Henry Hyde: Clinton impeachment was payback for Nixon's

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@wring

remember this discussion was prompted by Airmans’ statement that had he done what Clinton did, he’d have gone to jail, ie been prosecuted. he even used the term “thousands” in reference Some of us (including me) are suggesting that statement was wrong.

Come now. If I had a few weeks to put it all together I could probably come up with a few thousand instances of perjury. However, with the amount of criminal/civil litigation in this country, not even to mention that were talking about a few thousand instances out of 465 million + people at present in this country, I feel secure in maintaining that there have been a few thousand cases in the last 200 years where people were incarcerated for perjury. The odds are incredibly high in my favor.

[treis]

I am just stunned that people are defending Nixon’s crimes as petty and inconsequential. The man violated several laws in gaining an unfair advantage in the election for the most powerful office in the world. He then used his power and government agencies to attempt to cover up his crimes. I’ve read this thread a few times and each time I think its a joke but then I am stunned and disappointed to find out that it isn’t.

** Airman Doors, USAF ** -

You’re off by 170 million or so people. The population of the US is about 290 million right now.

[Mockingbird]

@Biffy the Elephant Shrew

I hope you’re not expecting me to dispute this.

Nope, but I was betting on Airman Doors to be a hypocrite and say a lie is a lie as he’s been denying that Catholic Papal dogma and bigotry are the same damn thing.

I guess relativism is only bad when non Republicans do it.

:rolleyes:

[Bricker]

@wring

Would (note - not “could”) a prosecuting attorney prosecute some one for lying under oath during a civil proceding?

It’s very unlikely.

But in a high profile case - say, for example, some civil case related to Michael Jackson - the odds change.

But an ordinary, run-of-the-mill civil trial? Unlikely.

[MaxTheVool]

@Airman Doors

Come now. If I had a few weeks to put it all together I could probably come up with a few thousand instances of perjury. However, with the amount of criminal/civil litigation in this country, not even to mention that were talking about a few thousand instances out of 465 million + people at present in this country, I feel secure in maintaining that there have been a few thousand cases in the last 200 years where people were incarcerated for perjury. The odds are incredibly high in my favor.

(a) I’m not sure you could

(b) Even if you could, could you come up with a few thousand cases in the last 200 years where people were incarcerated for perjury which was about subjects of comparable importance to the BJ in question? That’s the real question…
Bricker: Just for the record: Do you think what Clinton did was worse than what Nixon did, equally bad, or less bad?

[Polycarp]

@Bricker

Nixon didn’t commit any crimes.

Right?

Correct. Let’s go on with your post:

I mean, by the same standard you’re applying to Clinton - a conviction is necessary before it can be said he did it - Nixon didn’t commit any crimes.

In our interminable discussions about this issue in the past five years, I think this statement is the most useful (and defensible): Had Mr. Clinton been tried on the charge of perjury, there was a sufficent record upon which a jury could find him guilty. Of course, a reasonable jury could have also chosen to find him not guilty, and I’m not just talking about nullification; a reasonable jury could have found that all the elements of the crime were not proved.

But if they had, no appellate court would have overturned it due to insufficiency of the evidence.

Precisely. And exactly the same can be said for Mr. Nixon, prior to his pardon. Except that it would not be a single count of perjury, but of conspiracy to subvert the electoral process. Probably in multiple counts. Not having quick access to the U.S. Code, I can’t cite the exact statutes he could be charged with. But it would not merely be conspiracy to commit burglary. That one item early in the U.S.C. about committing a crime against the Constitution strikes me as a very likely charge. Perhaps you might be willing to examine the relevant law and give a possible list?

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@Mockingbird

Nope, but I was betting on Airman Doors to be a hypocrite and say a lie is a lie as he’s been denying that Catholic Papal dogma and bigotry are the same damn thing.

I guess relativism is only bad when non Republicans do it.

:rolleyes:

I did say a lie is a lie. Would you like me to quote it? Further, I also stated that I’m not a Republican.

You must be functionally illiterate. There’s just no other explanation.

[wring]

@Bricker

It’s very unlikely.

But in a high profile case - say, for example, some civil case related to Michael Jackson - the odds change.

But an ordinary, run-of-the-mill civil trial? Unlikely.

Thanks. Thus, Airman’s suggestion that ‘had it been him’ who had lied in a civil depo, he’d have gone to jail, that there’s “thousands” of instances wherin that had happened, you’d perhaps agree was into the category of “so very unlikely as to approach flat out wrongness”?

Airman you seem to continually miss the specification of “lying under oath in a civil proceding”. There may indeed be “thousands” of cases of perjury prosecuted in the US. But not bloody likely that the perjury was committed in a civil proceding.

[rjung]

@Mockingbird

I guess relativism is only bad when non Republicans do it.
:rolleyes:

I swear, I should get this on a bumper sticker or something: IOKIARDI.

It’s OK If A Republican Does It.

[Bricker]

@Polycarp

Precisely. And exactly the same can be said for Mr. Nixon, prior to his pardon.

Absolutely true.

Except that it would not be a single count of perjury, but of conspiracy to subvert the electoral process. Probably in multiple counts. Not having quick access to the U.S. Code, I can’t cite the exact statutes he could be charged with. But it would not merely be conspiracy to commit burglary. That one item early in the U.S.C. about committing a crime against the Constitution strikes me as a very likely charge. Perhaps you might be willing to examine the relevant law and give a possible list?

Actually, I’m not sure.

Part of my confusion stems from what, precisely, Mr. Nixon did. And despite having read Blind Ambition, Will, and Silent Coup, I’m not sure.

Assuming we can agree on a summary list of his acts, I’ll be happy to take a stab at possible indictments. It seems certain to me that he ordered a coverup of the Watergate burglary, and used his office to derail an investigation, including pressure on the FBI and CIA to commit illegal acts, and pressure on the special prosecutor to ignore people and actions.

What else?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Airman Doors

Come now. If I had a few weeks to put it all together I could probably come up with a few thousand instances of perjury.

Indeed–but it’s a Friday, as I said, and I’m feeling generous, so all I’m asking you for is one. One case in which someone lied, in a civil deposition, about a fact that didn’t bear materially on the civil deposition, and went to prison for perjury for doing so.

Not thousands–that’s your own high standard. My own unbelievably shoddy and forgiving standard is one.

Daniel

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Indeed–but it’s a Friday, as I said, and I’m feeling generous, so all I’m asking you for is one. One case in which someone lied, in a civil deposition, about a fact that didn’t bear materially on the civil deposition, and went to prison for perjury for doing so.

Not thousands–that’s your own high standard. My own unbelievably shoddy and forgiving standard is one.

Daniel

Do I have your word that you won’t move the goalposts again?

OK then.

Here you go. It took me all of 30 seconds.

[treis]

@Bricker

Actually, I’m not sure.

Part of my confusion stems from what, precisely, Mr. Nixon did. And despite having read Blind Ambition, Will, and Silent Coup, I’m not sure.

Assuming we can agree on a summary list of his acts, I’ll be happy to take a stab at possible indictments. It seems certain to me that he ordered a coverup of the Watergate burglary, and used his office to derail an investigation, including pressure on the FBI and CIA to commit illegal acts, and pressure on the special prosecutor to ignore people and actions.

What else?

There certainly must have been crimes committed in regards to transfering money to pay the burglers and those paid to keep quiet.

[Bricker]

@treis

There certainly must have been crimes committed in regards to transfering money to pay the burglers and those paid to keep quiet.

Yes - apparently those funds were from the election campaign, although I don’t know what the law in 1972 prohibited in that regard. If Nixon knew about this from the beginning, then he conspired to obtruct justice as well as conspired in the burglary.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

@Airman Doors

Here you go. It took me all of 30 seconds.

Sorry, but in the cases cited, the lies were in fact material to the testimony being given:

Goltz, an orthopedic surgeon in the District who regularly testified as an expert witness in personal injury cases, is serving 18 months in a federal penitentiary for repeatedly inflating his credentials, saying, among other things, that he was educated at the University of Michigan and New York University Medical School rather than Michigan State and New York Medical College.

He inflated his credentials while testifying as an expert witness in multiple cases, thus deceiving the juries who heard his testimony as to his credibility and thus the weight they should give to his opinions. That’s material, not inconsequential.

In Wisconsin last week, a former partner in a prestigious Wall Street law firm went on trial for lying under oath in a bankruptcy proceeding by failing to disclose that his firm also represented some of the bankrupt company’s creditors.

Which is to say, he hid material facts pointing to a conflict of interest – again, material to the credibility of his testimony.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

P.S. I read through all the other cases cited in that article of prosecution for perjury in a civil case. Every one of them, to me, involved testimony directly related, not tangential, to material facts at issue.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

@ElvisL1ves

Retirement frees one to tell the truth, apparently. Rep. Henry Hyde, chair of the committee that pressed the Clinton impeachment to the great embarrassment of themselves and the nation, acknowledges that the effort was at least in part simple payback for Nixon’s.

After reading through this thread and reflecting on it, I believe it can be summed up in the words of Karl Marx:

History repeats itself, first as tragedy and then as farce.

[Freyr]

@Bricker

Part of my confusion stems from what, precisely, Mr. Nixon did. And despite having read Blind Ambition, Will, and Silent Coup, I’m not sure.

Assuming we can agree on a summary list of his acts, I’ll be happy to take a stab at possible indictments. It seems certain to me that he ordered a coverup of the Watergate burglary, and used his office to derail an investigation, including pressure on the FBI and CIA to commit illegal acts, and pressure on the special prosecutor to ignore people and actions.

I found this online: Articles of Impeachment

Summarizing:

Article One: On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities.

Article Two: Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies.

[Mr.Moto]

For good measure, I’m going to post two of the articles of impeachment against Clinton. These concern obstruction of justice and abuse of power, which I find a far more troubling matter than perjury.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/09/articles.docs/article3.html
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/09/articles.docs/article3.html

Now, if we accept that Nixon was guilty as hell (which I do) and that the crime which he was guilty of was a coverup of corruption, then I propose that Clinton was guilty of the same thing.

Furthermore, it should be said that the evidence is overwhelming that both men were guilty, despite political deals and maneuvers that let them evade sanction for their crimes at least to some degree.

Now, if anyone has any evidence that Clinton did not in face lean on Betty Currie to testify in a certain way, or coach Monica Lewinsky on how to treat evidence of their relationship, or anything else - please show it.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

The articles of impeachment against Clinton were both purely partisan and utterly groundless. In particular, there was no shred of evidence to support obstruction charges (that was based on an accusation that Clinton had written the Lewinsky “talking points,” something for which no evidence was presented and which was denied by Lewisnky even after they flipped her.

There was no there there in those impeachment charges. It was an empty partisan exercise and it failed utterly on the facts.

Nixon actually committed the crimes he was accused of. With Clinton you just have a lot of hyperbolic language and made up bullshit.