I Stand By What I Said Back In The Clinton Impeachment Days.

[DistressedAmerican]

Perjury and obstruction ARE serious offenses and they ought to be impeachable since they go to the core of the job of the chief executive, the highest law enforcement official in the land.

If you can't punish them for lying in court an obstructing legal investigations, who can you punish?

I said back then that we should move on to President Gore.

I also said that arguing against perjury and obstruction being impeachable would come back to haunt us some day when another president decided he could get away with it over something more serious. Sadly, it didn't take long.

While we are busy trotting out statements made be Texas Kay, we should remember all those folks on record saying that the two crimes "do not rise to the level of high crimes" and as such were not impeachable.

That may be biting us soon.

That is all.

[leftofthedial]

1. two important distinctions

1. A criminal case is much different than a civil case.

2. Clinton committed neither perjury nor obstruction.

[ray of light]

3. Another difference:

3. Perjury and obstruction in THIS specific case has to do with NATIONAL SECURITY and is comparable to TREASON which is a specific issue our founders addressed.

[DistressedAmerican]

8. Better Check Those Statements. They Do Not Discuss That.

Many dems stood on the floor and argued that those two crimes themselves did not rise to the level.

WE can talk about context. But, when they get quoted in defense of Bush they will be hurting the cause just the same.

[ray of light]

11. excuse me: treason IS addressed in the constitution.

Perjery is not specifically addressed. My statement was about treason.

[DistressedAmerican]

12. Fair Enough. If Senators Bring Them Up On Treason, It Is Pretty Clear.

[ray of light]

15. thank you. yes...treason is the key word here. not perjury.

[DistressedAmerican]

4. I Agree That There is A Distinction On The First Count.

Completely disagree on the second. He sent Betty Curry to collect and hide physical evidence (the gifts) that was under congressional subpoena. Hid them under her bed.

At the minimum he is clearly guilty of obstruction on those admited facts alone.

I do not feel like getting into the perjury charge as it just goes roud and round based on symantics which never goes anywhere.

[leftofthedial]

13. Do you have a case number so I can review the conviction?

I don't recall there being one.

[DistressedAmerican]

19. Not Removed On The Sentate Deal.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june01/deal_1-19.html

-SNIP-

He has not admitted to committing a crime. You notice - he only admitted - and it is exquisitely negotiated -- I won't call you a liar if you don't call me a vast right wing conspiracy, right. But he has admitted that some of his answers were false. He has admitted that he was deliberately misleading. Some of that he had admitted before. He admitted that it obstructed the bar proceeding-- I'm sorry, the civil lawsuit and agreed to accept a five-year suspension. He hasn't agreed to any criminal sanction at all, and he has most definitely has not said anything that's tantamount to "I committed a crime."

[leftofthedial]

23. he lied, no doubt

nothing in the record speaks to acrtual *crimes* of perjury or obstruction.

The way I see it, his worst act was *adultery*, not lying and not obstruction, which were the fruits of improper legal persecution.

[DistressedAmerican]

33. HERE ARE THE ACTUAL ARTICLES UNDER WHICH CLINTON WAS IMPEACHED.

Impeached AND not removed. Which is my whole point.


http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/resources/1998/lewinsky/articles.of.impeachment/


Perjury article: William Jefferson Clinton provided "perjurious, false and misleading testimony" before Independent Counsel Ken Starr's grand jury.


Full text of article

February 12: Rejected by the Senate, 55-45 (needed 67 votes to convict -- Roll call)
December 19: Approved by the House, 228 - 206 (Roll call)
December 11: Approved by the House Judiciary Committee, 21-16 (Roll call)
(Amended by a 21-16 vote. See draft version)

Obstruction of justice article: William Jefferson Clinton obstructed justice to "delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence" related to the Jones case.

Full text of article

February 12: Rejected by the Senate, 50-50 (needed 67 votes to convict -- Roll call)
December 19: Approved by the House, 221-212 (Roll call)
December 11: Approved by the House Judiciary Committee, 21-16 (Roll call)



Articles rejected by the House
Article II: William Jefferson Clinton provided "perjurious, false and misleading testimony" in the Paula Jones civil case.

Full text of article

December 19: Rejected by the House, 229-205 (Roll call)
December 11: Approved by the House Judiciary Committee, 20-17 (Roll call)

Article IV: William Jefferson Clinton misused and abused "his high office" by making perjurious statements to Congress in his answers to the 81 questions posed by the Judiciary Committee.

Full text of article

December 19: Rejected by the House, 285-148 (Roll call)
December 12: Approved by the House Judiciary Committee, 21-16 (Roll call)
(Amended by a 29-5 vote. See draft version)

[leftofthedial]

37. those are political documents, not legal documents

Thanks for the reference. I'll agree that the House Republicans hated Clinton.

[DistressedAmerican]

44. Here are the text of the articles of impeachment. Guess That's Politial.

Maybe you should look through some links. Feel free to google for yourself some transcript of the impeachment proceedings. Do I really have to do all of the work?

There are hundreds of convenient links at that university archive. I thought it may be helpful (See also post 41).

Full text here:
http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/text/hres611r.txt


Resolved, That William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States,
is impeached for high crimes and
misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be
exhibited... (Received in the Senate)

HRES 611 RDS

105th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. RES. 611

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

December 19, 1998

Received



RESOLUTION

Impeaching William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, for
high crimes and misdemeanors.

Resolved, That William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United
States, is impeached for high crimes and
misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be
exhibited to the United States Senate:

Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of
the United States of America in the name of itself
and of the people of the United States of America, against William
Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States of
America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him
for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Article I

In his conduct while President of the United States, William
Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath
faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States
and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and
defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of
his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and manipulated the
judicial process of the United States for his personal gain
and exoneration, impeding the administration of justice, in that:

On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before a
Federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath,
William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious,
false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or
more of the following: (1) the nature and details of his
relationship with a subordinate Government employee; (2) prior
perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a
Federal civil rights action brought against him; (3) prior false and
misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make
to a Federal judge in that civil rights action; and (4) his corrupt
efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to
impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action.

In doing this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the
integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency,
has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner
subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest
injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants
impeachment and trial, and removal from office and
disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or
profit under the United States.

Article II

In his conduct while President of the United States, William
Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath
faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States
and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and
defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of
his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the
administration of justice, and has to that end engaged
personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of
conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover
up, and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to a
Federal civil rights action brought against him in a
duly instituted judicial proceeding.

The means used to implement this course of conduct or scheme
included one or more of the following acts:

(1) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton
corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil
rights action brought against him to execute a sworn affidavit
in that proceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false
and misleading.

(2) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton
corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil
rights action brought against him to give perjurious, false and
misleading testimony if and when called to testify
personally in that proceeding.

(3) On or about December 28, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton
corruptly engaged in, encouraged, or supported a
scheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in a
Federal civil rights action brought against him.

(4) Beginning on or about December 7, 1997, and continuing
through and including January 14, 1998, William
Jefferson Clinton intensified and succeeded in an effort to
secure job assistance to a witness in a Federal civil rights
action brought against him in order to corruptly prevent the
truthful testimony of that witness in that proceeding at a
time when the truthful testimony of that witness would have
been harmful to him.

(5) On January 17, 1998, at his deposition in a Federal civil
rights action brought against him, William Jefferson
Clinton corruptly allowed his attorney to make false and
misleading statements to a Federal judge characterizing an
affidavit, in order to prevent questioning deemed relevant by
the judge. Such false and misleading statements were
subsequently acknowledged by his attorney in a communication to
that judge.

(6) On or about January 18 and January 20-21, 1998, William
Jefferson Clinton related a false and misleading
account of events relevant to a Federal civil rights action
brought against him to a potential witness in that
proceeding, in order to corruptly influence the testimony of
that witness.

(7) On or about January 21, 23, and 26, 1998, William Jefferson
Clinton made false and misleading statements to
potential witnesses in a Federal grand jury proceeding in order
to corruptly influence the testimony of those
witnesses. The false and misleading statements made by William
Jefferson Clinton were repeated by the witnesses
to the grand jury, causing the grand jury to receive false and
misleading information.

In all of this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the
integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency,
has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner
subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest
injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants
impeachment and trial, and removal from office and
disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or
profit under the United States.

Passed the House of Representatives December 19, 1998.

NEWT GINGRICH,

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.

[leftofthedial]

46. thanks for the docs.

important historical record of one of the worst political acts in our history.

[vi5]

2. I agree to a point....

I think a civil case is different than a criminal case. That being said I also thought that at the time that it would have been better for Clinton to step aside and for Gore to get a running start on the '00 election and run as an incumbent.

[WearyOne]

5. I stand by what I said..the people should have been happy their

President was getting his rocks off and not hung up about it !

[blm]

6. Except that Clinton did NOT commit perjury. The judge ruled Monica matter

was IMMATERIAL to the case.

Perjury is committed ONLY when the lie is one of materiality to the case.

Perjury is a lie committed under oath, but not all lies under oath are perjury.

[jayfish]

7. I Disagree.

Neither should be impeachable offenses. But since we have a precedent, we should stick to it. :evilgrin:

Jay

[ray of light]

21. no. you don't stick to wrong precedent.

Slavery existed and jim crow laws and they were wrong. They had precedent. Should we stick to that?

We have precedent to start "pre-emptive wars" thanks to bushco...should we stick to that precedent too?

[Brotherjohn]

9. There was not enough (if anything) to indict Clinton on criminally.

I believe he did not perjure himself because the judge specifically defined "sexual relations" for the purposes of the case, and that did not include what Bill and Monica did.

There was also not enough to reach the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors" for Congress to "convict" him re the impeachment.

That was what most of us were arguing. "THIS is a high crime and misdemeanor?! Please!"

Besides which, I don't know if anyone has ever been convicted of lying under oath solely to cover up a consensual sexual affair. The RW brought up one case repeatedly during the Clinton impeachment, but it dealt with a lie regarding an affair, in an attampt to cover up an actual crime that had been committed.

[DistressedAmerican]

10. How About Obstruction. Betty Testifuied She Hid The Gifts Under Orders.

And those were congressional subpoenas.

Gulity of one or the other should be impeachable.

[ray of light]

14. perfect..you've just hit upon how the neoCONS will fight back

they'll take us all down memory lane with Clinton and Monica instead of talking about the real issue of a spy being leaked by the white house that has damaged our national security. This is a crime, this is treason! Plain and simple.

Add to the fact...did documents get fraudulently created to bring us to an illegal war? This is investigated as well.

And did Cheney knowingly encourage a spy's name to be released to the press--damaging our national security--which is TREASON.

Did Bush know? When did he know? How involved was he in the original forgery and the treasonous leaking of national security information?

All of this comes under treason.

[ray of light]

16. sorry..don't mean to sound sarcastic but I think you've shown how they'll

do it.

[DistressedAmerican]

22. Again, I Sure Hope When It Goes Down It Is Treason Charges.

I understand and agree with the logic you and others present. But if they are brought up on perjury or obstruction, there are problems.

As to the neo-cons. Yes.

But, believe me they though about long before I did. They just have not pulled it out yet. If you think I am giving them ideas you do not give them enough credit.

[ray of light]

no but this thread showed how quickly they will put dems on the defensive

and sorry if I sounded sarcastic. I really didn't mean to sound so sarcastic.

[DistressedAmerican]

35. No Problem! It Is A Hot Button Issue. Just Did A Strange Political

backflip. It will look interesting if it ever comes to actual Senate proceedings.

[Brotherjohn]

17. I do not remember the details that charge specifically.

The fact of the matter is, the grand jury did not find evidence enough to indict Clinton on any of these charges. Case closed... literally.

If this grand jury finds enough evidence to indict Libby, Rove, or(please please) Cheney... then we're talkning a whole 'nother ballgame. The Right can claim all they want that we said "perjury and obstruction are no big deal"... but the fact is, that's up to the grand jury.

And by my memory, most people were not claiming they were "no big deal". They were claiming that, in this case (a consensual sexual affair) they A) were not proven (by the grand jury or Congress) and B) did not rise to the level of a high crime worthy of impeachment. It was up to the grand jury re the criminal case, and they did not indict.

Congress can do whatever they want re impeachment. "High crimes and misdemeanors" is much more loosely defined. My memory recalls that most Dems in Congress simply felt that this did not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. I think, should Cheney or Bush become involved, a case for impeachment would be much easier to make here.

[DistressedAmerican]

30. I Am Talking About Impeachment Of W In The Senate.

Not criminal indictment. There is not likely to be a criminal indictment of Bush either. But, unindicted co-conspirator before or after the fact is certainly not outside of the realm of possibility. That is how Nixon worked. Forced him to turn over the tapes.

Suppose that is Bush's role, unindicted co-conspirator. He is forced to turn over e-mails of some other documentation such as that which proves perjury or obstruction. Then what do they do if they do not think they can make treason stick?

That is the dilema I am proposing. Could be an issue. Quotes were made during many of the impeachment proceedings that say neither perjury or obstruction rise to the level. If all they end up with are those, it is problematic. That is all I am saying.

I am not here to retry Clinton. I am pointing out a big fat possible chink in the armor.

[Brotherjohn]

42. Interesting dilemma. My point is that the Senate can decide...

... if a specific case of perjury or obstruction rises to the level of a high crime worthy of impeachment. To cover an affair? No. To cover treason? Hell yes!

If some Senators made specific statement saying ANY perjury or obstruction instance would not rise to that level, then they may have that thrown back in their faces. However, if they said THIS case (Clinton) of perjury or obstruction did not rise to that level, then they can easily counter.

Of course, the Right will accuse them of flip-flopping no matter what, and you are correct in that this will soon be a major RW talking point.

This thread is a prelude for how we will be answering it. But in the end, it's a different case. And it will be decided (by the GJ or by Congress) as a different case.

[blm]

24. Except judge RULED Monica matter as IMMATERIAL to court case.

So, there was NO CRIME committed under US law.

Whether Rove, Cheney or Libby lied about the Plame leak IS material to the Plame case.

[DistressedAmerican]

34. The Senate Did Not. See Post #33 For Articles Of Impaechment.

[Ladyhawk]

18. I agree with you on this one.

Even though I was somewhat apolitical at the time, I believed that Clinton needed to be held accountable for perjury. I never actually hated the man as did my family, but I never really liked him much, either. :shrug:

Since then I've always maintained that perjury and obstruction are serious offenses. Just because he lied about what many consider a little thing doesn't mean he should get off. Yes, it's true that lying about a blow job didn't endanger anyone's life, but lying under oath is still a major offense. And yes, lying about this whole Plame mess is a much bigger deal, but the offense of "perjury" and "obstruction" is the same in the eyes of the law.

[DistressedAmerican]

26. And there is no legal distinction between perjury and obstruction

over a BJ or over a war. No distinction. Maybe more convictable. Because, it would piss a jury off more. But, legaly the same thing, I understand it. I am no lawyer.

[Brotherjohn]

29. No in a grand jury. Yes in an impeachment.

The former is up to the grand jury, which decided not to indict Clinton, but probably will indict at least some Bush officials (the fact of the matter is, there's more evidence and it's more material).

The latter is up to Congress, and whether they feel it rises to the level of a high crime.

[Brotherjohn]

28. But despite the lengthy investigation, there was insufficient evidence...

... for either perjury or obstruction.

We could have argued whether it was a big deal or not 'til the cows came home. But at the end of the day, there was no criminal or civil case pursued against Clinton. Pundits don't decide that.

If there IS a criminal case brought here, it's a whole different ballgame. And pundits aside, WE won't decide that, either.

Impeachment is another matter altogether... see my other post above. But given the specifics of this case, if Cheney or Bush are implicated, it would be a whole lot easier to argue that perjury and obstruction to cover up treason are "high crimes" rather than same to cover up a consensual sexual affair.

All perjury and obstructon is NOT the same in the context of an impeachment.

[DistressedAmerican]

31. Impeachment Proceedings. See Post 30.

[Brotherjohn]

43. See my posts 29 and 42. (nt)

[DistressedAmerican]

45. Noted And Agreed. Just Loosing Track Of The Replies. Going To Rest Soon.

[berni_mccoy]

20. How about TERRORISM

Anyone indicted for any crime in PLAMEGATE can also be indicted for TERRORISM under US Code. See here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5162764

The Laws have Changed since Clinton was impeached.

[ray of light]

27. good point. good question.

[DistressedAmerican]

36. Hmmm. That is a tough one. Possible I Suppose.

Seems like one of those "novel applications of the law" which draw a lot of fire.

[the_spectator]

25. Good thing DU didn't start until 2001 then!

Your posts would have been Flamewar Central back during Hummergate!

Somewhat more seriously, I think you touch on an important, if not entirely happy point. Kay Bailey Hutchison has to do a 180% to defend Bush on this one, many on our side have to do a 180% to aim to remove him.

Fitzmas is a beginning, not an end. The dems need to GO FOR IT, for many reasons, here's just two:

1)Even though the Repubs ended up looking at least a bit silly to everyone during Hummergate, they were never punished for it at the polls really.

2)Our argument last time was "it's just lying about sex." Their argument this time will be "it's just lying about leaking." But look, most Americans have had sex! More than once, even! But how many of us have the kind of jobs in which "leaking to the press" is even a plausible alternative? What if YOU tried to call the New York Times to let them in on some stuff you found out around the office? We couldn't get past voicemail! We win the "who can you identify with more" stakes, hands down.
----------
At this point, I am convinced, as just about all of us are, that there will be indictments. But I'm also starting to guess that they will be perjury/obstruction indictments, that's it.

Both sides will be studying each others' play-book from Hummergate. There's some good stuff in both of them:

Like back during the House Judiciary Committee hearings, at one point, Chuck Schumer, who was still in the House and on that committee back then, was asked a question on TV after the day's hearings about the Clinton deposition, and about what Clinton had chosen to say. And Chuck was getting a bit ticked off by all this, and said "Look, The President answered the questions as he saw fit."

So the next day, early on during the Committee hearings, one of the young Southerner Repub Congressmen on the other side - I forget his name, the one with glasses, really went off on this: He said something like,

"I heard that my honorable colleague Mr. Schumer said last night on TV, in response to questions about the President's deposition, that 'The President answered the questions as he saw fit.' And this is exactly the problem we're facing here with this whole question, with this whole matter. The President answered the questions as he saw fit; and he saw fit to lie!.... "

Now you KNOW we'll have a lot of opporunities to spring that one on them: "...(about Cheney)... he saw fit to lie! He saw fit to lie to the Grand Jury, he saw fit to lie to the American people about the reasons we went to war, about the connection between Saddam and bin Laden, (etc. etc. etc.)"

[DistressedAmerican]

32. Well Sumed Up. In One Neat Line...

"Kay Bailey Hutchison has to do a 180% to defend Bush on this one, many on our side have to do a 180% to aim to remove him."

[underpants]

38. You are right they are serious charges but Clinton was never convicted

of them. Aside from the situation in which perjury or obstruction is committed it is important to remember that he was never convicted of anything. He was impeached for crimes he was never convicted of in a case that had been settled but he was never convicted by the Federal Courts, Arkansas courts, or the US Senate.

[DistressedAmerican]

40. He Was Impeached. That Is What I Am Speaking Of. See Post 33 and others

upthread.

Bush is not likely to be convicted by the courts either. Unless he is impeached and removed first.

[Catherine Vincent]

39. I don't remember anyone saying it doesn't rise to the level of high crimes

It's what Clinton did that didn't rise to that level.

[DistressedAmerican]

41. Impeachment Docs a place to start looking for the specific damaging quotes

I expect the RW has all of this documentation on disk or a handy searchable database. I lack the staff. But, I assure you they are probably digging up some real doosies to pull out over the coming weeks and years.

http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/impeach.html