end of his administration is not just appalling, it's almost breathtaking," Lewis said. "It's just plain outrageous but I guess it's not surprising given that it's Clinton and given all the things he has done."

-- flora (***@__._), December 29, 2000.

Actually Flint, we'd communicate better if you'd lend me your mind-reading ability.

I read what you said on Nixon, and to me it's the same thing.

I *personally* don't see much difference between Nixon's behavior and Clinton's. They were just acting in different spheres, but their behaviors in acting "above the law" are very similar. For the sake of communication, do you disagree with this?

Nixon opened China, and kept putting men on the moon. He did do good things. He also did BAD things resulting in his impeachment. Clinton is the same way (although with less "good" and more "bad").

So impeachment isn't simply a matter of low enough ratings at the polls. There must also be some serious action or pattern of abuses that *endangers the nation* in some real way. You sound like you'd have him impeached for a speeding ticket. And this is precisely why it's a political and not a judicial or mechanical process. Political processes require a lot of common sense, something glaringly lacking in your (or anyone's) fixed position.

If you'd read what I said, you'd see that I feel committing PERJURY in a court of law is indeed a very serious offense for the President. Wasn't that clear to you? I do not believe this is like a traffic violation. I'm suprised that you don't agree - do you REALLY think perjury is equivalent to a speeding ticket? To spell it out a little, if the President can't even be trusted to tell the truth WHEN UNDER OATH IN COURT, how can the nation expect him to NOT be lying in any other matter? Don't you feel that having a President who you can't trust as far as your grandma can throw endangers the nation?

And what's with the ad hominems (saying I'm lacking in common sense, etc.?) that if nothing else is a pretty good sign that your argument is weak IMO. If you have facts, present them. If you don't that's o.k. - your *opinion* is as valid as mine (as your *opinion* only) but keep the insults to yourself.

I asked you before if you could cite something from the Constitution (or other reputable source) that stated that Congress should base their decision on public opinion, and not their oath of office to uphold the constitution. You have not done so. Can you, or are you merely reiterating your personal beliefs and IMPLYING they are facts (and rather rudely might I add)?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 29, 2000.

Flora--

Yeah, I saw that story today too and thought about posting it but figured it would get enough coverage and besides I post too much anyway. Well, it's an act of humanity to let these simple folk make an honest living at their admirable profession of lobbying.

-- Lars (lars@yahoo.com), December 29, 2000.

Frank:

[I read what you said on Nixon, and to me it's the same thing.]

If you can't see the difference between setting up your own bureaucracy so as not to be accountable to Congress' advice and consent as per the constitution, and lying about getting a blowjob, then I can't help you. Fortunately for all of us, the American public *and* their elected representatives could see the difference.

[I *personally* don't see much difference between Nixon's behavior and Clinton's. They were just acting in different spheres, but their behaviors in acting "above the law" are very similar. For the sake of communication, do you disagree with this?]

Absolutely. This is like saying jaywalking and serial murder are the same *in principle* because both are against the law, just in different spheres, so they are the same thing. Pardon my saying so, but this is pure bullshit, Frank. I'm not trying to defend lying under oath, but to most people (thankfully) what someone is lying *about* makes a critical difference.

[Nixon opened China, and kept putting men on the moon. He did do good things. He also did BAD things resulting in his impeachment. Clinton is the same way (although with less "good" and more "bad").]

Well, history hasn't had so much time to judge Clinton yet. The space program started shutting down under Nixon. Opening China was a good thing. Nixon was impeached for trying to undermine the whole Federal, Constitutional system. This is worse than lying about his private life, when that didn't present any national danger of any kind.

[If you'd read what I said, you'd see that I feel committing PERJURY in a court of law is indeed a very serious offense for the President. Wasn't that clear to you? ...if the President can't even be trusted to tell the truth WHEN UNDER OATH IN COURT, how can the nation expect him to NOT be lying in any other matter? Don't you feel that having a President who you can't trust as far as your grandma can throw endangers the nation?]

Nope. If he'd lied about getting a speeding ticket, would you impeach him as well? Frank, he tried to get away with a private blowjob, and his enemies wouldn't let him. Your equating this with what Nixon did is astounding! Diogenes himself couldn't find a man who wouldn't lie about something like that. How many times to I have to tell you that what someone lies ABOUT makes all the difference? Nixon was shredding evidence. Nixon was paying hush money. Nixon was erasing tapes. Nixon was directing the FBI and IRS against those on an "enemies list". Nixon was blaming anyone he could find to protect himself. A small army of Nixon's lieutenants went to jail for what they DID, not just for lying about it. And YOU can't see the difference? Frank, that's not my problem.

[I asked you before if you could cite something from the Constitution (or other reputable source) that stated that Congress should base their decision on public opinion, and not their oath of office to uphold the constitution.]

I tried to point out that the Constitution deliberately makes impeachment a political process. I pointed out that Congress makes this determination and not the Supreme Court. I tried to point out that the founders were very careful NOT to make this a legal procedure. I tried to point out that Congressmen, in making this determination, must answer to their constituencies for what they do. I tried to point out that THIS is why politicans and NOT judges have this power. This isn't public opinion, this is public *accountability*. There is a difference, Frank.

I did NOT say the decision was "based on public opinion", in fact I was careful to say there was a LOT more involved than public opinion polls. Yet you ignore all I wrote about Congress' duty and makeup, and claim I said nothing. You read where I said it was NOT pure public opinion, and claim I said the opposite. THEN you wonder why I question your sense.

Incidentally, about the 535 individuals involved in Clinton's impeachment, here are some interesting statistics for you:

29 have been accused of spousal abuse. 7 have been arrested for fraud. 19 have written bad checks. 117 have bankrupted at least 2 businesses. 3 have been arrested for assault. 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit. 14 have been arrested on drug charges. 8 have been arrested for shoplifting. And in 1998, 84 were stopped for drunk driving.

Frank, THESE were the people impeaching the President. Do you think they might, just might, understand what it means to make a mistake? Politicians ain't saints, you know. They are people who understand that a little white lie is STILL a little white like, in court or not. You could use a little understanding yourself. Your principles are sound, but your perspective is nonexistent.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 29, 2000.

*Sigh* ;-)

Flint,

In your post you obviously disagree with me, but I've got an assignment for you. Pull both the articles of impeachment for Nixon and Clinton, and you'll see two things: 1. they are about different events (as you say) and 2. both are based on the House deciding that the sitting President abused his office, and broke the law of the land to the extent that they were in violation of their oath of office. That's not MY decision Flint, that's theirs.

If you can't see the difference between setting up your own bureaucracy so as not to be accountable to Congress' advice and consent as per the constitution, and lying about getting a blowjob, then I can't help you. Fortunately for all of us, the American public *and* their elected representatives could see the difference.

Nope, the elected representatives COULD see the difference, which is why the House impeached him. Only the Senate fell down on the job. Actually Flint, the bulk of Congress supported my side, not yours. Think about that.

. I'm not trying to defend lying under oath, but to most people (thankfully) what someone is lying *about* makes a critical difference.

This isn't "someone", this is the President. And to the second part, EVERYONE who commits perjury has a "good reason" for doing so, whether YOU buy into it or not is the question. Do you want each jury to decide on a case by case basis if the defendant's PERJURY is acceptable due to it's content (i.e. well, I'd go to jail if I admitted I was beating my wife, so OF COURSE I lied)?

If he'd lied about getting a speeding ticket, would you impeach him as well?

Yes! If the President of the U.S. not only Perjured himself in court about the ticket, but Obstructed Justice in keeping others from giving testimony as well, he deserves to be removed. Flint, you keep saying "it's the blowjob, it's the blowjob" but it ISN'T, it's his actons afterwards that are the problem. Similarly if Nixon had come out on T.V. right after Watergate and said, "My fellow Americans, the actions of CREEP truly shock me, I was unaware of the lengths these people were going to, and as of today I've fired every one of them, I'm very sorry that my people, the people I trusted, would do this to America" I bet he'd have served his full eight years too. You see, it wasn't the break-in itself, but the actions Nixon took afterwards that got people so riled up.

How many times to I have to tell you that what someone lies ABOUT makes all the difference? Nixon was shredding evidence. Nixon was paying hush money. Nixon was erasing tapes. Nixon was directing the FBI and IRS against those on an "enemies list". Nixon was blaming anyone he could find to protect himself. A small army of Nixon's lieutenants went to jail for what they DID, not just for lying about it.

Now were digressing, but we could start a new thread on how many of these CLINTON has done, and at first glance, my answer is ALL OF THEM!!! Flint, the fact that you are unwilling to admit Clinton's conduct in office is criminal, is astounding!

I tried to point out that the Constitution deliberately makes impeachment a political process. I pointed out that Congress makes this determination and not the Supreme Court. I tried to point out that the founders were very careful NOT to make this a legal procedure. I tried to point out that Congressmen, in making this determination, must answer to their constituencies for what they do. I tried to point out that THIS is why politicans and NOT judges have this power. This isn't public opinion, this is public *accountability*. There is a difference, Frank.

So NOW it's not *public opinion* that's important but *accountability*? But... but... several posts ago you said,

The part about being tried by Congress is more important, because ultimately this means a President is impeached (and possibly convicted) by *public opinion*. Lying about a blowjob is not a high crime unless the public thinks it is.

It's o.k. to change your mind on your position, Flint, but have the decency to say that's what you're doing, don't act as if that's what you meant all along. And hey, *accountability* is MY thing.

I did NOT say the decision was "based on public opinion", in fact I was careful to say there was a LOT more involved than public opinion polls.

Yes you did, in the second sentance. Lying about a blowjob is not a high crime unless the public thinks it is. My point is that the congress has the duty to *uphold the Constitution*, REGARDLESS of what the public thinks of it.

You read where I said it was NOT pure public opinion, and claim I said the opposite. THEN you wonder why I question your sense.

Looking at your own words, maybe you should question your own sense.

They are people who understand that a little white lie is STILL a little white like, in court or not.

It wasn't a "white lie", it was the President abusing his office and violating his oath of office for personal gain. That's why he was impeached. And no, a "white lie" is NOT still a "white lie" in court, it's PERJURY a crime punishable by JAIL TIME -- something that as a lawyer Mr. Clinton, if not you, knew.

You could use a little understanding yourself.

You're right, in many ways I could use improvement.

Your principles are sound, but your perspective is nonexistent.

A more blatent personal attack. Perhaps one way YOU could improve yourself is to stop criticizing PEOPLE when you disagree with them, and focus on their positions.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 30, 2000.

Frank:

I confess, I'm guilty of not expressing myself clearly enough so that quotes taken out of context can't be misinterpreted.

I was trying to contrast Congress with the Supreme Court. Why did the founders choose Congress to impeach? If impeachment is done for breaking a law, wouldn't the courts seem the natural body to consider this? So WHY would the founders go with Congress instead? Congressmen don't even need to be lawyers.

The answer, according to me reading, is that impeachment is a political and not a legal question. This means the public is involved, even if indirectly. It means the decision must be made by *representatives*, who MUST be sensitive to public opinion. That's the nature of a political decision, and the very opposite of the Court, which is deliberately insulated from public opinion. Nonetheless, the President must do something that endangers the nation. Low ratings at the polls are not sufficient by themselves.

Further, I'm not trying to defined what Clinton did. Lying under oath is a Bad Thing. It runs the very real risk that those whose political opposition disables their perspective, will seize on that particular detail, *regardless of the fact situation*, and self-righteously try to do by impeachment what they couldn't do legitimately. It is especially risky when the opposition party dominates the legislature.

And I think the reason Clinton was not convicted was that the political opposition to him just wasn't there, out in the hinterlands. People recognized that Clinton's womanizing didn't endanger the country, that he had committed no *political* high crimes (which by definition endanger the country), that his forgiveness or conviction should be in the eyes of his wife and NOT in the eyes of the country.

In fact, I was (and am) personally appalled at the idea of digging for irrelevant mistakes in someone's private life, with the goal of turning these to political advantage. OK, some people did stoop that low, but weren't quite able to pull it off. The people who *supported* this effort I consider lower than dirt. This is pure vindictive meanness, doing the country great harm and no good. I have no more respect for those who piously point to one or another of Clinton's efforts to avoid this improper scrutiny and say "That's the *real* reason I want him gone, honest." I consider this stupid if you believe it, and dishonest if you don't.

People will always try to cover up their mistakes if they think they can. Sometimes they get away with it, sometimes they don't. I don't regard the effort to cover up as being the offense itself. I look at the actual offense. Is a blowjob worse than trading arms for hostages illegally? MY answer is no. YOUR answer seems to be, it's OK if we can't *prove* he's lying. What if the President WAS taking bribes, or selling secrets for money, but we didn't have the evidence a court of law would require? Would you claim this is OK, because we can't prove he lied?

I notice you focused on the actual Watergate break-in. But I tried to point out that the break-in itself was a symptom of what Nixon had already done, setting up his own private "executive branch" to try to circumvent Congress. Answerable to nobody, these people had no restraints. A LOT of things like Watergate were done by these people, which eventually came out because in one particular case they got caught.

Frank, we're not going to agree here. I consider your position to be at best simplistically mechanical. Clinton tried to sneak a blowjob from an intern, he tried to deny it, the evidence was stronger than he expected, he got caught. This offense is impeachable ONLY to those willing to sell their souls to dispose of him. We should be thankful not enough people did so. And I personally can't help wondering about those who did.

Meanwhile, our political system was never endangered in any way. This wasn't a "high crime", this was private and trivial.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 30, 2000.

Gang,

Hello there, hope your you all have a good New Year.

Flint,

A question for you - based on this statement of yours:

I notice you focused on the actual Watergate break-in. But I tried to point out that the break-in itself was a symptom of what Nixon had already done, setting up his own private "executive branch" to try to circumvent Congress. Answerable to nobody, these people had no restraints. A LOT of things like Watergate were done by these people, which eventually came out because in one particular case they got caught.

So, how do you feel about all of the Executive Orders that Clinton has passed these 8 years? Doesn't that do the same thing, create laws/procedures and answerable to no-one since Executive Orders bypass Congress? Truly circumventing Congress - the same exact thing that you claim that Nixon did.

-- Deb Mc. (vmcclell@columbus.rr.com), December 30, 2000.

Deb:

These aren't quite the same thing, or should not be. There are rules for executive orders, which are intended to be administrative. This is hard to explain. The executive branch of the Federal government has about 3 million employees -- those of every agency. Congress authorizes (and approves budgets for) these agencies, but does NOT participate in the creation of the countless regulations these agencies create. For every law resulting from a bill passed by Congress and signed by the President, there are literally thousands of administrative rules and regulations created by our agencies. Like executive orders, these are supposed to *implement* Congressional intent, not defy it. And you will notice few (if any) Congressmen become particularly upset at either regulations or executive orders. These are necessary.

About a year after Kennedy was elected, some reporter asked him what was most different about being President than he expected. And Kennedy said what surprised him most was the difference between how easy it was to issue an executive order, and how damn difficult it was to get that order carried out. His executive orders vanished into the vast bureaucratic fog and if the bureaucrats didn't want to carry it out, it didn't get carried out. Tracking down what happened to each one was nearly impossible. It was always someone else's job, or it was split into lots of little details allocated among agencies who implemented regulations that, taken together, did what the bureaucrats wanted rather than what the order was intended to do.

If Kennedy was frustrated by this, imagine what Nixon felt. After all, the *vast* majority of these 3 million bureaucrats are Democrats. Republicans tend to believe in, and work for, the private sector. Furthermore, ALL of them are highly territorial, and Nixon wanted to reduce the size of government. Nixon issued executive orders in huge numbers, and *nothing happened*. And believe me, you don't want to even *try* to fire a member of the civil service, much less dismiss them in large quantities. The government isn't like General Motors, that can shut down Oldsmobile and send 10,000 people pink slips. The government can't shut down anything or fire anybody.

Nixon's "solution" was to pull the key functions of the bureaucracy into the White House, where he could put his cronies in charge who didn't have to be approved by the Senate, and give them the real power. So for example, Henry Kissinger did all the foreign policy out of the White House, and the real Secretary of State was not consulted. This pattern carried right on down the the Plumbers, who were not FBI employees, they were private people paid with funds raised by the re-election committee, with no approval or oversight by anybody.

And it was this pattern for which Nixon was impeached. Not for his executive orders, not for any trivial dalliance that has Frank so upset. Nixon had been unable to get Congress to do what he wanted, and rather than accept the checks and balances, he decided to defy them and do anyway what Congress had constitutionally forbidden.

I will say that if any President decides to use executive orders to defy the will of Congress rather than implement it, I'd vote for impeachment myself. Our system of checks and balances must not be broken, or our whole constitutional system of government fails.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 30, 2000.

Flint,

I agree we are talking around each other here, and aren't really going anywhere. But I've got time. Your problem with Nixon seems to be:

Answerable to nobody, these people had no restraints.

Don't you believe Clinton did the same? Haven't you heard of ANY of the scandals in the Clinton White House? It's pretty hard to "catch" the President at anything, considering his position in relation to the Attorney General, but you should at least admit the Clinton administration was under a cloud before the Lewinski affair broke out. Perjury was just the straw that broke the camel's back. Maybe that's why we see this differently, you see this as an isolated event, and I see it as part of a pattern of behavior.

Also, in case you've forgotten, Clinton WAS impeached, meaning that the majority of the House (and therefore the majority of the public by what I believe your definition to be) found him worthy of being formally accused and permanently tarnishing his record for high crimes and misdemeanors. That's not MY opinion, that's the official opinion of THE PEOPLE of the U.S. The Senate didn't convict, but neither did the O.J. jury, there wasn't enough evidence to do so.

I consider your position to be at best simplistically mechanical.

That's true. If someone doesn't understand what I'm trying to say the first few times, I try and write at their level. I hope you're not offended.

Clinton tried to sneak a blowjob from an intern, he tried to deny it, the evidence was stronger than he expected, he got caught. This offense is impeachable ONLY to those willing to sell their souls to dispose of him.

First, he WAS impeached, meaning that the House and *the public* were willing to sell their souls??? Lying out of court is one thing, and I agree that people would forgive him for it. I'm still shocked though that you don't seem to realize the difference between that and perjury. I hope if YOU are ever accused of a crime, the police don't have the same lax attitude towards perjury that you do, or you might find yourself doing hard time for no reason.

Meanwhile, our political system was never endangered in any way. This wasn't a "high crime", this was private and trivial.

No Flint, the President committing perjury in court is NOT private and trivial, but well, you are entitled to your opinion.

A parting note: You keep making this big distinction between Nixon and Clinton. Let me remind you that 1. Both WERE impeached. 2. NEITHER was convicted. 3. Nixon was pardoned, so he at least was found to be innocent by SOMEbody -- Clinton's legal troubles are likely to continue well after he leaves office. I just don't see why you've got the hots for this crook so badly.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 02, 2001.

Flint,

I meant to comment on this earlier, but didn't (a hazard of posting between doing other things). You said,

I was trying to contrast Congress with the Supreme Court. Why did the founders choose Congress to impeach? If impeachment is done for breaking a law, wouldn't the courts seem the natural body to consider this? So WHY would the founders go with Congress instead? Congressmen don't even need to be lawyers.

As an FYI, Supreme Court Justices don't need to be lawyers *either*. They only need to be appointed by the Pres. and confirmed by the Senate. So this probably isn't too sound an argument IMP'.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 02, 2001.

Frank:

Yes, I agree Clinton did a lot of questionable things. I'm not willing to swear one way or another, bucause when people are pulling fast ones at that level, evidence tends to vanish into the fog, people make claims and then retract them, everyone on both sides is clearly using each case as a vehicle to further their own careers because the case itself will never clarify, and so on. I firmly believe the Clintons took advantage of their position to do things forbidden to ordinary citizens. Things of very questionable legality, using questionable judgment.

There was a certain amount of political entrapment in this case. As far as I can tell, the perjury that has you so upset really is considered trivial (except in the pious bleatings for public consumption) -- the goal was to humiliate Clinton so badly that public opinion would be turned against him enough so that those *accountable* to the public could finally pin something concrete on Clinton. Even though I sincerely feel any honest person would recognize that the perjury charge was both carefully engineered and irrelevant to the process of governing.

I remember during the Vietnam war, someone was putting out an anti- war broadside every other week at the local army base, and TPTB just *hated* it. It wasn't illegal, but it was "undermining the war effort", it was "bad for morale", it "made unsupported allegations" about the conduct of the war, and was in general *precisely* what free speech is intended to protect.

So TPTB arrested him for failure to signal a turn, searched him, and "found" one gram of marijuana on him. For this, they convicted him of dealing drugs and gave him a 30-year sentence. They *finally* had good, solid evidence. Even though it was clearly a pretext.

The republicans in Congress tried this same stunt with Clinton, and it didn't quite work. So I see you crying perjury, and I see the local officers shouting "drug dealer, drug dealer! We caught him red- handed!"

Bullshit, Frank.

And please, don't simply dismiss the entire purpose of having Congress hear impeachments, simply because of a mechanical requirement of profession. I have asked you, over and over, WHY the founders made this a political and not a legal procedure. And the only time you mention it, it's to ignore the question on a meaningless pretext.

If you keep doing that, I'll never respect you in the morning, Frank.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 02, 2001.

Flint,

There was a certain amount of political entrapment in this case. As far as I can tell, the perjury that has you so upset really is considered trivial (except in the pious bleatings for public consumption) -- the goal was to humiliate Clinton so badly that public opinion would be turned against him enough so that those *accountable* to the public could finally pin something concrete on Clinton. Even though I sincerely feel any honest person would recognize that the perjury charge was both carefully engineered and irrelevant to the process of governing.

Maybe we don't see this that differently after all, but you are more concerned with the actions of Clinton's accusers as more dangerous to the country, and I am more concerned with the actions of Clinton himself. Think that'd be a fair summary?

I remember during the Vietnam war, someone was putting out an anti- war broadside every other week at the local army base, and TPTB just *hated* it. It wasn't illegal, but it was "undermining the war effort", it was "bad for morale", it "made unsupported allegations" about the conduct of the war, and was in general *precisely* what free speech is intended to protect.

I know it's just an example (and I should probably start a new thread to discuss it), but I've got mixed *feelings* about this. On the one hand, yes, it's his right. OTOH, the 18 year olds going over to die don't need to think their people are spitting on them either.

So TPTB arrested him for failure to signal a turn, searched him, and "found" one gram of marijuana on him.

Pretty stupid guy considering the penalties for pot at the time and the fact that he KNEW he was inciting the authorities against him. (Another tangent)

The republicans in Congress tried this same stunt with Clinton, and it didn't quite work. So I see you crying perjury, and I see the local officers shouting "drug dealer, drug dealer! We caught him red- handed!"

If he was there every day (the drug dealer) how did he support himself? He obviously wasn't working. I don't know the case well enough, but maybe he really WAS a drug dealer. Just like maybe Clinton really IS a crook, and maybe OJ really is a murderer.

WHY the founders made this a political and not a legal procedure.

It is a political procedure because that's a power that the founders wanted to rest in the Congress. Like I said, I'm not a Constitutional scholar. I agree that Congress is to *represent* the people and to be answerable to them, just not that they are supposed to *represent* the fleeting public opinion. Their job is to *uphold the constitution*.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 03, 2001.

Frank:

[I've got mixed *feelings* about this.]

Scary, plain scary. Censorship is *always* for a worthy cause, in the eyes of the censors. It's done to "protect the innocent" and to "prevent unnecessary trouble" and to "encourage preparation." Maybe the litmus test is, would YOU prefer to be censored, or would YOU prefer not to be permitted to see what someone ELSE has decided is bad for you?

[Pretty stupid guy considering...]

Oops, I thought I made this obvious, but I guess I didn't. This guy was not stupid at all. He lived like a monk, *knowning* they were out to stop him. I'd rate the probability that he really did fail to signal a turn at about 50%. I'd rate the probability that that gram of marijuana was planted on him at 100%.

And no, this guy was not a drug dealer. Not a user either. He was an ordinary (extremely) law-abiding citizen against the war. The entire moral of my little story is that this guy was framed for something trivial that he probably didn't do, because they couldn't hang him for what he WAS doing. And everyone knew it.

[Their job is to *uphold the constitution*.]

And for me this is critical. The constitution specifies how each branch acts as a check on the others. I tried (I give up now) to show that Nixon tried to escape one of these important checks by depriving Congress of their constitutional power to consent to those Nixon gave the real power to. For this and other attempts to undermine our system, he was impeached.

Clinton did a lot of things republicans hated. Clinton is a slippery, amoral, unethical individual. But Clinton's misguided attempt to keep his private life private wasn't the "crime" he was being impeached for, any more than that gram of marijuana was the "crime" the underground newspaper publisher was tried for. That is, both were trumped-up charges, because the *real* offenses weren't illegal.

(note: Nixon's situation was substantively different also because he quit before a 2/3 majority in the Senate could convict him. Nixon counted 8 (eight) Senate votes in his favor, a far cry from Clinton (like Andrew Johnson) not having enough votes to convict.)

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 03, 2001.

Flint,

Maybe the litmus test is, would YOU prefer to be censored, or would YOU prefer not to be permitted to see what someone ELSE has decided is bad for you?

Actually Flint, that WAS the litmus test I was using. If I was coming out of basic training and being shipped off, the last thing I would want to see is that guy saying "F@CK YOU". Was an Army base really the appropriate place to protest? Not very sensitive.

I'd rate the probability that he really did fail to signal a turn at about 50%. I'd rate the probability that that gram of marijuana was planted on him at 100%.

And no, this guy was not a drug dealer. Not a user either. He was an ordinary (extremely) law-abiding citizen against the war. The entire moral of my little story is that this guy was framed for something trivial that he probably didn't do, because they couldn't hang him for what he WAS doing. And everyone knew it.

So, perjury is VERY bad when done by the police, but is trivial when done by the President? Remember also that a Jury of 12 normal citizens *convicted* him, not "the State".

(note: Nixon's situation was substantively different (etc.)

In our system (the U.S.) one is innocent until PROVEN guilty. Nixon wasn't convicted by the Senate, so who "may have" voted which way is irrelevent.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 03, 2001.

Frank:

[So, perjury is VERY bad when done by the police, but is trivial when done by the President? Remember also that a Jury of 12 normal citizens *convicted* him, not "the State".]

No, Frank. The point was that neither person was being tried for their real offense, but rather for something unrelated, trumped up, and inconsequential. I don't support the practice of framing people, and apparently you do. So be it. And as the O.J.Simpson trial showed, you can find 12 people willing to decide anything at all. In an army town, that wasn't very hard.

[In our system (the U.S.) one is innocent until PROVEN guilty. Nixon wasn't convicted by the Senate, so who "may have" voted which way is irrelevent.]

No, Frank. A Presidential impeachment is NOT a court of law. "Innocent until proven guilty" does not apply. This is a purely political exercise, and counting votes is a political reality. I suppose what Nixon did was equivalent to a plea bargain, since the Senate could have voted 92-8 against him if they chose. They weren't interested in destroying Nixon, only in preserving the nation. That's very different from Clinton, since the nation was in no danger whatsoever, they just wanted to wreck his career for spite.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 03, 2001.

"they weren't interested in destroying Nixon"? Oh c'mon Flint, "they" were trying to destroy Nixon ever since Helen Gahagan Douglas.

-- Lars (lars@yahoo.com), January 03, 2001.

Did I miss something? I was not aware a jury convicted Clinton of perjury. Please show me a link to the decision. As far as I remember it, he was sanctioned directly by a judge.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), January 04, 2001.

Flint,

Don't you think we've beat this to death already? Not that it seems to stop me from replying ;-)

No, Frank. The point was that neither person was being tried for their real offense, but rather for something unrelated, trumped up, and inconsequential.

Again, this is your opinion only, not a fact. Please remember that.

I don't support the practice of framing people, and apparently you do.

This is sad. I spend multiple posts saying that perjury itself is VERY serious, (such as a police officer saying a crime was committed ((in court)) when it wasn't) and now you say that *I* think framing people is o.k.? Seriously Flint, READ the posts.

In an army town, that wasn't very hard.

Sounds like *the public* wanted some censorship too...

No, Frank. A Presidential impeachment is NOT a court of law. "Innocent until proven guilty" does not apply. This is a purely political exercise, and counting votes is a political reality.

This is true, and not true. Impeachment is finding the President to have enough evidence against him to warrant a Senate trial. It is *the People* of the U.S. saying THEY believe the President to be a crook, or they wouldn't have impeached him. (Not just the Pres. btw, either house can remove one of its members with a 2/3s vote).

counting votes is a political reality.

Yes, as our recent election showed ;-). My point was they AREN'T votes until they ARE votes. What people MAY do is irrelevent, what they sign their names to is what's important. IOW if I buy a lotto ticket, no bank gives me a 10 mil. loan, you need to actually win first.

They weren't interested in destroying Nixon, only in preserving the nation.

BWAAA HHAAAA HHHAAAAA HAHAAAH HAAAA HHAAAAHAAAHHHAHA hhaaa haaa HAHHHA HHHAAAAHH AHHHHHA AAAAHHHHHH CHOKE, GASP, WHEEZE, HEH HEH HEH!

Thanks Flint. I needed that. God I wish we had those same impartial statesmen around today. You should SEE the buffoons that are running around Congress now.

FS, I think I linked Clinton's Articles of Impeachment earlier in the thread. The House listed this as one of his "high crimes and misdemeanors".

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 04, 2001.

I admit that I haven't been following Flint and Frank that closely but I'd like to clear something up. Nixon was never (I repeat never) impeached. He resigned before impeachment. Clinton on the other hand was impeached. No congress ever found Nixon guilty of anything. Clinton on the other hand was charged with two (I think) offenses and congress found him guilty of one. But also, congress found that this offense wasn't sufficient for removal from office. Links anybody?

Flint, a court of law found OJ not guilty. Many criminals get away with lots of unlawful, illegal acts every day. Does that mean that they are not guilty? In my mind it means that they have been very tricky and have avoided getting caught. The point was that neither person was being tried for their real offense, but rather for something unrelated, trumped up, and inconsequential.

Unfortunately, sometimes law enforcement will go with whatever they can get. Mob bosses are put in jail for tax evasion. To say that this is unrelated may be accurate but certainly not trumped up and inconsequential. If OJ can be thrown in jail for some unrelated matter, would I mind? no way.

Yes Clinton got clipped on something that may have been "a private matter" but nevertheless he broke the law. Further this "private matter" was very related, not trumped up and very consequential.

A hard lesson here, when you have "conspiracies" against you, you should be on your very best behavior. Clinton was pretty stupid in that regard. He let his other head do the thinking.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), January 04, 2001.

Frank:

[My point was they AREN'T votes until they ARE votes. What people MAY do is irrelevent]

This is simply silly, and pretends that the way ALL politics works doesn't exist. Frank, why do you think the legislature considers the bills it does, and ignores the ones it ignores? Why do you think some come to votes and others do not? Why do you think some are modified more than others, some have riders attached, and so on?

It's because potential votes were counted in every case. When the votes weren't there, things got tabled. When they were there, things got passed. When it was close, they compromised and made deals until enough votes were there to carry on. In EVERY CASE, not a single vote was actually cast for or against anything. EVERY BILL that makes it through Congress ONLY does so because of a sequence of careful counts of votes that were never taken. And you call this irrelevant? Actual votes are foregone conclusions, taken ONLY when everyone knows the outcome.

And yes, I agree Nixon was hated, and I didn't express myself very well. I was trying to say that the republicans didn't have a 2/3 majority in the Senate. Nixon's own party would have voted overwhelmingly against him. They went to the White House and told him this, and so he quit. Clinton's party stood behind him, and this is important. Impeachment is a political process. To be convicted, a President must lose the support of his own party. If this weren't true, we could kick out any President not from the party current in the majority in Congress.

Maria:

[Nixon was never (I repeat never) impeached. He resigned before impeachment.]

No, this is a common error, but it is simply incorrect. Please look up some definitions. To impeach is to accuse. This is done by the House of Representatives. The House has passed articles of impeachment three times, against Clinton, Nixon, and Andrew Johnson. Therefore, by definition, all three have been impeached.

Not one has been convicted, which is done by a vote of the Senate. In the cases of Johnson and Clinton, the Senate actually voted, and couldn't get the necessary 2/3 majority. In Johnson's case, he survived by a single vote and the issue was in real doubt. In Clinton's case, they knew perfectly well the votes weren't there, but were trying to maximize the damage. In Nixon's case, the Senate was so nearly unanimously against him that he cut his losses and resigned.

And I must disagree with you, as well as Frank, about punishing someone for offense A (which is very serious but you can't prove it) after convicting him of offense B (which is trivial). I insist that the punishment MUST be for the crime being tried. It is the hallmark of a police state not to admit what you are really being tried for, and not permitting you to face your real accusers for that crime.

I wouldn't mind if OJ were jailed for something unrelated, provided the sentence were commensurate with the unrelated matter. I'd be appalled at the idea of convicting him for jaywalking and then punishing him for murder because we "know" he was guilty.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 04, 2001.

Flint, check this link, He resigned before impeachment

A committee of 38 (27 to 11 vote) brought up three articles on impeachment in July but Nixon resigned in Aug before it went any further.

about punishing someone for offense A after convicting him of offense B Sorry but you misunderstood. I believe that Clinton is being punished for the crime (offense B in your terms) for which he was found guilty, not for any other crimes (offense A). I agree, that one can only be punished for crimes for which they are convicted. My point was that if mob bosses are thrown in jail for tax evasion, then great. I didn't say that they should face the death penalty for tax evasion. They should face the death penalty if convicted of multiple homicides.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), January 04, 2001.

Flint, also try this link, Defin itions beginning to end

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), January 04, 2001.

Flint,

Not silly, but we're talking about two different things. I completely agree that *potential* votes are weighed and priorities placed based on them. BUT, bills don't become law until they are ACTUALLY voted on. To say or imply otherwise is "silly".

Similarly, Nixon wasn't convicted. Period. It doesn't matter what "might have been", or what you *believe* would have happened. He wasn't convicted. Pardoned, too. There is therefore no difference between him and Clinton as far as it goes, except the Senate found one with insufficient evidence to convict, and the President, (Ford) found the other with insufficient evidence to convict.

Clinton's party stood behind him, and this is important.

I disagree that this is the reason he stayed it out. Clinton's "character" IMO is such that he would stick it out to the end *regardless* of how guilty he was, how much evidence was against him, or how much support he had, just hoping he could cheat or bribe his way through the system enough to stay in office. The man has no shame, Flint. If he did, he probably would have resigned to save his family the embarassment.

I wouldn't mind if OJ were jailed for something unrelated, provided the sentence were commensurate with the unrelated matter. I'd be appalled at the idea of convicting him for jaywalking and then punishing him for murder because we "know" he was guilty.

So what's the *PROBLEM*, Flint? Perjury is a crime worthy of removing a President from office. Punish him appropriately for that and move on. I'm not saying punish him for *everything* he's done, just what he's been shown to have done, and with a punishment equal to his crime. (Might I remind you that people are serving REAL time in Federal prison for "just" perjury?) By "just" removing him from office he'd be getting off much easier than the poor average bastard who did what he did and ended up doing 10 years for it.

Maria,

It is kind of a two-step process. The House decides if any of the articles of impeachment are worthy of trying the Pres. on, if they vote them in then the Pres. is impeached. After this the Senate votes on whether or not to convict the now impeached Pres. on these or not.

In Clinton's case the House (representing the Public) thought Clinton was worthy of removal from office, and so impeached him. The trial then went to the Senate (or Good 'ol Boys Club) who decided there wasn't enough evidence to convict him.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 04, 2001.

Maria:

Thanks for these links. I'm too lazy to look them up myself. They say exactly what I did, so I quote from them to make my point:

[Technically, impeachment is the Senate's quasi-criminal proceeding instituted to remove a public officer, not the actual act of removal.]

[The House of Representatives considers and debates the articles of impeachment. A majority vote of the entire House is required to pass each article. Once an article is approved, the President is, technically speaking, "impeached" -- that is subject to trial in the Senate.]

In other words, impeachment means the House approved at least one article. "Impeached" simply means subject to Senate trial. The House passed three articles. For your information, here are some more quotes from your same source, to make what I wrote much clearer to you:

[Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5--"The House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole power of impeachment."

The power of impeachment translates into the power to indict. The House, through the Judiciary Committee, conducts investigation and gathers evidence. At the proper time, the House assembles the evidence into individual indictments or charges known as Articles of Impeachment. Each article requires a majority vote of the House to pass to the Senate. Once impeached, the officer is on trial.]

[The trial of the impeached officer is held in the Senate.]

I hope this is clear. Now to quote you again:

[I believe that Clinton is being punished for the crime (offense B in your terms) for which he was found guilty, not for any other crimes (offense A).]

Fair enough. I believe otherwise. Technically impeachment is a political and not a legal procedure. This gives Congress the power to depose a president for chronic incompetence. For example, let's say that, after a head injury, the president decided he was really Napoleon come back to life, and started using his power as commander in chief to conquer Britain. Note that this nutcase president has broken no laws and is acting entirely within his Constitutional authority.

So I believe the case against Clinton was cumulative. Lots of sleazy things, lots of questionable dealings, lots of bimbos, funny banking records, etc. And of course he was of the opposing party to who controlled Congress. But the motivations behind the impeachment probably vary from one congressman to the next...

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 04, 2001.

Frank:

Groan. Let's try to get some things straight here (crossing fingers):

[The trial then went to the Senate (or Good 'ol Boys Club) who decided there wasn't enough evidence to convict him.]

Not so. They decided the offense wasn't worthy of removal from office. This is a very different thing. If after leaving office Clinton is tried in a court of law for perjury, found guilty, and sent to jail then I have no objection. But the Senate vote is NOT a legal trial, and evidence is not relevant. It is a POLITICAL AND NOT A LEGAL PROCEDURE. You just don't seem to understand this. Clinton could have committed murder, confessed, been videotaped doing it, and the Senate might STILL decide not to remove him from office if the murder were considered apolitical. I even gave a hypothetical case of how this might happen (about catching a spy stealing secrets), to illustrate the vast difference between political and legal procedures, which you continue to ignore. In the case of such a murder, Clinton might well finish his term, be tried, found guilty, and put to death. These are two separate, UNRELATED procedures.

[bills don't become law until they are ACTUALLY voted on]

No, bills become *acts* if the majority votes in favor. They don't become *law* until the president signs them. I'm just trying to make sure you don't confuse the formalities with the realities. Votes are formalities. Necessary formalities, to be sure, but still formalities. The pre-vote counting is the reality, which is what REALLY DOES determine what gets considered, debated, and ultimately enacted. Pretending the reality is irrelevant is at best a serious misunderstanding.

[Similarly, Nixon wasn't convicted. Period.]

This is correct. Nixon resigned without being convicted. He gave serious consideration to fighting to the end and going down in flames, but was persuaded that resigning was best for the nation. And I think it was best to resign, since the convicting Senate vote was a formality anyway.

[There is therefore no difference between him and Clinton as far as it goes, except the Senate found one with insufficient evidence to convict, and the President, (Ford) found the other with insufficient evidence to convict.]

No, Frank. You continue to regard impeachment as a legal procedure, and it is not. In Clinton's case, the Senate decided the punishment (eviction from office) exceeded the crime(s), that politically the cure was worse than the disease.

Meanwhile, Ford's decision had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with evidence or conviction. Ford was trying to heal the nation, and didn't want the spectacle of a disgraced president being hauled off to jail. Ford was NOT a judge of a legal case, he was simply compassionate. And it's highly likely that his pardon of Nixon cost him the next election.

[Clinton's "character" IMO is such that he would stick it out to the end *regardless* of how guilty he was, how much evidence was against him, or how much support he had...]

On the contrary, Clinton did what you claim is irrelevant -- he counted the votes, saw that there weren't nearly enough of them to convict, and went on about the business of being president. I agree Clinton isn't the type to be concerned about being guilty or what the evidence against him might be. He is VERY concerned about how much support he has, which is why he counted the votes. And since guilt and evidence don't matter in a political procedure, and votes are EVERYTHING, Clinton saw which way the wind was blowing and went with it as always.

Frank, I advise you never to enter politics. You would be forever lost at sea.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 04, 2001.

Frank-

I asked for a link to anything which showed Clinton being convicted of perjury in a court of law. The articles of impeachment do not contain evidence of a conviction. They merely stated that they thought he committed perjury.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), January 04, 2001.

FS:

That depends on what the meaning of 'is' is, doesn't it? This is yet another illustration of how political and legal procedures differ. Clinton was impeached (but not convicted) because of what our Congressmen *thought* he did, which is all that matters in a political proceeding. If it were a legal proceeding, then the courts would have to decide whether a blowjob is "sex" in the context of the question "Did you have sex with that woman?" And legally, if within that context a blowjob doesn't count and only intercourse counts, then Clinton would have legally told the truth and not committed perjury at all.

The term "sex" does have some ambiguity. It clearly encompasses intercourse. It clearly doesn't encompass holding hands. But how about heavy petting? And I notice that Republicans were more than glad to expand their definition of "sex" to include anything that would make Clinton a perjurer, while the Democrats were glad to restrict "sex" to straight intercourse, meaning Clinton told the truth.

But you notice these are NOT necessarily republican or democratic definitions, and members of these parties would quickly (and equally sincerely) *reverse* their definitions if the accused should change parties. Frank chooses not to see these things.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 04, 2001.

Flint,

Huzzah! Well it only took >100k, but I think I found the reason for your incorrect assessment here. As I'm sure you're aware, if one starts with a false premise, *logically* one can be led to a false conclusion even though using perfect reasoning skills.

In your case I think it's:

But the Senate vote is NOT a legal trial, and evidence is not relevant. It is a POLITICAL AND NOT A LEGAL PROCEDURE.

Flint, you should try starting your argument by LOOKING at what the constitution says, and then forming an opinion, not forming an opinion in the ABSENSE of reading the constitution. For this matter Link :

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Clause 7: Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

You see Flint, it is NOT a political matter, but a LEGAL one, only in the case of impeaching the President, it is presided over by the Senate & Chief Justice, and not the Supreme Court. Does this change your views any?

I even gave a hypothetical case of how this might happen (about catching a spy stealing secrets),

This is a useless example. Even you, Joe Citizen could commit murder in this case and not be convicted if you were acting in the Nation's best interests. So what?

[bills don't become law until they are ACTUALLY voted on]

No, bills become *acts* if the majority votes in favor. They don't become *law* until the president signs them. I'm just trying to make sure you don't confuse the formalities with the realities. Votes are formalities. Necessary formalities, to be sure, but still formalities.

Hee hee. Yes, you are correct, they become acts first. Well, partially. Acts can become Law even if the Pres. vetoes them in the strongest possible language, by having Congress overrule his veto by their VOTE. Again Flint, it's Congress' job to make laws, and *they* have the ultimate ability to do so regardless of what the President does. This is reality. Votes are NOT formalities, but part of reality. Why would you question that?

since the convicting Senate vote was a formality anyway.

Again Flint, this is your opinion, but NOT reality. The reality is he was impeached but not convicted.

Ford was trying to heal the nation, and didn't want the spectacle of a disgraced president being hauled off to jail. Ford was NOT a judge of a legal case,

He WAS acting as an agent of the courts though in that by pardoning someone (Governors do it, too) he was saying they cannot be tried by the state. Who else BESIDES the Judicial branch has that authority? No, Flint, Ford was not a judge, but his office gives him the authority to ACT like one in certain circumstances, and this is one of them.

(Clinton's character) Nope. He's the way he is because that's the way he is.

Frank, I advise you never to enter politics. You would be forever lost at sea.

Flint, on this I agree completely. You however probably should. You're much more like Clinton than I could ever hope to be.

FS,

I asked for a link to anything which showed Clinton being convicted of perjury in a court of law. The articles of impeachment do not contain evidence of a conviction. They merely stated that they thought he committed perjury.

In the case of impeachment of the President, the full House and Senate act as the judicial branch, not the Supreme Court. When the House approved the articles of impeachment against Clinton, they said there was enough evidence against him to formally try him in the Senate. At this point he was impeached, and Perjury was part of the reason. This was NOT done in a court of law because the Constitution specifies that this event is not in the court's sphere of influence, but the Congress'. Whether or not someone later decides to try him for Perjury *as a normal citizen* is an entirely different matter and has not yet happened.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 05, 2001.

Frank:

Most peculiar, that we can read the same clear words and come to opposite conclusions. Let me show you how I came to mine:

[Clause 7: Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.]

First, you will notice the very real lack of detailed procedures in the impeachment proceedings. Where are the rules of evidence? Where is the judge? Instead, we have a political committee, followed by the House, followed by the Senate. Normal rules of courtroom procedure do not apply.

Second, please read Clause 7 carefully. It says impeachment and conviction only gets the elected official out of office. It says that AFTER impeachment and conviction, the official who was booted out is STILL "liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. NOTICE that this wording is *written* to distinguish impeachment from Law!

Now, if the official is subject to the law AFTER impeachment, then the impeachment could not have been a legal procedure. The constitution prohibits anyone being tried twice for the same crime, yet here we have the constitution explicitly saying that AFTER being impeached and convicted, the official can be tried "according to the Law" and punished again!

To me, this is clear. Booting out an officer of the government is a political process, finding him legally guilty and punishing him is a legal process. Impeachment at worst results ONLY in removal from political office. This is a political punishment, meted out by a political body, for political reasons. Only THEN is the official subject to LEGAL procedings. Clear?

You are confusing legal terminology (the constitution speaks of trying and convicting) with legal substance. Thomas Paine said "these are the times that try men's souls", but he wasn't talking about a legal procedure anymore than impeachment is.

[Even you, Joe Citizen could commit murder in this case and not be convicted if you were acting in the Nation's best interests. So what?]

Sigh. DAMN, Frank, you're hard to communicate with. How do we know this person was a spy? How do we know he was stealing secrets? How do we know that killing him on the spot will stand up as justifiable in a court of law? How do we know this wasn't just a cover story for a personal grudge?

In a LEGAL procedure, we determine the facts. We find out if he was a spy, we find out if he was stealing secrets, we find out whom the law permits to kill under these circumstances, we find out about personal grudges. According to rules of evidence and argument.

In an IMPEACHMENT procedure, we are concerned with whether the president is a hero (hurrah!) or a killer (boo!). Those politicians of the president's party claim hero, we as a nation are blessed to have him; those of the opposing party claim killer, we are being led by a dangerous lunatic. The impeachment isn't a determination of fact and law, but a determination of *character* suitable to lead the nation. A political decision.

And please, don't try to claim a pardon is a legal procedure. It's not. There is absolutely nothing saying pardons must be based on evidence, or hearings, or rules, or even guilt. Pardons are given to those *already found guilty* by the legal system. The pardoning official is NOT "acting as an agent of the courts", he is exercising a political privilege. Sheesh.

[if one starts with a false premise, *logically* one can be led to a false conclusion even though using perfect reasoning skills.]

Yes, no question this is true. Apparently once you decide an impeachment is a legal trial, despite the totally different forms, despite the double jeopardy, despite the different possible penalties, despite the different rules of evidence and argument, despite the different participants, and indeed despite the lack of ANY parallels EXCEPT the use of the words "try" and "convict", then you cannot even entertain the notion that these might be different things. Like concluding that a doctor must be a duck if he's referred to as a quack.

Frank, if you're reading a novel and see the sentence "after repeated trials, he reached the conviction that a perpetual motion could not be built", do you knee-jerk react to the words "trials" and "conviction" and decide you're reading about a case at law? I'm trying to get you to look past the specific terms at what *actually happens*, at how *totally different* they are (and are intended to be). And you simply refuse to do that. Why?

[At this point he was impeached, and Perjury was part of the reason.]

This is hilarious. If you insist on considering impeachment a legal procedure, then Clinton was accused of perjury, tried by the Senate, and found NOT GUILTY. According to our system of law, if you are found not guilty of what you are accused of, then you aren't guilty. Therefore, by your own definition, Clinton did NOT commit perjury -- he was found innocent.

Now, if you actually understand that the constitution allows a true legal procedure to be performed AFTER impeachment removes someone from office, then you must agree that impeachment is NOT a legal procedure after all. Clinton *may* have committed perjury, but all the Senate decided was that Clinton should not be removed from office, and the legal determination of whether he *really* committed perjury must be done by a court of law as the constitution specifies.

Frank, you can't have it both ways. Pick one.

(p.s. On another thread, I notice you refer to "Klinton" in this context. Do you suppose that, just maybe, this suggests a closed mind also? Just a suggestion)

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 05, 2001.

Flint,

Seriously, this takes time and effort on my part. Please READ the relevent sections of the Constitution before posting on them. It would be even MORE helpful if you'd cut & paste what you believe to be supporting your argument.

First, you will notice the very real lack of detailed procedures in the impeachment proceedings. Where are the rules of evidence? Where is the judge? Instead, we have a political committee, followed by the House, followed by the Senate. Normal rules of courtroom procedure do not apply.

Second, please read Clause 7 carefully. It says impeachment and conviction only gets the elected official out of office. It says that AFTER impeachment and conviction, the official who was booted out is STILL "liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. NOTICE that this wording is *written* to distinguish impeachment from Law!

Now, if the official is subject to the law AFTER impeachment, then the impeachment could not have been a legal procedure. The constitution prohibits anyone being tried twice for the same crime, yet here we have the constitution explicitly saying that AFTER being impeached and convicted, the official can be tried "according to the Law" and punished again!

Try reading article III of the Constitution, describing the powers of the courts:

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

C'mon Flint, I'm trying to build a bridge here. Doesn't the section in bold even *suggest* to you that this is indeed a trial and not some political matter? And people CAN be tried in both civil court and criminally for the same "crime", they just can't be retried for the same thing twice.

To me, this is clear.

It probably is. It's also incorrect, of course.

Even you, Joe Citizen ... Sigh. DAMN, Frank, you're hard to communicate with. How do we know this person was a spy? How do we know he was stealing secrets? How do we know that killing him on the spot will stand up as justifiable in a court of law? How do we know this wasn't just a cover story for a personal grudge?

In a LEGAL procedure, we determine the facts. We find out if he was a spy, ...

Yeah Flint, I see your point. For Joe citizen he first builds an airtight case against the spy over a period of years, and then shoots him in the chest? Not. Don't be deliberately obtuse, if there wasn't SOME ambiguity, there wouldn't BE either a trial of Joe, or impeachment! Only in situations where all the facts AREN'T in in advance do these situations arise.

In a LEGAL procedure, we determine the facts. We find out if he was a spy, we find out if he was stealing secrets, we find out whom the law permits to kill under these circumstances, we find out about personal grudges. According to rules of evidence and argument.

In an IMPEACHMENT procedure, we are concerned with whether the president is a hero (hurrah!) or a killer (boo!). Those politicians of the president's party claim hero, we as a nation are blessed to have him; those of the opposing party claim killer, we are being led by a dangerous lunatic. The impeachment isn't a determination of fact and law, but a determination of *character* suitable to lead the nation. A political decision.

What do you think they were impeaching him ON, if not *the facts they had ascertained beforehand, as well as laws he may have broken*? They don't just walk in with the latest polls.

And please, don't try to claim a pardon is a legal procedure. It's not. There is absolutely nothing saying pardons must be based on evidence, or hearings, or rules, or even guilt. Pardons are given to those *already found guilty* by the legal system.

Thank you, Flint. To use your words : Pardons are given to those *already found guilty* by the legal system.. Therefore, Nixon could NOT have been pardoned UNLESS he was already convicted by the legal system. He wasn't in court was he? No, Obviously this referred to his impeachment proceedure, a LEGAL procedure.

Flint, if you read a newspaper and see the sentence, "after his trial he was convicted of his crime", would you try your hardest to say this referred to some political event? And if so, why?

At this point he was impeached, and Perjury was part of the reason.]

This is hilarious. If you insist on considering impeachment a legal procedure, then Clinton was accused of perjury, tried by the Senate, and found NOT GUILTY. According to our system of law, if you are found not guilty of what you are accused of, then you aren't guilty. Therefore, by your own definition, Clinton did NOT commit perjury -- he was found innocent.

I know it takes a long time to type this in Flint, but please, READ what you are responding to, it'll save you these errors.

Do you *really* need me to describe the impeachment process for you again?

Now, if you actually understand that the constitution allows a true legal procedure to be performed AFTER impeachment removes someone from office, then you must agree that impeachment is NOT a legal procedure after all.

Again, you are confusing being retried for the *same* offence with being retried (granted for the same crime) but in a different way. For example, to get back to O.J., even though he was found not guilty in his criminal trial, it wasn't double jeopardy to try him in civil court too. Who knows, maybe they even could have retried him criminally for civil rights violations committed during the crime or something if they really wanted to, that's the law. Understand?

(p.s. On another thread, I notice you refer to "Klinton" in this context. Do you suppose that, just maybe, this suggests a closed mind also? Just a suggestion)

Don't start mixing threads -- bad precedent, and hilariously incorrect results.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 05, 2001.

Frank:

[Please READ the relevent sections of the Constitution before posting on them. It would be even MORE helpful if you'd cut & paste what you believe to be supporting your argument.]

My arguments are based on reading these sections. Your own cut and pastes are far and away my strongest arguments, since they clearly support what they actually say.

First, you quote Clause 7, which clearly distinguishes impeachment from Law, and from this careful distinction you conclude they are the same! Then you quote Article III, which states that impeachment is an EXCEPTION to "The Trial of all Crimes", and you conclude this means it is NOT an exception! Gawd, Frank, if the constitution said 2+2=4, would you conclude that therefore 2+2 does NOT equal 4?

As for Nixon, first you write:

[The reality is he was impeached but not convicted.]

Now, you write:

[Therefore, Nixon could NOT have been pardoned UNLESS he was already convicted by the legal system. He wasn't in court was he? No, Obviously this referred to his impeachment proceedure, a LEGAL procedure.]

OK, Frank, which is it? Was Nixon "not convicted" or was he "already convicted"? Maybe you should be debating with yourself? Making up the facts to fit your arguments won't fool people long if you flat contradict yourself in the process, eh?

In any case, of course Ford granted Nixon IMMUNITY, if you read what he actually did. He "pardoned" Nixon *in advance* for anything illegal he *might* have done. Your first statement is correct. Nixon was impeached but not convicted. Indeed, there was some considerable debate among lawyers at the time as to whether the constitution's grant to the president of the power to pardon, actually included the power to grant immunity as well. And this question is still open, since nobody contested it in court.

[Don't be deliberately obtuse, if there wasn't SOME ambiguity, there wouldn't BE either a trial of Joe, or impeachment!]

You need to follow your own advice. My entire point was that in a legal trial, whether or not Joe committed murder is CRITICAL. In an impeachment, it is not relevant, but Joe's character and ability to lead are critical. I've said this over and over, and you find some way to avoid the point. If this ain't deliberately obtuse, I don't know what is. Conviction following impeachment is NOT a legal determination of guilt. The constitution says that's the job of the courts. Conviction following impeachment is the removal from office. Only. Period.

[Do you *really* need me to describe the impeachment process for you again?]

Maybe you should understand what you are describing. You can't understand the process until you can grasp the *purpose*, which is *removal from office*. Not a fine, not jail, not a criminal record, not ANY of the wages of guilt our legal system metes out. ONLY removal from office. This is a political punishment, handed out by a political body, for a political offense. The constitution you keep quoting says that whether the official was guilty of committing a crime REMAINS for the legal system to determine. Please read it again, but this time with some comprehension of what impeachment is FOR. Hint: removal from office, NOT determination of guilt. That's *exactly* what Clause 7 says!

By the way, you carefully avoided any explanation of how Clinton STILL committed perjury even though he was accused, tried and NOT convicted of it. Enlighten us, Frank!

Finally, I suggest that you first decide you really want to *learn and understand*, and then you find a constitutional lawyer and become informed. Maybe law school classes would help? But don't waste anyone's time so long as you remain convinced that if the constitution says something, it must MEAN the opposite! Frank, it means what it says, and all the hatred of "Klinton" in the world isn't going to change the words or the meaning, it will only poison your ability to learn. As you've demonstrated beyond any doubt. And you should have the sense to realize that someone attacking "Klinton" is NOT seeing clearly.

I really don't want to confuse things worse, but I see the difference between an impeachment and a legal trial as being like the difference between an IQ test and a final exam in a course. The first is trying to measure what you are *capable* of, and likely to be able to do in the future, while the second is trying to measure what you *already did*, how much you actually learned in the course. The two have many similarities -- questions, right answers, scoring -- just like impeachment has many legalistic trappings. But the two have different meanings, different purposes, different consequences for doing well or poorly. And in both cases, you can excel on one and flunk the other. They are NOT the same thing.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 05, 2001.

Flint,

O.K., I've heard you repeat your opinion that impeachment is a political and not a legal process several times. I HAVEN'T seen you support it with any evidence other that your repeated assertion.

I think my quoting the Constitution has some merit ;-), but as far as I know neither of us are lawyers, to speak authoritatively on the subject. Here is a quote Link to Source from two Congressmen AND LAWYERS saying this is a LEGAL process.

"I'm trying not to politicize the impeachment issue. It's a very different thing from resignation," says Green, who adds that his call for the president to step down is based on Clinton's diminished effectiveness as a leader and on sparing the country the damage of a prolonged scandal.

"Impeachment is a legal process. I happen to be an attorney. I do believe in examining the evidence," he says.

Ryan's comments are similar.

"Those are two different thresholds," he says.

"I said he ought to consider resigning in order to prevent us from going through a wrenching impeachment process. Well, it's a little late now. . . . To resign, that's a decision that isn't required by any objective law or fact. Impeachment is more of a technical question, a legal question of whether this legal threshold has been crossed."

Musser says Clinton has "lost people's confidence in his morality. While maybe that is not enough for impeachment, it may be enough to cause resignation."

As for the charges against the president, says Musser, "I have no idea whether (they) can be demonstrated to be true."

The Mark Green-Jay Johnson race in northeastern Wisconsin is a vivid example of how careful candidates are about politicizing the issue.

Flint, please come up with SOMETHING other than your opinion that this is in fact a political process and NOT a legal one. If you can't, I'm done.

Best,

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 07, 2001.

Frank:

I'm recalling what was said, at interminable length, during the Watergate proceedings. They went to great lengths, day after day, to emphasize that the impeachment procedures were only quasi-legal. That the rules of evidence were different, that the test of reasonable doubt was not applicable except insofar as Senators considered it useful, that the punishment if convicted did not become part of the official's legal record, nor could the Senate impose ANY legal punishment, only to remove the official from office.

Indeed, distinctions between a court of Law and a Senate trial were drawn to the point where there was nearly no overlap whatever. It was easier to list the similarities -- that it was called a "trial", that with a 2/3 majority (NOT a unanimous jury) the result would be called a "conviction", and that evidence was brought forth (though not by the same rules) and considered (though not with the same tests).

Now, if you want to claim that the impeachment process is a legal procedure that just happens to differ in ALL aspects from ALL other legal procedures, then we're lost in semantics. In that case, I won't disagree with you. I suppose you could call any procedure implied by a legal document to be a legal procedure (i.e. marriage, public education, paying taxes, etc.)

But I wasn't trying to play semantics. I was trying to show that these fundamental differences between impeachment and courtroom rules *meant* something, that they were totally different for a reason, and that when the rules are all different, the process is a different process intended to serve a different purpose.

So let me end by saying that an impeachment does NOT end by convicting someone of breaking any law. It ends by either removing someone from office or not. THEN a "real" court can consider whether a law was really broken, and if so mete out punishment for doing so. So the Senate did NOT find Clinton innocent of perjury, nor would a conviction have found him guilty of perjury. EITHER ONE is up to a court of law as specified in the constitution. To me, this is a very important distinction.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 07, 2001.

So, more or less back to the original question---do you think Clinton will be indicted after he leaves office? If indicted, will he be convicted? Should Pres Bush pardon Clinton? When? Will Clinton pardon himself before leaving office? (I just read a convincing op-ed column by Krauthammer that argued that Bush should pardon Clinton in his first day as President.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), January 07, 2001.

Sen Orrin Hatch (R) just yesterday said that Clinton should be pardoned, whether he's indicted or not.

I guess the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary committee are starting to feel a real political threat from potential backlash to this whole mess. Republicans need to pose as caring nurturers for a little while here in light of the election shenanigans :^)

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), January 08, 2001.

Flint,

Two more things for you to think about. Here's a pretty good article on how the Senate really is acting in a Judicial sense (both as judge and jury) and why: Link

And here is Rogan's closing statement, which I personally find I agree with:

Link

You said,

So let me end by saying that an impeachment does NOT end by convicting someone of breaking any law. It ends by either removing someone from office or not. THEN a "real" court can consider whether a law was really broken, and if so mete out punishment for doing so.

Read the article and see what you think. In the end, each Senator has to stand up and say "guilty" or "not guilty". They are *in fact* acting as a jury and finding the President guilty or not guilty of the crimes he's accused with. Also see the excerpt from the Federalist Papers that shows WHY Alexader Hamilton wanted the trial to be held in the Senate and not in a court.

The trial of the President IS like no other trial because the authority of the President makes him like no other citizen. His removal as Chief Executive of the United States is the only punishment allowed because that's what is SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the Constitution AS the punishment for his actions.

As you say, he's not let off after he's removed (or not) from office from being tried as a private citizen either.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 08, 2001.