# Henry Hyde: Clinton impeachment was payback for Nixon's **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 22, 2005, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-hyde-clinton-impeachment-was-payback-for-nixons/300600 "2005-04-22T14:41:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2005, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-hyde-clinton-impeachment-was-payback-for-nixons/300600/141 "2005-04-26T18:34:29Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > Put two and two together. While you make a compelling case that you’re showing me two and two, surely you can understand my suspicions that you can’t show me any examples of four? Absent any cases showing your two and two combining to get **Airman’s** four, I’m going to stubbornly continue doubting the fours. > [@](#): > > I really don’t think relevance is even arguable, if you consider the matter _at the time the question was asked_. See the last two paragraphs of my prior post to you. > > You should also be more careful with your language. Something can be tangential but still relevant. Something can be immaterial and still relevant. Those words describe three different things. I read your prior post, which is an **argument** that the detail was relevant. **Bricker** has earlier stated that a jury could reasonably decide the relevance issue either way; isn’t that precisely what it means for an issue to be arguable? Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2005, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-hyde-clinton-impeachment-was-payback-for-nixons/300600/142 "2005-04-26T18:34:34Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > If Starr had discovered any genuine criminality on the part of the President, there was nothing preventing him from pursuing criminal charges through the ordinary courts. In fact, he did just that with several other targets of the Whitewater Inquisition. > > Instead of pursuing criminal charges he submitted Lewinsky evidence only to Congress for use in the wholly political process of impeachment (which is not a criminal trial). To be fair, it is an open question as to whether a sitting president can face criminal charges until he is removed from office. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2005, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-hyde-clinton-impeachment-was-payback-for-nixons/300600/143 "2005-04-26T18:36:22Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > You’re certainly right that impeachment is not a criminal trial. But you’re wrong that criminal charges could have been pursued, at least prior to 2001. The president is immune from judicial direction, as per _Mississippi v. Johnson_, decided by the Supreme Court in 1867. Only while he’s sitting. There was nothing preventing Starr from pursuing charges after BC was out of office. > [@](#): > > Now, you’re calling impeachment a political process as if that damns it. It does not, it merely describes the process as happening outside of the court system. > > Or was it an illegitimate “political” process when pursued in 1974 as well? I didn’t say the process was illegitimate. I just said it was political. Those terms are not _quite_ synonomous although they are very close. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2005, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-hyde-clinton-impeachment-was-payback-for-nixons/300600/144 "2005-04-26T18:46:43Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > The president is immune from judicial direction Only while in office, and that didn’t stop Scaife from pursuing the Jones suit anyway, now did it? > [@](#): > > Now, you’re calling impeachment a political process as if that damns it. If you’d read this whole thread you’d know better. I’ve laid it out for you more than once. It’s a last-resort act of statecraft that is sometimes necessary in extreme cases, when its subject’s continued presence in office presents an intolerable danger to the Republic. For a corrupt judge, it’s the only way to cancel a lifetime appointment. For an elected official, with a finite term, its use must meet an even higher standard, including public support for its use - something that was present in Nixon’s case but not Clinton’s. Its misuse as a simple act of partisan political, even personal, spite is what I’m “damning”. The concept that Clinton’s presence in office despite the effort to get him for something represented a danger to the Republic is just silly - but that silliness explains the tenacity with which its supporters refuse to face the facts. > [@](#): > > Or was it an illegitimate “political” process when pursued in 1974 as well? That was most certainly a case of protecting the Republic from an officeholder whose presence in office had come to represent a danger to it. It had broad, general support across both parties and from We the People as the details of Nixon’s abuses of power became obvious. Can we take it that you cannot support your earlier insinuations that Clinton did far worse things that didn’t see the light of day? Are you ever going to back up your statements, or are you going to do the honorable thing for once? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2005, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-hyde-clinton-impeachment-was-payback-for-nixons/300600/145 "2005-04-26T19:02:04Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > **Dewey** , you keep talking about what is possible or reasonable but the point is that it is NOT common practice for prosecutors to pursue charges for piddley shit lies in discovery. If I had done the same as Clinton, the chances are very slim that I would have been prosecuted for perjury. Heaven forfend I talk about what is reasonable, or what the law actually says. Is it really your position that Clinton committed a felony, but that’s OK because people are rarely prosecuted for that felony in civil depositions? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2005, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-hyde-clinton-impeachment-was-payback-for-nixons/300600/146 "2005-04-26T19:10:32Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > While you make a compelling case that you’re showing me two and two, surely you can understand my suspicions that you can’t show me any examples of four? Absent any cases showing your two and two combining to get **Airman’s** four, I’m going to stubbornly continue doubting the fours. I am not **Airman** ’s keeper. I humbly request that you answer my posts, and don’t seek to have me answer on his behalf. > [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > I read your prior post, which is an **argument** that the detail was relevant. **Bricker** has earlier stated that a jury could reasonably decide the relevance issue either way; isn’t that precisely what it means for an issue to be arguable? I think it’s pretty tough to argue against materiality if you focus on the issue when the question was asked. Sure, juries can find whatever they want, but on these facts I think the argument for materiality is very, very strong. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2005, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-hyde-clinton-impeachment-was-payback-for-nixons/300600/147 "2005-04-26T19:12:53Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > Is it really your position that Clinton committed a felony, but that’s OK because people are rarely prosecuted for that felony in civil depositions? **Dewey** , my position at least is that Clinton was not (contrary to **Airman’s** implication) protected from prosecution by his power and contacts; he was protected by the _De minimis_ principle. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2005, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-hyde-clinton-impeachment-was-payback-for-nixons/300600/148 "2005-04-26T19:14:22Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Only while he’s sitting. There was nothing preventing Starr from pursuing charges after BC was out of office. You mean, other than the fact that Starr stepped down from the Independent Prosecutor’s post in 1999? His successor, Robert Ray, cut a deal with Clinton, as you’ll recall. Give up your law license and admit to false statements, and we won’t prosecute. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2005, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-hyde-clinton-impeachment-was-payback-for-nixons/300600/149 "2005-04-26T19:19:00Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > **Dewey** , my position at least is that Clinton was not (contrary to **Airman’s** implication) protected from prosecution by his power and contacts; he was protected by the _De minimis_ principle. Also known as “the principle I just pulled out of my ass.” Clinton was protected by an act of prosecutorial discretion (and if you don’t think his power and contacts weighed in exercising that discretion, you’re nuts). That doesn’t mean he didn’t commit a felony. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2005, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-hyde-clinton-impeachment-was-payback-for-nixons/300600/150 "2005-04-26T19:19:03Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > Heaven forfend I talk about what is reasonable, or what the law actually says. > > Is it really your position that Clinton committed a felony, but that’s OK because people are rarely prosecuted for that felony in civil depositions? This whole series of exchanges goes back to **Airman Doors’** assertion that if he had done the same thing as Clinton, he would have gone to prison. My position is that thousands of people lie about tangential matters in discovery every day and are not prosecuted for perjury. It is also decidedly _not_ my position that Clinton committed a felony. My position _vis-a-vis_ AD is simply that he would never have been prosecuted. My position towards whether Clinton actually committed perjury is that (I would argue) it was a technically truthful statement as well as immaterial to the case. You are saying that a jury might plausibly find otherwise and it might, but the nature of this kind of charge is that all conditions necessary to find guilt are subjective. In my opinion, Clinton’s answer to the sex question was not a provable lie. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2005, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-hyde-clinton-impeachment-was-payback-for-nixons/300600/151 "2005-04-26T19:24:20Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > I am not **Airman** ’s keeper. I humbly request that you answer my posts, and don’t seek to have me answer on his behalf. I’m not, actually: I’m just pointing out that I’m asking a specific question, and while you’re making a convincing argument about what an answer **should** look like, you’re not answering it. If that’s fine with you, that’s fine with me: you’re under no obligation to answer that question. I mentioned **Airman** only because his post was the one that prompted my question. As to the materiality, the point is that Clinton’s relationship with the intern **didn’t** fit the _quid pro quo_ pattern, and therefore _wasn’t_ material. While the questioner may have thought it might be material, and while a quid pro quo relationship would have been material, the questioner was mistaken. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2005, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-hyde-clinton-impeachment-was-payback-for-nixons/300600/152 "2005-04-26T19:32:19Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > You mean, other than the fact that Starr stepped down from the Independent Prosecutor’s post in 1999? > > His successor, Robert Ray, cut a deal with Clinton, as you’ll recall. Give up your law license and admit to false statements, and we won’t prosecute. Same difference. It was the same investigation, same office. Ray knew he didn’t have a criminal case. The whole thing was cooked up solely as a contrivance for impeachment. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2005, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-hyde-clinton-impeachment-was-payback-for-nixons/300600/153 "2005-04-26T22:35:31Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > As to the materiality, the point is that Clinton’s relationship with the intern **didn’t** fit the _quid pro quo_ pattern, and therefore _wasn’t_ material. While the questioner may have thought it might be material, and while a quid pro quo relationship would have been material, the questioner was mistaken. There you go again. You’re evaluating materiality at a time other than when the question was asked. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2005, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-hyde-clinton-impeachment-was-payback-for-nixons/300600/154 "2005-04-26T22:38:43Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Same difference. It was the same investigation, same office. Ray knew he didn’t have a criminal case. Depends on what you mean by “have a criminal case.” On the law, I think the case was quite good. On the intangibles – like, say, a jury’s willingness to convict a popular former president – perhaps not. A good prosecutor will cut a deal when those intangibles are against him. That doesn’t mean his case wasn’t strong. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2005, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-hyde-clinton-impeachment-was-payback-for-nixons/300600/155 "2005-04-26T23:12:03Z")
Like I said, I don’t think you have a proveable lie. YMMV, which I know it does. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2005, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-hyde-clinton-impeachment-was-payback-for-nixons/300600/156 "2005-04-26T23:23:09Z")
Well, now, **Brer Dewey** , seems to me I’ve heard and read this case discussed by a number of lawyers, in a variety of venues, and never gathered the impression that the matter was as cut and dried as you seem to suggest. Of course, none of them were Baylor men (or they were too modest to brag on it), so _this_ Court leans to one’s homey, but still… I wonder, if one were to sneak up on you and change the jumper setting on your advocacy chip…I suspect that **Dewey V1.1** would give **Dewey V1.0** a run for his money… Suppose one could offer a big ol’ nasty wad of money…but one simply couldn’t impugn your integrity in such a way. One must maintain the pristine reputation of Texas lawyers in matters of strict moral fiber and unwavering virtue. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-hyde-clinton-impeachment-was-payback-for-nixons/300600/157 "2005-04-27T00:28:04Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Suppose one could offer a big ol’ nasty wad of money…but one simply couldn’t impugn your integrity in such a way. One must maintain the pristine reputation of Texas lawyers in matters of strict moral fiber and unwavering virtue. I cannot be bought. I can, however, be rented. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 11:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-hyde-clinton-impeachment-was-payback-for-nixons/300600/158 "2005-04-27T11:19:27Z")
And what happens to a legal action pursued for a collateral purpose? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-hyde-clinton-impeachment-was-payback-for-nixons/300600/159 "2005-04-27T13:42:35Z")
The key point here, and one that seems to be getting missed, its that the crux of the matter being legally argued is a blowjob. Monica Lewinsky’s lips on Bill Clinton’s dick. It was all about a blowjob. A blowjob. A blowjob. We must never forget the incredible absuridty of the central facts of the case. ANY dignity this case gets is MUCH more dignity than it deserves, and we must never forget that, or allow Republicans to forget it either. It was about … a blowjob. That is all it ever was about. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-hyde-clinton-impeachment-was-payback-for-nixons/300600/160 "2005-04-27T13:57:42Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > It was about … a blowjob. That is all it ever was about. Sexual acts are frequently both relevant and material to sexual harrassment cases. There isn’t a sexual act exception in the perjury statute. So, I disagree. It was about perjury and obstruction. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-hyde-clinton-impeachment-was-payback-for-nixons/300600.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-hyde-clinton-impeachment-was-payback-for-nixons/300600.md?page=9)