# 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:** 7\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-hyde-clinton-impeachment-was-payback-for-nixons/300600/161 "2005-04-27T14:22:58Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > It was about … a blowjob. That is all it ever was about. Maybe for some, but I could care less that he got a blowjob. It concerned me that a man in his position was cheating on his wife with a young woman in his employ while still involved with the Paula Jones issue. It showed a supreme lack of judgement on his part considering his position and the microscope it always is under. If he can’t control himself and his dick during the time he is in office, then what other more important issues could end up being affected adversly by that same faulty judgement? Look at this issue alone for a reason to keep your dick to yourself while in office. Shit, we’re still talking about it. ---
**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 27, 2005, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-hyde-clinton-impeachment-was-payback-for-nixons/300600/162 "2005-04-27T14:55:32Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > 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. What was the obstruction? ---
**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 27, 2005, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-hyde-clinton-impeachment-was-payback-for-nixons/300600/163 "2005-04-27T14:58:33Z")
By the way, strictly speaking the impeachment itself had nothing to do with sexual harassment but with whether BC lied to the grand jury about sucking Ms. Lewinsky’s nipples. Let us never forget that. ---
**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, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-hyde-clinton-impeachment-was-payback-for-nixons/300600/164 "2005-04-27T17:52:33Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > What was the obstruction? You’ve read the articles of impeachment, right? At any rate, in the interests of keeping some part of the dead equine intact, I will happily cede obstruction. What say you about the rest of my post? > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > By the way, strictly speaking the impeachment itself had nothing to do with sexual harassment but with whether BC lied to the grand jury about sucking Ms. Lewinsky’s nipples. Let us never forget that. Put a period after “grand jury” and delete the rest. It isn’t the content of the lie that’s important, it’s whether there was in fact a lie, and whether the lie was material to the matter at hand at the time the lie was told. Again, there is no sexual act exception to the perjury statute. And **Uzi** , the issue isn’t Clinton’s poor judgment, although I think everyone would agree that the president diddling an intern is not a wise move. Presidents don’t get impeached for mere poor judgment, something the current occupant is presumably thankful for. Kennedy’s diddling Marilyn Monroe was not grounds for impeachment. Instead, this is about serious matters affecting the integrity of the legal system – perjury, plain and simple. ---
**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 27, 2005, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-hyde-clinton-impeachment-was-payback-for-nixons/300600/165 "2005-04-27T18:42:43Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > You’ve read the articles of impeachment, right? At any rate, in the interests of keeping some part of the dead equine intact, I will happily cede obstruction. What say you about the rest of my post? I’ve said it several times already. His answer in the PJ deposition was technically truthful. We don’t even have to get to the question of materiality because there is no demonstrable flasehood in the first place. > [@](#): > > Put a period after “grand jury” and delete the rest. It isn’t the content of the lie that’s important, it’s whether there was in fact a lie, and whether the lie was material to the matter at hand at the time the lie was told. > > Again, there is no sexual act exception to the perjury statute. First of all, what is your evidence that Clinton lied to the Grand Jury? Congress said that couldn’t be proven. Secondly: Impeachment is a political process and what constitutes “high crimes and misdemeanors” is highly subjective. The majority of the public did not believe that lying about titty sucking - even under oath - was a high crime worthy of removable from office. Thirdly, what was the relevance of the Lewinsky affair to the Whitewater investigation? > [@](#): > > And **Uzi** , the issue isn’t Clinton’s poor judgment, although I think everyone would agree that the president diddling an intern is not a wise move. Presidents don’t get impeached for mere poor judgment, something the current occupant is presumably thankful for. Kennedy’s diddling Marilyn Monroe was not grounds for impeachment. Instead, this is about serious matters affecting the integrity of the legal system – perjury, plain and simple. You guys have been saying that for almost ten years now and it still sounds just as disngenuous as it ever did. ---
**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, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-hyde-clinton-impeachment-was-payback-for-nixons/300600/166 "2005-04-27T23:07:53Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > First of all, what is your evidence that Clinton lied to the Grand Jury? Congress said that couldn’t be proven. > > Secondly: Impeachment is a political process and what constitutes “high crimes and misdemeanors” is highly subjective. The majority of the public did not believe that lying about titty sucking - even under oath - was a high crime worthy of removable from office. Your first point is undercut by your second. Since impeachment is a highly political process, you must admit that the Senate’s vote is hardly a good measure of what can and cannot be proven. Second, I haven’t been arguing for impeachment, although I favored it; I’ve been arguing in favor of the proposition that perjury was committed. Thirdly, and tangentially, I’d hope that we could agree that, while impeachment is political, it should meet some standard – otherwise, impeachment of a president simply because he was disliked would be considered appropriate. And while I don’t care to define a precise standard, I’d hope that at a minimum the commission of a serious felony would qualify. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Thirdly, what was the relevance of the Lewinsky affair to the Whitewater investigation? What is the relevance of this question? Starr had the scope of his original investigation expanded several times. While we can debate whether or not that expansion was a good idea, or whether those additional topics would have been better served by the appointment of a new, unrelated independent prosecutor, none of those issues are relevant to the question of guilt or innoncence of the charges at hand. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > You guys have been saying that for almost ten years now and it still sounds just as disngenuous as it ever did. While I’m certain that many folks hopped on the impeachment bandwagon simply because they didn’t like Bubba, I’ll kindly ask that you not lump me in with that crowd. When I say the matter involves the integrity of the legal system, I mean exactly that. I am not “you guys.” I am me. Please don’t forget that. ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2005, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-hyde-clinton-impeachment-was-payback-for-nixons/300600/167 "2005-04-28T03:10:06Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > And **Uzi** , the issue isn’t Clinton’s poor judgment, although I think everyone would agree that the president diddling an intern is not a wise move. Presidents don’t get impeached for mere poor judgment, something the current occupant is presumably thankful for. I agree. But, I never said he should be impeached for this. I’m stating my personal opinion on the man for doing something so stupid and avoidable. I think this was something that probably shouldn’t have gone further than a ‘what the fuck were you thinking, man!?’ unless he used his position in some way to coerce Monica, but there is no evidence of that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-hyde-clinton-impeachment-was-payback-for-nixons/300600.md?page=8)