Balkinization: Impeachment Legalisms

Comments:

Did you really think that, having persuaded the public to give Clinton, in all his parodon selling, pharmaceutical plant bombing, political enemy auditing glory, a pass, that they'd suddenly demand utter probity of the next President? If you wanted Republican Presidents held to a high moral standard, you should have been willing to hold your own guy to such a standard.

Too late now. Just be glad that Bush isn't as personally vengeful about his enemies as Clinton was; Those audits were a real pain, and the blackmail wasn't a joy, either.

# posted by

Brett : 7:27 PM

since you asked, brett, i have long ago learned not to expect moral probity of my elected officials. i have seen too many of them preach their morality to me, only to turn around and see them fully partaking of that which they rail against. that goes for politicians on both sides of the aisle at nearly every level of government.

that having been said, accusing clinton of "selling" pardons is now a five year old saw. while my friends on the right have screamed about it for these past five years, other than screaming about it, and not liking it, where is the proof that pardons were "sold"? as for "auditing of political enemies" who on earth are you talking about, and where is the proof that clinton ordered such "audits". as for pharmaceutical plants being bombed, as i recall, when that one hit the news, and it was claimed that what was bombed was a pharmaceutical plant rather than a chemical weapons factory, the only sound i heard coming from the right was hoots of derision that saddam would claim that all that was being manufactured in that plant were pharmaceuticals. nobody slammed clinton for directing a pre-amptive strike. in any event, i cannot understand how anyone on the right would now be criticizing a pre-emptive strike of what was thought to be a chemical weapons factory in iraq.

as for whether or not this administration is or is not personally vengeful, i would suggest that you ask that question to valerie plame.

finally, do you really want to defend the moral high or low ground of this administration simply by saying that the guy before him was at least as bad? how childish. i would think you would rather defend it by pointing out the moral things being done by this administration. the fact that you defend instead by pointing out that the previous guy was bad says to me that you can't think of anything that this administration has actually done that holds the moral high ground.

# posted by

phg : 10:55 PM

No, Clinton's crimes don't excuse Bush's, but Democrats' defense of Clinton's crimes DO deprive them of any moral standing to complain of Bush's, and be taken seriously. And have had a very real effect on the extent to which the public will now react with outrage to ethical lapses. You spend 8 years trying to convince people the President doesn't have to be a saint, you really expect your success to vanish with the next election?

And you appear to have slept through said administration, if you're unaware of some things. Like Paul Breslan of the IRS saying, in front of multiple witnesses, "What do you expect when you sue the president?"

Or that the pharmaceutical plant Clinton had bombed was in Sudan, not Iraq.

And on the pardons, that's one of the problems with having a lawyer for President; He never thought it was necessary to be innocent, it was enough that people couldn't prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. What do you want, a recipt?

# posted by

Brett : 5:51 AM

mea culpa on sudan rather than iraq. it doesn't change the fact that i heard not a single word of outrage when it occurred.

as for breslan's statement, i fail to see how that amounts to audits of enemies. it seems to me that those hounding everything clinton right and left were then looking for favors from his administration. when they predictably didn't get them because they were the ones prosecuting his every move... well, yeah, what do you expect?

i'm glad that you at least admit your opinion that bush has committed crimes. as for the moral turpitude, i would much rather have to explain clinton having had consensual sex outside of his marriage, and then out of embarassment, lied to his wife, and then in a deposition about it, than to have to explain bush's lies, which continue to this date which have lead to war and thousands of deaths.

# posted by

phg : 7:35 AM

Then you were listening in the wrong places, that's all.

The only reason I care at all about Clinton's adultery, is that it is as one with a character which holds all oaths in contempt, be they marriage, witness, or oaths of office. The notion that a man would cheat on his wife, and hold his commitments to the American people dear, is a psychological absurdity. Clinton was a sociopath, pure and simple, in all areas of his life.

Really, the only interesting aspect of the situation, is the way Democrats can have absolute proof that the President and his administration were willing to break the law in order to obstruct justice, (And were quite practiced at it, too...) thrown in their collective faces... And still remain convinced that witnesses fled the country, or went to jail rather than testify, in order to protect an innocent man. Any rational observer would conclude that this wasn't the only time he was guilty, it was merely the only time his efforts to obstruct justice failed.

There are none so blind as those who won't see, indeed!

# posted by

Brett : 4:22 PM

I think the discussions about impeachment are sound enough since a "loyal opposition" movement can talk about such things and move the line of acceptable dialogue somewhat leftward.

If impeachment is reasonable, if a non-starter, for rational people (including but not limited to the "left"), the meme that Bush et. al. are beyond the pale gains strength.

As to Clinton. (1)His "crimes" were not as bad as Bush's "crimes," so defending the one is not the same as defending the other (2) Many against Bush in no fashion "defended" Clinton for many of the things he was accused of anyway.

The pt is that you have to address the allegations. Bringing up Clinton is annoying since it basically changes the subject. It's spin, clear and simple.

# posted by

Joe : 11:09 PM

I've got no problem with Democrats discussing impeaching Bush; I can use a good laugh as much as anyone. But what they were doing in that room was fundamentally unserious, play acting at being a real congressional activity.

I think they were just soothing their own hurt feelings over lacking power, and the prospect of regaining it any time soon. Like old generals in a rest home, playing war games, and requiring the orderlies to salute them.

More pathetic than humorous.

# posted by

Brett : 6:19 AM

How aboutDemocrats and progressives concentrating on winning elections? This is goofy lunatic-fringe stuff which will cement the Democrat-minority for decades.

# posted by

LL : 11:35 AM