<<The only way this process will be quick is if the polls and his fellow pols tell Clinton to resign. Who will be the Democratic Goldwater, to go to Clinton and say, "You've lost all support, and have to go, and I mean now"? >>
During Watergate, Republicans went to Nixon as you describe only after evidence emerged that Nixon was clearly guilty of at least many of the impeachable offenses alleged. The White House tapes were the smoking gun. Before that smoking gun, there was no Republican visit.
Unlike the current impeachment crisis, in Watergate virtually everyone in Congress agreed that if some of the more serious alleged impeachable offenses had indeed been committed by the President, they clearly did rise to an impeachable level. The charges included multiple instances of the President obstructing justice to cover up illegal efforts by his subordinates to subvert the election, and to make illegal use of Federal agencies (such as the IRS) to damage the President's enemies. So in Watergate the debate was all about did he do it? And how sure do we have to be? It was not about is this serious enough. When the smoking gun did indeed appear, yes, then some of his previous supports changed his mind. Of course. And Nixon resigned.
This is a very different situation. Most of the American public, and many legal scholars, do not think this alleged civil perjury, concerning only a consensual sexual affair, does not rise to an impeachable level. That it is not a High Crime and Misdemeanor.
Some at least of the facts are less in dispute here. But the import of the offense which can probably well established is very much in controversy. If it is impeachable, I think it is about the lowest threshold that could possibly be supported. And it think it should not be impeachable.
My central point is that the Constitution is very clear on one point. Not just any crime is impeachable. It has to be a serious one. And the constitution is very clear that the mere fact that the President is the one that commits the crime, does not automatically make the crime a High Crime. Otherwise, why the limitation? On the other hand, acts which by other people might not be so serious, if they constitute an abuse of the President's office, can be impeachable offenses under the Constitution. I think it is quite tortured to say that merely committing civil perjury to hide a politically damaging, but legal, sexual affair, is an abuse of office. Very tortured indeed.
Doug
|
