Search This Blog

Thursday, October 19, 2006

I finally understand Democrats

I suppose it would qualify as an epiphany or perhaps better said, a revelation. I was watching TV and discussing politics with my wife and suddenly it all hit home. I understand the Democrats this year!

Hmmm, perhaps I should take two aspirin and go lie down? To understand such a crowd could lead to brain hemorrhaging and the onset of dementia!!! But, no, in this case to understand is a good thing. Sun Tzu would be proud of me, right? Right.

Some of you are scratching your heads and wondering what in the heck I am talking about. So I'll lay it out for you. It's all about revenge. Get-back is an inappropriate phrase. What goes around comes around.

You see, the gap between Republicans and Democrats had certainly existed, but the rhetoric that passed between the two sides was not nearly so vitriolic as it is now. The escalation of nastiness began after the 1992 elections in which Bill Clinton was victorious. From that point to now the ugliness has grown, like The Blob having taken on a life of its own and growing with every political life it consumes.

Republicans were surprised that Clinton was able to defeat their sitting President despite a successful Desert Storm campaign and a series of victories over communism that had begun during the Reagan years and carried over during the term of President Bush #41. "It's the economy, stupid" was the battle cry, yet the economy wasn't all that bad. In fact, Bill Clinton was a marvelous campaigner and brilliant politician and the Republicans were no match for him, didn't really see him coming. But more than that was the candidacy of Ross Perot, who won 19% of the votes and was generally considered Clinton's best ally in the fight for the highest office in the land.

Republicans were stung, then amazed as the new Clinton administration came into Washington and wreaked havoc. The White House staff found themselves being offended and alienated by a tide of Clintonistas capable of being hicksville and arrogant at the same time. The new administration brought in a wave of staff that was half Hollywood, half Arkansas and not nearly as polished and genteel as previous administrations. There were odd happenings concerning surprise firings, a mysterious suicide that was not suicide, the crash of the Ron Brown plane, clashes within the State Department and the FBI and the CIA...much of this was transparent to the general public and much of it would little matter to them in any event.

Then came Monica. Out came multiple allegations of Clinton the womanizer, Clinton the rapist, Clinton the horndog. It was a new day, for Presidents like JFK and Eisenhower had female skeletons in their closets, but journalists who knew such things kept their mouths shut. Perhaps it was a natural fallout from the days of Deep Throat and Nixon, but suddenly President Clinton having sex with an intern became big news.

But then came the lies. President Clinton denied "having sex with that woman" and then denied it under oath and the wheels came off. Millions of dollars spent on investigations, an impeachment, and the Democrats and Republicans left snarling across the aisles at each other like crazed Dobermans.

That was then, this is now. Once it was commonplace for Democrats to declare that President Bush #43 was invading Iraq because he was either "finishing his father's business" or "getting Saddam because he sought to assassinate the first President Bush." Those theories didn't have much traction because they had no proof behind them and were quite illogical. Those accusations died a natural death. But I see now the Democrats were projecting! Here is the answer:

Impeachment

Bill Clinton was impeached. Democrats like to say he was impeached for a sex act, but the official reason was that he perjured himself. This is not the time to get into all of that, but it explains what is behind the Democrats in this election. The goal is to:

1) Win the House
2) Win the Senate
3) Impeach President Bush to make up for the impeachment of President Clinton!

Bizarre and ridiculous, you say? You haven't visited the Democratic Underground or the Huffington Post these days, have you? Democrats like to say that Bush lied to take us to war. They pretend that John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton weren't all saying the same things about Iraq and Saddam Hussein: That he had WMDs, he was developing more, he was dangerous and something needed to be done. But facts won't stand in the way of the plan to impeach President Bush because it isn't about right and wrong, it's about REVENGE! Democrats want to pillory President Bush to make up for what happened to Bill Clinton. Impeachment is high on the list of several congressmen who will push for that as soon as (make that if) Congress features a Democratic majority.

NOW I UNDERSTAND!!!! Does the voting public? I do truly wonder. The Sheehan crowd can't wait to try to push for impeachment on phony and trumped-up grounds. No, they won't say much about it during the runup to the elections. But it will be a steady liberal drumbeat if the Democrats get into power. But I'm not angry nor am I afraid.

Why? Because I believe in the American people. When they are informed and understand what is going on, I trust their judgment. I believe most Americans would be horrified and angered at a plan to impeach a sitting President for acting on the same information that everyone had and doing just as many of the Democrats had said, which was to acknowledge Hussein as a threat and do something about it. The United Nations crapped out and we later learned why (It's the bribe money and oil-for-food money, stupid) but George Bush had the cojones to get a coalition of nation-states together to do the job and oust Saddam from power.

Americans are unsure that we should remain in Iraq. I hope they will be able to see why we must stay, but that is another post. But I believe what they will see when Democrats try to impeach the President that such an endeavor would be a bitter, partisan and hypocritical act and would castigate those spearheading the effort. Should the Democrats win in 2006 and go for impeachment, it will guarantee their defeat in 2008.

So maybe I shouldn't have revealed this to the world? Eh, couldn't help it! They might as well know that I am on to them. Nothing will stand in the way of their attempt to take revenge on the Republicans in the realm of their minds. It is when this begins to play out in the real world that they'll find that, rather than walking in with an attack dog on a leash to take out President Bush, they have a tiger by the tail. That tiger will be public opinion...and it will bite them oh, so very hard!

33 comments:

Amy Proctor said...

Revenge and self-centeredness. Democrats are like an only child who cannot stand defeat. They'll cheat to win. They'll lie to win. They'll slander to win.

It's a good thing, then, that many of them aren't religious. They'd have a heck of a time in confession.

cranky old fart said...

In case you haven't noticed, Impeachment has been off the table for some time now.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/11/AR2006051101950.html

Fear mongering has always been the favorite tactic of this administration. So it's understandable why this is being trotted out again. Another "BOO!" to motivate the yokels.

cranky old fart said...

Let's try that link again.

WaPo

creeper said...

One could likewise argue that the whole Clinton witchhunt was an attempt to seek revenge for Clinton having gotten into power in the first place.

Confusing Radar with facts, eh Cranky? Predictably he'll just go quiet and change the subject. Possibly mutter something about mainstream media bias or secular conspiracies too.

radar said...

Facts? Here is a quote from that link:

"In an interview with The Washington Post last week, Pelosi said a Democratic-controlled House would launch investigations of the administration on energy policy and other matters. She said impeachment would not be a goal of the investigations, but she added: "You never know where it leads to."

All you have to do is check out the liberal blogs to see "...where it leads to..." Impeachment.

You think this alarms me? I think the Republicans will stand there like Bruce Lee and give a little "come on" hand signal to the liberal hordes, then beat their butts when they try it! Or as Clint Eastwood would say, "Go ahead, make my day!"

creeper said...

You imply that you're going to present facts, but instead all you've got is some vague insinuations from half a year ago (and "where it leads to" was obviously nowhere) and a wishy-washy mention of "liberal blogs". Whoopdeedoo. Since when do you give them any credence? Way to play hero in the face of that.

radar said...

Let's see...so late September is six months ago in Creeper's world?

creeper said...

Radar, the article you and I referred to was dated May 12th. So five months and change, which one can refer to as "half a year ago".

radar said...

Notice my subsequent post that contains newer information...

cranky old fart said...

Unlike the Clinton witch hunt into blow jobs, Dems threaten to undertake the duty of constitutional oversight that's been absent for the past 6 years.

Actually, I see now why that might scare the administration.

What happened to all that Iraq money anyhow???

creeper said...

I've been looking at it. Is there any "newer information" of substance? Seems to be just a rehash, the same old stuff about the House Resolutions. Where are the details about this amazing "plan" the article is going on about?

It's simple election season scaremongering, Radar. It's exactly as cranky said - you haven't been able to show anything to contradict that.

Incidentally, should it turn out - in theory - that a president, whether Democratic or Republican, has committed impeachable offences, what do you think should happen? Just wondering.

highboy said...

"Incidentally, should it turn out -in theory - that a president, whether Democratic or Republican, has committed impeachable offences, what do you think should happen?"

By cranky's logic, nothing. If perjury isn't an impeachable offense, I don't know what is. But then again, I guess some people don't think a president that lies out of his ass to his wife, kids, and committs adultery while I'm paying him to run the country shouldn't be impeached.

"a wishy-washy mention of "liberal blogs". Whoopdeedoo. Since when do you give them any credence?"

Do you? Does Cranky? Just wondering, because you don't seem to give conservative blogs any credence...

creeper said...

"I guess some people don't think a president that lies out of his ass to his wife, kids, and committs adultery while I'm paying him to run the country shouldn't be impeached."

First of all, are those impeachable offences?

Second: most people wouldn't think such a president should be impeached, and they'd be right. We've been over this before, Highboy, and your standards don't add up when placed against presidents - good presidents have been less than upstanding characters in your book, and squeaky clean presidents weren't that great as presidents.

"Do you? Does Cranky? Just wondering, because you don't seem to give conservative blogs any credence..."

Good old binary thinking failing you once again, eh Highboy? Because I don't give partisan conservative blogs credence, I should be a sucker for partisan lefty blogs? What nonsense.

I can look at both with a critical eye; it's not that hard. And the more partisan a blog (like this one for example), the more likely it is to indulge in fallacious thinking and lapses in logic.

highboy said...

"Good old binary thinking failing you once again, eh Highboy? Because I don't give partisan conservative blogs credence, I should be a sucker for partisan lefty blogs? What nonsense."

What is nonsense is your retarded argument agains a statement I've never made. I asked a question. I didn't make a statement.

"First of all, are those impeachable offences?"

Of course not. It means he's a morally bankrupt scumbag who, by the way, not only wasn't "squeaky clean", but wasn't even a good president at that. He was impeached because after it came out, he lied. He committed perjury. You don't care. Most of America did.

"the more likely it is to indulge in fallacious thinking and lapses in logic."

...according to creeper that is.

creeper said...

"What is nonsense is your retarded argument agains a statement I've never made. I asked a question. I didn't make a statement."

Not a statement, but there seemed to be an implication there:

"[Do you or cranky give credence to liberal blogs?]" Just wondering, because you don't seem to give conservative blogs any credence...

... along the line that I should give credence to one or the other.


highboy: "I guess some people don't think a president that lies out of his ass to his wife, kids, and committs adultery while I'm paying him to run the country shouldn't be impeached."

creeper: "First of all, are those impeachable offences?"

highboy: "Of course not."


Yeah, I guess "some people" don't think such a president should be impeached - and they'd be right. Otherwise we'd have lost some great presidents to unnecessary impeachments along the way.


"He committed perjury. You don't care. Most of America did."

To the tune of a 76% approval rating (something Bush dreams of right now) after he was impeached. Yeah, "most of America" cared a lot about Clinton lying about a blowjob. Dream on.

Some time ago you already lost the argument that there is a direct correlation between being morally upstanding in one's private life and being a great president. It's wishful thinking that doesn't hold up against reality, so why don't you just let it rest?

Rue-Mur said...

What is it that turns a good Democrat, at the local and state level, into an idiot, a blithering idiot at the national level? Where does it all fall apart? Is it the state party people who are so stupid that they can't agree among themselves on national priorities and guiding principles? Or is it the DNC regulars, the paid honchos in Washington (advised by the Party's "intellectuals"?), who are so radical and stupid? At the state and national level it's as if the Party were a Jeckel and Hyde. It's as if, too, that at local and state levels, the Party is "All-American"; and at the national level, a French Speaking, New Age Communist, Spit on America, Hail to the Hollywood Weirdos, Let's Destroy It All And Start All Over Again, Trash The Constitution, ACLU Hugging, Anarchists, Atheists, Gays, Spit On The Flag, Burn Baby Burn, Make Love Not War, Peace Man, Peace, Pot Smoking, Pill Popping, Piss On The Military, To Hell With The Family And Traditional Values, Everything is Beautiful, Everything Is Relative, "Imagine" (a'la John Lennon), Free For All, To Hell With Tomorrow, Let's Have an Orgy Today mad house. I can't understand how there's this total breakdown. Can you?

highboy said...

"Some time ago you already lost the argument that there is a direct correlation between being morally upstanding in one's private life and being a great president."

Um, no. You just quit talking about it. Simply saying "you lost", does not win a debate Creeper. Did Reagan lie to the American people under oath? No. There is no president better than him. But take your pick. Sure, a lot of great presidents were not squeaky clean in their private life but they didn't commit perjury to cover up did they? An impeachable offense, that, despite your little poll, the majority of America agreed with. That's why you don't see a whole lot of support for him or his wife today.

Rue-mor: accurate characterizations all the way around.

LC42 said...

wait, the dems want control of congress so they can impeach bush? Thats what I got out of this "post".

Political groups want power. Period. Repubs want control of congree because they want power and the Dems are exactly the same.

I'm sorry, but this is one of your more foolish and paranoia filled posts Radar.

creeper said...

"Um, no. You just quit talking about it. Simply saying "you lost", does not win a debate Creeper."

There simply is no correlation between being an upstanding moral person in private life and being a great president. You weren't able to demonstrate any, and your wishful thinking is simply that, wishful thinking. You think Reagan was a great president, but he cheated on at least one of his wives, which presumably included lying and similar immoral acts. According to your standards, the guy should never have been allowed to take the oath of office. But he became president, and you're crazy about him.

Carter was probably one of the 'cleanest' persons ever to become president, and I take it you wouldn't rate him highly as a president.

I see you're now trying to shift the goalpost to just lying under oath. Does this mean you're happy to retract your earlier statement: "I guess some people don't think a president that lies out of his ass to his wife, kids, and committs adultery while I'm paying him to run the country shouldn't be impeached."

At least JFK's now safe from highboy's wrath...

I maintain that your silly standard is useless, and it's not because I "quit talking about it", but because it doesn't add up. Being a loyal husband is not a prerequisite for being a great president, though of course it helps to put up such a face in public.

"An impeachable offense, that, despite your little poll, the majority of America agreed with."

"My little poll"? Sweet. It wasn't just a quick impromptu survey in the cafeteria at lunchtime, it was his approval rating. If you disagree with the methodology used, by all means spit it out.

As for "the majority of America" agreeing with Clinton's impeachable offense, could you be more specific about what you mean by this? Are you under the impression that the majority of Americans wanted to see Clinton impeached at the time?

If so, could you back that up with anything at all?

highboy said...

"but he cheated on at least one of his wives, which presumably included lying and similar immoral acts."

Without lying under oath to the American public, which is a criminal offense. See the difference?

"Does this mean you're happy to retract your earlier statement:"

No. It is quite clear from all my previous comments that perjury was the kicker. If you paid attention to the comment thread before responding you'd know that.

" Are you under the impression that the majority of Americans wanted to see Clinton impeached at the time?"

No. I shouldn't have used majority More like a lot.

"I maintain that your silly standard is useless, and it's not because I "quit talking about it", but because it doesn't add up."

By your silly standards it doesn't add up, but my standards say that if you lie under oath to the American public, (not to mention the obstruction of justice) then you are not fit to be president. Especially if what you say is true. If America simply didn't care, why lie under oath about it? Take a chance on being the first president in history to ever be impeached or piss your wife off?

"My little poll"? Sweet. It wasn't just a quick impromptu survey in the cafeteria at lunchtime, it was his approval rating. If you disagree with the methodology used, by all means spit it out."

Oh, I don't disagree with the methodology, but I'll tell you why the touting of Clinton's approval rating is hilarious if you wish. Its really quite simple. While you present Clinton's approval rating as "evidence" that his impeachment was no big deal, I have nearly 20 years of Republican victories at the ballot box that clearly state while Clinton's approval rating may have been high, America clearly didn't trust him to run this country under Democratic rule.

loboinok said...

You think Reagan was a great president, but he cheated on at least one of his wives, which presumably included lying and similar immoral acts. Such as pretending to be someone he wasn't, for a living, and heading a union.

But then he grew up, matured into a CONSERVATIVE and lead a nation.

(I had to wait 5 minutes to type this due to the tears from laughing so hard)

" Are you under the impression that the majority of Americans wanted to see Clinton impeached at the time?"

Nope...just enough to make him only the second President in 230 years to be awarded that dishonor.(and the idiot wore it like a badge of honor)

Unlike the Clinton witch hunt into blow jobs,

cranky,

Your level of honesty regarding the reason for Clinton's impeachment is very similar to Clinton's honesty about "not having sex with that woman".

Incidentally, should it turn out - in theory - that a president, whether Democratic or Republican, has committed impeachable offences, what do you think should happen?

Depends on what the definition of "happen" "is".

Some time ago you already lost the argument that there is a direct correlation between being morally upstanding in one's private life and being a great president. It's wishful thinking that doesn't hold up against reality

There's another good reason to keep you libs out of power.

You actually believe there is no correlation to the office of the President and a person's character and integrity.

You consider him violating his oath and perjuring himself in what you consider a "small" matter, is of no consequence.

Did you consider it of no consequence when he violated his oath to the Constitution, to protect the Constitution, country and citizens?

It all came out of the same jar, creeper.

History has already indicted him... the libs just haven't revised it, yet.

creeper said...

"I shouldn't have used majority More like a lot."

Not to put too fine a point on it: a minority.

"I'll tell you why the touting of Clinton's approval rating is hilarious if you wish. Its really quite simple. While you present Clinton's approval rating as "evidence" that his impeachment was no big deal, I have nearly 20 years of Republican victories at the ballot box that clearly state while Clinton's approval rating may have been high, America clearly didn't trust him to run this country under Democratic rule."

Hmm, let's see. The question was whether "most of America" cared about Clinton lying under oath about a blowjob. Before he was impeached, the majority of Americans didn't want to see him impeached, and immediately after he was impeached, his approval rating was extremely high. If I remember correctly, it even went up after his impeachment.

This strongly indicates that "most of America" didn't care about Clinton's immoral behavior, at least not in the disapproving way you envisage, and they were quite satisfied with his performance as president, about twice as much as they are with the current one right now.

In return you present "20 years of Republican victories at the ballot box that clearly state while Clinton's approval rating may have been high, America clearly didn't trust him to run this country under Democratic rule"...

1. What on Earth does this have to do with America caring about Clinton's lying under oath?

2. What the dickens do 20 years of Republican victories have to do with Clinton's immoral behavior?

3. Due to term limits, Clinton never had to face the voters again after the impeachment, so there is no way of knowing what would have happened. Given the extremely close nature of that election with Bush running against the rather wooden and uncharismatic Al Gore as well as Clinton's continuing high ratings, it could have become a referendum on character, morality etc., but because voters were willing to forgive Clinton for his transgressions both in the '92 primaries and after his impeachment, it remains a matter of speculation what proportion of voters would have been moved by this.

If you want to change this discussion to one about speculations about strategic voters who liked Clinton but would prefer that he worked with a Republican congress, by all means go ahead, and I will accept your concession on this part of the argument.

creeper said...

loboinok,

"You actually believe there is no correlation to the office of the President and a person's character and integrity.

You consider him violating his oath and perjuring himself in what you consider a "small" matter, is of no consequence.

Did you consider it of no consequence when he violated his oath to the Constitution, to protect the Constitution, country and citizens?"


Two things:

1. When I say there is no correlation, it is not prescriptive, but descriptive. If you rank all presidents according to greatness, and then rank all presidents according to how upstanding they were in private life, according to Highboy's wishful thinking those lists should be identical. In reality they are nothing alike, with highly upstanding persons being mediocre or bad presidents and vice versa.

Sure it would be nice if only the most upstanding citizens would go into politics and remain squeaky clean in all aspects of their lives on the path to a presidential nomination, but the personality required to be president, judging from history, does not necessitate a squeaky clean private life.

2. Is perjury itself an impeachable offense, a high crime? Before the Clinton impeachment, that was a genuine question. We expect better from our presidents than lying under oath, and what Clinton did was undeniably wrong. It was not "of no consequence", and there did indeed need to be consequences. Impeachment wasn't the only option on the table. Personally I thought Clinton being censured and disbarred would have sufficed under the circumstances. The bar for impeachment has now been set very low. If lying under oath in a civil case is enough to warrant impeachment, then so are many other things, and a little fishing expedition on any president, Dem or Rep, can most likely dig up something.

Anonymous said...

Please, this is the weakest argument I have seen yet. Your speak of being well informed and yet you compare small apples with huge blood oranges!

The democrats and some republicans as well may be in favor of impeaching Bush not just because of the WMD issue, but for several reasons that are far more important than why Clinton was impeached.

I cannot believe the hypocrisy -the republicans were relentless in pursuing any evidence of any wrong doing by Clinton - millons spent by Starr and nothing was found on whitewater, instead the took the low road and went for the sex scandal. Now you turn around and say the democrats want revenge - more like they just want to stop the bleeding of money and blood over Iraq. How can you ignore all the wrong doings of the Bush administration!

Take the prison torture scandals for one - there are innocent people being held and tortured and the orders to do so came straight from the top - the FBI has PROOF that BUSH and RUMSFELD directly ordered torture to be used. Never has there been greater cause to impeach any president in U.S. history.
No one has ever deserved to be impeached more-
with more evidence of cavalier neglect and abuse of power than Bush & Co. Bush loyalists cannot seem to accept proof, facts or reality and keep putting party over principle. Wake up people.

/no I am not a democrat but I will take anyone in the next elections over the current administration.
republicans never admit they blew the surplus and don't know how to balance a budget to save their lives. what happened to fiscal conservatism? republicans spend more money than democrats.

Anonymous said...

How can anybody in their right mind say the Republicans have done a good job? We had a surplus, he passed it out to his friends and then went on a drunken spending spree.

If you hire a guy to paint your house and he ransacks it and sets it on fire, do you hire him again?

Vic said...

It doesn't appear that Radar has read the constitution, which says, and I quote: "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."

Clinton did not commit treason, did not bribe anyone and certainly did not commit high crimes and misdemeanors. His impeachment was a farce and a witch hunt.

Now that there is a Republican in the White House, who has broken the law of the land repeatedly, the subject of impeachment is taboo?

Blowjobs are bad, but illegal spying on Americans is okay? Invading a sovereign nation is okay? Setting up torture camps is okay?

Get your priorities straight, man!

I should add that Republicans are obsessed with Clinton, not Democrats. He was an okay president, but the people who continue to talk about him are Republicans. Leave it to a Republican to bring up Clinton when it is a Republican President that is breaking the law. Try staying on topic.

radar said...

Apparently Vic doesn't think that lying under oath, known as perjury, is a crime or a misdemeanor. Clinton lied about having sex with an intern, much like Nixon, who covered up the what "the plumbers" did. Nixon covered up something he didn't do but was done on his behalf and Clinton covered up something he did do. Nixon resigned before impeachment while Clinton managed to make it through impeachment without being tossed out by Congress. I can't see any virtue in either of them in either situation. If either of them had just told the truth from the get-go they would have survived the situation and it would have been the act of a man with good character. Both Nixon and Clinton failed the character test and they both should have left office.

President Bush didn't lie about Iraq no matter what koolaid-drinking liberal kooks like to say. Over and over I've pointed people to the quotes by other world leaders and lots of Democrats who said the same things about Saddam and Iraq. I cannot respect Democrats until they begin running on the issues and give up this bogus Bushchimphitler BS!

creeper said...

"Apparently Vic doesn't think that lying under oath, known as perjury, is a crime or a misdemeanor."

No, Vic just happens to be aware that the full phrase is "high crimes and misdemeanors". Nice try though.

scohen said...

"Clinton lied about having sex with an intern, much like Nixon, who covered up the what "the plumbers" did."

Nixon didn't get in trouble for lying, he got nailed for ordering the FBI to stop its investigation --but any 11th grader could have told you that.

It's also worth noting that misdemeanor in the constitutional sense isn't talking about a crime that doesn't rise to the level of a felony, but a misdeed. So, is perjury a "high crime" or a high misdeed? While I can't say on a constitutional level, it seems that when one considers this case (what exactly was he on trial for anyway?) it doesn't rise to the level of an impeachable offense. This, however does not excuse his lying under oath.

However, as creeper has repeatedly pointed out, the bar for impeachment is now set very low.

loboinok said...

It doesn't appear that Radar has read the constitution, which says, and I quote: "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."

What Are "High Crimes and Misdemeanors?"

Bribery, perjury, and treason are among the least ambiguous reasons meriting impeachment, but the ocean of wrongdoing encompassed by the Constitution's stipulation of "high crimes and misdemeanors" is vast. Abuse of power and serious misconduct in office fit this category.

The Senate has sat as a court of impeachment in the following cases:

* William Blount, senator from Tennessee; charges dismissed for want of jurisdiction, Jan. 14, 1799.
* John Pickering, judge of the U.S. District Court for New Hampshire; removed from office March 12, 1804.
* Samuel Chase, associate justice of the Supreme Court; acquitted March 1, 1805.
* James H. Peck, judge of the U.S. District Court for Missouri; acquitted Jan. 31, 1831.
* West H. Humphreys, judge of the U.S. District Court for the middle, eastern, and western districts of Tennessee; removed from office June 26, 1862.
* Andrew Johnson, president of the United States; acquitted May 26, 1868.
* William W. Belknap, secretary of war; acquitted Aug. 1, 1876.
* Charles Swayne, judge of the U.S. District Court for the northern district of Florida; acquitted Feb. 27, 1905.
* Robert W. Archbald, associate judge, U.S. Commerce Court; removed Jan. 13, 1913.
* George W. English, judge of the U.S. District Court for eastern district of Illinois; resigned Nov. 4, 1926; proceedings dismissed.
* Harold Louderback, judge of the U.S. District Court for the northern district of California; acquitted May 24, 1933.
* Halsted L. Ritter, judge of the U.S. District Court for the southern district of Florida; removed from office April 17, 1936.
* Harry E. Claiborne, judge of the U.S. District Court for the district of Nevada; removed from office Oct. 9, 1986.
* Alcee L. Hastings, judge of the U.S. District Court for the southern district of Florida; removed from office Oct. 20, 1988.
* Walter L. Nixon, judge of the U.S. District Court for Mississippi; removed from office Nov. 3, 1989.
* William J. Clinton, president of the United States; acquitted Feb. 12, 1999.

were implicated in bribery, cheating on income tax, perjury, and treason.
________________________________

Now that there is a Republican in the White House, who has broken the law of the land repeatedly, the subject of impeachment is taboo?

Stating your opinion does not make it fact. There is no conviction to support your contention and there are many government lawyers, judges and the FISA Court itself who disagree with you.

Blowjobs are bad, but illegal spying on Americans is okay?

So you alledge, without proof of fact.

Invading a sovereign nation is okay?

Yes.

Setting up torture camps is okay?

If it actually takes place I would have to say, no. As for torture... how do we know if torture has occurred when no one can come to an agreement on the definition of torture? Like the "Supremes" said... we can't say with certainty what constitutes, obscene, but we would know it if we seen it.

Get your priorities straight, man!

Get your facts straight, man!
__________________________________

No, Vic just happens to be aware that the full phrase is "high crimes and misdemeanors".

vic appears to be aware of nothing but speculation, innuendo and his opinion...nothing more.
__________________________________

However, as creeper has repeatedly pointed out, the bar for impeachment is now set very low.

What I posted above would suggest that the "bar" hasn't changed much, since 1799, am I missing something?

creeper said...

"What I posted above would suggest that the "bar" hasn't changed much, since 1799, am I missing something?"

That depends - could you list what each was impeached for? Or how many were actually for impeachment, and in what kind of cases? Then we could see if Clinton's falls right in line or is relatively light in terms of impeachment.

"vic appears to be aware of nothing but speculation, innuendo and his opinion...nothing more."

Vic was clearly aware of something Radar wasn't - or was purposely ignoring.

loboinok said...

John Pickering

They claimed originally that he was insane...
As a stop-gap measure, Circuit Judge Jeremiah Smith sat for part of the 1801 session of the Court. In March 1802, Pickering returned, adjourned the Court's business to the next day and then disappeared again. He had reappeared by June of that year and sat to consider United States v. Eliza, a case concerning a ship seized in violation of revenue laws. Allegedly, Pickering was drunk and raved profanities throughout the trial.

Political controversy waged in the Congress with Federalists accusing Democratic-Republicans of trying to usurp the Constitution by attempting to remove the Judge from office though he had committed neither high crimes nor misdemeanors as required by the Constitution.

On 4 February 1803 President Thomas Jefferson sent evidence to the U.S. House of Representatives who voted to impeach Pickering on 2 March, 1803 on charges of drunkenness and unlawful rulings. The U.S. Senate tried the Impeachment the next year beginning 4 January 1804 and convicted him of all charges presented by the House by a vote of 19 to 7 on 12 March 1804.

Samuel Chase

Chase was served with 6 articles of impeachment by the House of Representatives in late 1804, explicitly over Chase's handling of the trial of John Fries. Two more articles would later be added. The Jeffersonian Republican-controlled United States Senate began an impeachment trial against Justice Chase in early 1805. He was charged with political bias, but was acquitted by the Senate of all charges on March 1, 1805. As of 2006, he remains the only U.S. Supreme Court justice to have been impeached. His acquittal is believed to have ensured that an independent Federal judiciary would survive partisan challenge in the U.S.

James H. Peck

was a judge of the United States District Court for the district of Missouri. He was the third Judicial officer on whom the United States House of Representatives has passed Articles of Impeachment and was acquitted by the United States Senate.

Peck was appointed by President James Monroe to the federal courts in 1822. Peck was involved in several land claim cases arising out of the Louisiana territory purchase; In one such case in 1825 he ruled against the client of the lawyer Luke Lawless and published his opinion in a St. Louis newspaper the following year.

In response, Lawless posted an anonymous letter rebutting Peck's ruling in another newspaper. The authorship of the letter soon became known and Peck found Lawless in contempt of Court for:

Intent to impair the public confidence in the upright intentions of said court, and to bring odium upon the court, and especially with intent to impress the public mind, and particularly many litigants in this court, that they are not to expect justice in the cases now pending therein.

Peck had Lawless placed in jail for 24 hours and removed his right to practice in a federal court for 18 months. Lawless began a crusade against Peck which culminated in Impeachment charges before the US House of Representatives.

He was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives on 24 April 1830 on a charge of abuse of the contempt power. The U.S. Senate began the trial of Peck on 26 April 1830 and acquitted him of the charge on 31 January 1831 with 21 votes for removal and 22 votes against. He remained on the bench until his death in 1836.

West H. Humphreys

Humphreys was born in Montgomery County, Tennessee and studied Law at Transylvania University (in Lexington, Kentucky) and obtained a licence to practice in 1828. Humphrey later served in the Lower House of the State Legislature from 1835 to 1838, and as State Attorney General from 1839 to 1851.

In 1853, Humphreys was appointed to the Federal District Court for Tennessee as a Judge by President Franklin Pierce. Humphreys supported the secessionist movement that lead to the Civil War and accepted an appointment to the Confederate District Court of Tennessee.

On 19 May 1862 the United States House of Representatives voted to impeach Humphreys on the following charges: Publicly calling for secession; Giving aid to an armed rebellion; Conspiring with Jefferson Davis; Serving as a Confederate Judge; Confiscating the property of Military Governor Andrew Johnson and Supreme Court Justice John Catron; And imprisoning a Union sympathiser with "intent to injure him".

On 26 June 1862, the United States Senate began the trial of the impeachment in his absence and later that day unanimously convicted him of all charges presented, except that of confiscating the property of Andrew Johnson. He was removed from office and barred from holding office under the United States for life. He held his Confederate Judgeship until the end of the Civil War.

Andrew Johnson

We already know about Johnson and the "Tenure Act"...
The Senate and House entered into debate. Thomas attempted to move into the war office, for which Stanton had Thomas arrested. Three days after Stanton's removal, the House impeached Johnson for intentionally violating the Tenure of Office Act.

William W. Belknap

I can't find anything listing a reason for the attempt to impeach Belknap.
He resigned before his trial, and was later acquitted. Allegedly most of those who voted to acquit him believed that his resignation had removed their jurisdiction.
Allegedly, the Senate went ahead and impeached him anyway.

Charles Swayne

U.S. District Court Judge of Northern District of Florida, was accused of filing for--& receiving--travel expenses to which he was not entitled; of failing to live in his Judicial District as required by law; of using a railroad car, furnished with victuals & supplies at the expense of a railroad then in receivership (he had appointed the Receiver); of abusing his power by jailing several attorneys for contempt of court. ::: At end, the 2/3 majority vote needed to impeach could not be obtained. Therefore, Swayne was acquitted!

Robert W. Archbald

On 13 July 1912, he was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives on 13 Articles by a vote of 223 to 1. Articles I, II, III and VI alleged that Archbald had entered into agreements with litigants at a substantial benefit to himself. Article IV alleged a wrongful communication with litigants. Articles V, VII, VIII, IX and X alleged that he had improperly solicited and accepted gifts from litigants. Article XI alleged he had improperly solicited and accepted gifts from attorneys. Article XII alleged he allowed corrupt practices during jury selection. Article XIII alleged a general charge of bringing the Judiciary into disrepute. The offences alleged in Articles I through XI were connected with holidays in Europe and other gifts received from coal mine workers and railroad officials.

On 16 July, the U.S. Senate began Archbald's trial. The Senate convicted him of five of the thirteen Articles on 13 January 1913. The Senate then voted to remove him from office and disqualify him from further office by a vote of 39 to 35.

George W. English

All I could find on English were charges of; favoritism in appointing receivers, tyrannical conduct, obtaining loans from banks after depositing bankruptcy funds with them, and other charges

Impeached, resigned, dismissed

Harold Louderback

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

On 24 February 1933 Louderback was served with five Articles of Impeachment by the U.S. House of Representatives, including 4 articles alleging corruption in bankruptcy cases (appointing incompetent receivers and allowing them excessive fees) and a general charge of bringing his Court into disrepute. The U.S. Senate tried the Impeachment and on 24 May acquitted him of all the charges.
article V recieved a 45-34 majority but not the 2/3 majority required. He died while on the bench, in 1941.

Halsted L. Ritter

On 2 March 1936 the U.S. House of Representatives voted to impeach Ritter by 181 votes to 146 on 7 articles: ordering the payment of "exorbitant" legal fees with intent to embezzle, showing favouritism in bankruptcy cases, two charges of practising law whilst a Judge, two charges of tax evasion and bringing the judiciary into disrepute.

On 6 April 1936 the U.S. Senate began its trial and eleven days later voted to acquit him of all but the last article of bringing the judiciary into disrepute, which it convicted him of by 56 votes to 28 - the minimum ratio necessary for a conviction under the Constitution. He was removed from office and a motion to disqualify the Judge from further office was defeated unanimously by the Senate.

Ritter challenged the conviction in the federal Court of Claims on the grounds that the Senate could not convict him on a general charge of bringing the Judiciary into disrepute if it was not able to convict him of a specific offence. The court dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction, remarking that under Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 the Senate was granted "sole power" to try impeachments.

Harry E. Claiborne

Claiborne was indicted by a federal grand jury for bribery, fraud, and tax evasion in December of 1983. In April 1984, however, the jury deadlocked and a mistrial was declared. He was tried again in July on only the evasion charges and was found guilty the next month, making him the first federal judge ever convicted of crimes while on the bench. Claiborne was sentenced to two years in prison in October, and was in prison from May 1986 to October 1987.

Harry E. Claiborne was impeached by the United States House of Representatives on July 22, 1986, on two charges of tax evasion and one charge of bringing disrepute to the federal judiciary. He was convicted by the U.S. Senate on October 9, 1986, removing him from office.

Claiborne was allowed to begin practicing law again in Nevada in 1987, and shot himself to death in Las Vegas, Nevada, on January 19, 2004, apparently due to his health battles with cancer and Alzheimer's disease.

Alcee L. Hastings

In 1989, Hastings was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives for corruption and perjury. The Democratic-controlled Senate convicted Judge Hastings of accepting a $150,000 bribe in 1981 in exchange for a lenient sentence. He became only the sixth Judge in the history of impeachment in the United States to be removed from office by the United States Senate.

His impeachment was remanded back to the Senate by Judge Stanley Sporkin for procedural reasons, but the Supreme Court ruled in a similar case, regarding Judge Walter Nixon, who had also been impeached and removed, that the courts had no jurisdiction to review Senate impeachment procedures. Hastings' case was dismissed, and his impeachment and removal remained valid.

The Senate had the option to forbid Hastings from ever seeking federal office again when it removed him, but did not do so.

Walter L. Nixon

Walter L. Nixon was a Chief Judge of the Southern District Court of Mississippi. He was impeached by the House of Representatives for committing perjury before a grand jury and was subsequently removed from office by the Senate in 1993. During the proceedings, the Senate appointed a committee to hear the evidence against Nixon, and then report their findings to the body as a whole. Nixon took his case to the Supreme Court, arguing that this procedure did not meet the constitutional requirement that an impeachment be “tried by the Senate.” The Court rejected his appeal finding that the issue was a political question that should be resolved by the Senate itself because the Constitution specifically committed the resolution of procedures for removal to the Senate. Thus his impeachment and removal was upheld.

William J. Clinton

Clinton became the second president in American history to be impeached. Two of the four articles of impeachment—Article I, grand jury perjury, and Article III, obstruction of justice—passed, the votes drawn along party lines. After a Senate trial in Jan.–Feb. 1999, Clinton was acquitted on both counts.

loboinok said...

drunkenness and unlawful rulings
political bias
abuse of contempt power
Publicly calling for secession
Giving aid to an armed rebellion
Conspiring with Jefferson Davis
Serving as a Confederate Judge
Confiscating the property of Military Governor Andrew Johnson and Supreme Court Justice John Catron
And imprisoning a Union sympathiser with "intent to injure him"
violating the Tenure of Office Act
filing for--& receiving--travel expenses to which he was not entitled
failing to live in his Judicial District as required by law
using a railroad car, furnished with victuals & supplies at the expense of a railroad then in receivership (he had appointed the Receiver)
abusing his power by jailing several attorneys for contempt of court
entered into agreements with litigants at a substantial benefit to himself
wrongful communication with litigants
improperly solicited and accepted gifts from litigants
improperly solicited and accepted gifts from attorneys
allowed corrupt practices during jury selection
bringing the Judiciary into disrepute
favoritism in appointing receivers
tyrannical conduct
obtaining loans from banks after depositing bankruptcy funds with them
appointing incompetent receivers and allowing them excessive fees
bringing his Court into disrepute
ordering the payment of "exorbitant" legal fees with intent to embezzle
showing favouritism in bankruptcy cases
two charges of practising law whilst a Judge
tax evasion
bringing the judiciary into disrepute
tax evasion
bringing disrepute to the federal judiciary
corruption
perjury
perjury before a grand jury
grand jury perjury
obstruction of justice