<< By itself a reason for removal from office? Of course not.>>
This really is the crux of the matter, isn't it. Impeachment has nothing to do with legalities, and everything to do with politics. That was the purpose of impeachment when it was put into the Constitution, and will always be its purpose. We have a judicial system to handle legalities.
What is a good reason to remove someone from office? We've ousted Senators for sexual misconduct, we've ousted Congressmen for ethical issues, and we've ousted a President for lying and obstruction of justice. Reagan either lied or was mislead by subordinates, but went out of his way to cooperate with the investigation. Other Presidents have been guilty of sexual misconduct, but haven't covered it up. All Congressmen and most Presidents have been guilty of variable ethics. The difference is that Clinton is thought by many to guilty of all three.
Were his lapses as serious as those of others (were his lies as detrimental to the country, were his affairs interfering with the conduct of duties, do they have anything to do with his job)? Did Packwood's predatory practices affect his legislative duties? Did anyone care if they did?
The question you asked unfortunately is not relavent. If the Republicans think they can use this to increase their power at the expense of the Democrats, it will considered sufficient reason to oust Clinton, just as the Democrats pursued Nixon and Packwood, but left Reagan alone - they knew he was too popular to go after. If the Democrats think Clinton has become a liability in the great power struggle, they'll drop him like a hot rock. If they think the public will allow Clinton to stay, the Dems will support him, even if they have to preface everything with "we don't like what he did, but...."
The only good reason for ousting a President is because you don't want him there and you think you can get away with forcing him out. Everything else is just rationalizing. |
