If Nixon had been impeached, it would have been for obstruction of justice and possibly perjury. Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice and perjury. Why they committed the obstruction of justice and perjury is immaterial. The why is not relevant when the charge is made. You said Clinton was charged with no crime. I was just pointing out your error. (And, as Nixon did, Clinton could have avoided the impeachment by resigning.)
You can argue which crime was worse. You can argue which crime hurt the most people. That, however, was not my point which was that the whole Clinton issue was much more than a 'blow job' and the whole Nixon issue was much more than a 'third rate burglary'.
Articles of Impeachment:
RESOLVED, That Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment to be exhibited to the Senate:
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE NAME OF ITSELF AND OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AGAINST RICHARD M. NIXON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF ITS IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HIM FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANOURS.
Article 1: Obstruction of Justice.
In his conduct of the office of the President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, 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, in that: On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his subordinates and agents in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede and obstruct investigations of such unlawful entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities. The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan have included one or more of the following:
(1) Making or causing to be made false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States.
(2) Withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States.
(3) Approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counseling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings.
(4) Interfering or endeavoring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force and congressional committees.
(5) Approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious payments of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals who participated in such unlawful entry and other illegal activities.
(6) Endeavoring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States.
(7) Disseminating information received from officers of the Department of Justice of the United States to subjects of investigations conducted by lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States for the purpose of aiding and assisting such subjects in their attempts to avoid criminal liability.
(8) Making false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation has been conducted with respect to allegation of misconduct on the part of personnel of the Executive Branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct; or
(9) Endeavoring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favored treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.
In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
(Approved by a vote of 27-11 by the House Judiciary Committee on Saturday, July 27, 1974.)
Article 2: Abuse of Power.
Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, 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 disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, imparting the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposes of these agencies.
This conduct has included one or more of the following:
(1) He has, acting personally and through his subordinated and agents, endeavored to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposes not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigation to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.
(2) He misused the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, and other executive personnel, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, by directing or authorizing such agencies or personnel to conduct or continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; he did direct, authorize, or permit the use of information obtained thereby for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; and he did direct the concealment of certain records made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of electronic surveillance.
(3) He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, authorized and permitted to be maintained a secret investigative unit within the office of the President, financed in part with money derived from campaign contributions to him, which unlawfully utilized the resources of the Central Intelligence Agency, engaged in covert and unlawful activities, and attempted to prejudice the constitutional right of an accused to a fair trial.
(4) He has failed to take care that the laws were faithfully executed by failing to act when he knew or had reason to know that his close subordinates endeavored to impede and frustrate lawful inquiries by duly constituted executive; judicial and legislative entities concerning the unlawful entry into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, and the cover-up thereof, and concerning other unlawful activities including those relating to the confirmation of Richard Kleindienst as attorney general of the United States, the electronic surveillance of private citizens, the break-in into the office of Dr. Lewis Fielding, and the campaign financing practices of the Committee to Re-elect the President.
(5) In disregard of the rule of law: he knowingly misused the executive power by interfering with agencies of the executive branch: including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Criminal Division and the Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force of the Department of Justice, in violation of his duty to take care that the laws by faithfully executed.
In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
(Approved 28-10 by the House Judiciary Committee on Monday, July 29, 1974.)
Article 3: Contempt of Congress.
In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, contrary to his oath faithfully to execute the office of the 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, had failed without lawful cause or excuse, to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June 24, 1974, and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas. The subpoenaed papers and things were deemed necessary by the Committee in order to resolve by direct evidence fundamental, factual questions relating to Presidential direction, knowledge or approval of actions demonstrated by other evidence to be substantial grounds for impeachment of the President. In refusing to produce these papers and things, Richard M. Nixon, substituting his judgement as to what materials were necessary for the inquiry, interposed the powers of the Presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, thereby assuming to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by Constitution in the House of Representatives.
In all this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial and removal from office.
(Approved 21-17 by the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, July 30, 1974.)
On August 5, 1974, the long sought after audio tapes provided the "smoking gun" which revealed President Nixon had been deeply involved in the coverup and had ordered Haldeman to halt the FBI investigation just six days after the Watergate break-in. (Real Audio :06 "...call the FBI and say that we wish, for the country, don't go any further into this case, period..." -- Nixon to Haldeman, June 23, 1972.)
That revelation resulted in a complete collapse of support for Nixon in Congress. On Friday, August 9, Nixon resigned the presidency and avoided the likely prospect of losing the impeachment vote in the full House and a subsequent trial in the Senate. He thus became the only U.S. President ever to resign. Vice President Gerald R. Ford succeeded him and a month later granted Nixon a full pardon for any crimes he might have committed while President.
I don't believe GWB has been held in contempt of court or charged with perjury.
Well in this case Nixon and Clinton Dtom. Since we haven't had anything comparable in the GWB administration yet.
Clinton was not charged with perjury. The hole you've dug for yourself is deep enough to hold the elephant in the room. Now I can only conclude you're just being silly.
f nothing else, it will be interesting to see if we can actually have a president leave office without the sword of damocles hanging over him.
but, i still think that there's been some underhanded stuff goin' on in dubya land. guess we'll all have to tune in for the exciting conclusion...
Clinton was never charged with perjury. That is a simple fact.
Lots of people have claimed he committed it but no one has shown it nor was he ever indicted for it. Perjury requires that several standards be met. Failure to meet those standards means you can't show perjury.
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)
House Approves Articles Alleging Perjury, Obstruction
By Peter Baker and Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, December 20, 1998; Page A1
The House of Representatives impeached the president of the United States yesterday for only the second time in American history, charging William Jefferson Clinton with "high crimes and misdemeanors" for lying under oath and obstructing justice to cover up an Oval Office affair with a young intern.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/impeach122098.htm
parados wrote:
Quote:Clinton was never charged with perjury. That is a simple fact.
Lots of people have claimed he committed it but no one has shown it nor was he ever indicted for it. Perjury requires that several standards be met. Failure to meet those standards means you can't show perjury.
Yes, he was was charged with perjury. It was article I in his impeachment. He was aquitted by the Senate. You cannot be aquitted if you aren't charged.
Quote: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)
Source
You'll have to really stretch to conclude there was no perjury; also that Clinton did not encourage Lewinsky (and others) to commit perjury. But I will concede that Clinton, who just happened to be an attorney, might have worded his answers in such a way as to give himself loopholes.
BBB is right, this is far off topic.
To go back a few spaces. It is a very large leap to compare Tripp to Felt as we stated.
Felt revealed existing crimes. Tripp did it for personal gain before any laws were even alleged to have been broken let alone the crimes she is claiming Tripp revealed.
We can argue all we want about whether Clinton's statements to the GJ were perjury or not. It doesn't change the fact that Tripp was blabbing to the press almost 12 months PRIOR to the alleged perjury.
Why is it that every time anyone posts anything about the Bush Administration or it's supporters apologists are compelled to dig up something to criticize about President Clinton.
Dtom writes
Quote:f nothing else, it will be interesting to see if we can actually have a president leave office without the sword of damocles hanging over him.
but, i still think that there's been some underhanded stuff goin' on in dubya land. guess we'll all have to tune in for the exciting conclusion...
I wouldn't even dare suggest GWB will get through eight years without a major scandal, especially with all you anti-Bush types with your nose on the ground searching...even hoping....for one.
hahaha! yep, guilty as charged. ya see, i didn't care for him before he took office. during the campaign, he just sort of swaggered a little too much for me. reminded me too much of some of the rich, self-entitled kids i grew up with.
i'm afraid that he has turned out to be pretty much what i expected. but, some people think he's just keen, so here we are. and for only "four more years", thankfully. :wink:
So far, however, I do believe he has had the most scandal free administration in my memory at least since Truman.