The following exchange is from Dialogue Group 7, Thread 1.

3. Impeachment
Tue, Dec 15, 1998 - 1:30 PM/EST
markearnest

Clinton also lied about taxes. He promised a tax cut his first campaign, then signed the largest tax increase in history.

The difference between this lie (which Bush is also guilty of) and the lies he is in trouble for, is that campaign promises are not under oath (although that's not a bad idea).

Clinton also has a long history of lying to the public. While not impeachable, these lies do serve to establish a pattern.

4. Impeachment
Tue, Dec 15, 1998 - 2:34 PM/EST
dorothy

I will make this quick. If the US is going to stick with the Constitution, and not call a Constitutional Convention, we have to abide by its guidelines for impeachment and everything else.The framers said "conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and mesdemeanors." Nowhere can one find lying, not lying, sex etc...To me it's common sense to see Section Four Article Two of the Constitution in CONTEXT and if we want to update it we have to amend it or call a convention. This is a juvenile partisan effort to pay back for Watergate,and while I respect everyone's conscience Hamlet said "conscience makes cowards of us all".

5. Impeachment
Tue, Dec 15, 1998 - 3:59 PM/EST
danziger

I'm with Dorothy -- Clinton's behavior is indefensible, but lying isn't a sufficient reason to impeach him.

So many who are looking to oust the President cannot pass the Maxine Waters test: that is, what specifically did he lie about? And do those lies rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors?"

Markearnest, it's a fair bet that you don't care for President Clinton, and that's surely your right. But not liking him isn't a good enough reason to remove him from office -- those opposed to Clinton seem to be looking for any pretext to remove him from office. Well , Bill Clinton, whatever his sins, is not Al Capone, and throwing together a loose amalgam of charges against him isn't the same as making a cogent case for his removal from office.

There may be a case to be made, too -- about the money from China, for instance. But Ken Starr admits that there's not enough to Whitewater, or the travel office, or the FBI files, to merit impeachment of this President.

So: he's being impeached for what, exactly? Being a jerk? Unfaithfulness to his wife? Not being from the right political class, according to the citizens of Georgetown? Or what?

12. Lies and Voter Input
Tue, Dec 15, 1998 - 6:38 PM/EST
Kevin

In response to markearnest ... all the arguments people can possibly make about whether Clinton was trustworthy or not, or how shifty he was during his terms of office is a moot question. We knew quite a bit about his political M.O. before electing him, as a nation, in 1992. We saw his flaws for the next four years and yet still re-elected him. The time for this stuff to be an issue is on election day, not during a term of office. His punishment for his acts should be never being elected into office again, as per the voter mandate for whatever office he dares run for in the future. If character is an issue in the hiring process, then hopefully he'll have a very difficult time finding work in the future. But the time to make those decisions has past for this president.

If you want to argue on the relative merits, or lack thereof, of Bill Clinton as a leader, that's an entirely separate issue than the one being discussed in D.C. these days.

14. The misunderstanding of the Impeachment
Tue, Dec 15, 1998 - 7:18 PM/EST
marty

Thank you for allowing me into this group.

I am amazed at the number of people who think that this impeachment thing is about sex and how many think that it is simply about false statements. Clinton is a scurilous character with only regard for those rules which agrandize him and his desires. The ramifications of Clinton may reverberate to some degree and maybe others will also refrain from wrong doing. If military personnel can be severely punished and made to resign for sexual wrongdoing then why not the Commander in Chief. Surely he is not above it all. Thank you. Marty

16. In response...
Tue, Dec 15, 1998 - 9:20 PM/EST
markearnest

Danziger:
I agree he shouldn't be impeached for lies. I was only seperating the difference between campaign promise lies and under oath lies.
I think the China thing should be looked into instead of this garbage. That actually HAS serious treason implications, but that is not the topic of our current discussion.

Kevin:
You're right. The country did know all about him and choose to elect him again (not that Dole was that great an alternative). What bothers me is all the people saying that he smokes pot, lies, sleeps around, is generally a sleaze and THIS IS WHY HE REPRESENTS US SO WELL??!!! When did we decide the lowest common denominator should be the best representative for us all? I would think we would want the leader of the free world to be held to a somewhat higher standard than your average slob.

I know that last gripe is not impeachable, just something I wanted to say.

17. Impeachment
Wed, Dec 16, 1998 - 1:09 AM/EST
fuchees

Dorothy,

Believe it or not, Gerald Ford actually said something intelligent when asked what are high crimes and misdemeanors: whatever Congress says it is.

Neither you nor me can escape that fact whether you want to see him impeached or not. It's all a matter of point of view and politics. Point of view because one side has argued persuasively that the president lied under oath. Politics, yes, because if we were discussing the very same fact situation but replace the name of Bill Clinton with Newt Gingrich, Maxine Waters would be howling impeachment because sex with an intern would be like sex with a slave!

It's politics, baby, and this tragicomedy must play itself out at our expense but place the blame at the origin: behind the zipper of Bill Clinton and his lying ways.

P.S. Your bio interested me: could the lack of morphine for the suffering be layed at the feet of the drug war? Would like your opinion.

fuchees

19. Is the Commander-in-Chief subject to military rule?
Wed, Dec 16, 1998 - 5:34 AM/EST
Kevin

marty alludes to the most compelling argument for a double standard, I feel, when he alludes to the recent trials within the military regarding sexual conduct. The President is the Commander-in-Chief, certainly, and I can see why there would be an impulse to apply his conduct to military code. I'm just not sure those internal rules actually apply to the President like they do military personnel, per se. If he is subject to military law and is not considered a "civilian" then maybe it's the Army that should be conducting the inquiries and court-martial rather than Congress.

25. impeachment
Wed, Dec 16, 1998 - 11:12 AM/EST
operabuff

Marty, I have to disagree with you. The analogy of military personnel being dismissed for similar acts is not a propos: military personnel are not elected officials. This impeachment is partisan attempt to overthrow a national election! This is very different from dismissing a CEO or a General.

I've also heard people proclaim that the president is setting a bad moral example, and that he should be removed from office because of his character flaws. Come on. If having poor moral and character flaws were impeachable, then almost every president, back to the father of our country, should have been impeached!

I was particularly dismayed by the Congress bringing in members of the military to comment on the effect of the president's lying on military morale. It is frightening to think that some members of Congress believe the president should leave office (either voluntarily or not) because of unrest and dissatisfaction in the military! Isn't that how it's done in certain banana republics? I'd like to hear what others have to say on this.
Thank you for allowing me to express my opinions.