>>."keep repeating the lies until it replaces the
truth." This disinformation (lies) campaign started during Clinton's first run for
president......especially during the debate with Bush......and, it has now become
standard operating procedure.>
Heck, that's the reason for Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr's existence. He's the keeper of the Kennedy lies, just as his father was for FDR. They were salaried court historians in effect, i.e., hagiographers for rent. Not that Jr isn't an extreme Leftist too.
Why there will be no censure:
December 30, 1998
Censure Would Prolong
The Ugliness
By Mike DeWine, a Republican and U.S. senator from Ohio.
A growing chorus implores the Senate to take the easy way out: Censure
the president and spare the country the "agony" of an impeachment trial. I
will not be a part of any such maneuver. The Senate should either convict or
acquit the president--nothing else.
The framers of the Constitution granted the Senate a singular power over
the president: "removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy
any office of honour, trust or profit, under the United States." Both the
Constitution itself (the offender would "nevertheless, be liable and subject to
indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment according to law") and the
historical record demonstrate that the Framers intended that any other
punishment would be meted out not by the Senate but by the courts "in the
ordinary course of the law" (Federalist No. 65).
And this is wise. To allow Congress to censure, fine or otherwise punish a
president would dramatically alter the balance of power between the
president and Congress, and significantly weaken the institution of the
presidency.
The Framers also required a trial in the Senate if a president is impeached in
the House. In an impeachment proceeding senators take a special oath and
sit not as a legislative body but as a jury. The jury model appropriated by
the Framers long has been recognized as bestowing civic benefits that
extend far beyond its capacity to reach the truth. A trial announces not
simply that a verdict has been reached, but vests that verdict in the
legitimacy that comes from the scrupulous adherence to pre-ordained
procedures and formalities.
Whether worked out with the president and his attorneys or negotiated just
among individual senators, a censure resolution is simply a deal. Whereas a
trial follows established rules and precedents, in a deal the participants
make the rules up as they go. Neither side gets to present its case. There is
no pretense of impartial decision making. It is simply a piece of political
craftsmanship. And while logrolling and favor-trading has its place in the
crafting of legislation, I do not believe that this is the proper manner to
dispose of duly enacted articles of impeachment.
If a censure deal is adopted, the deep wounds opened in this country by
impeachment will remain unhealed. The president's defenders will continue
to view the House impeachment vote as a naked exercise of partisan
political power, but will forever lack the historical recompense of a Senate
acquittal. Those who wish to remove the president will forever be denied
the opportunity to have their case heard by the Senate. Denied the closure
provided by the constitutional process, I fear that censure will not end, but
rather prolong the civic ugliness in which we are mired.
I have seen first-hand the costs of avoiding a trial on a contentious issue.
One of my lasting regrets about the time I served as a county prosecutor
was allowing a plea bargain in a case that had deeply divided our
community. While I believe the result was just, the lack of a trial was
detrimental to the community. Both sides were dissatisfied with the result,
and remained divided for years. A trial would have provided closure, and
cloaked the result in a legitimacy that even the fairest plea agreement could
not.
I also deeply disagree with those who argue for censure on the basis that a
trial would be too much of a distraction for the Senate and the nation. To
say the Senate does not have time to carry out its constitutional duty is to
suggest that we rewrite the Constitution. History will pay little attention to
how long the Senate spends on this matter. (Who remembers how long the
Andrew Johnson impeachment trial took?) What it will judge us on is the
fairness of the proceedings, and the condition in which we leave our
constitutional framework.
In my view there are only three permissible outcomes: (1) 51 Senators may
vote to dismiss the case at any point, the most logical time being after the
House managers have presented their case; (2) acquittal; or (3) conviction
and removal from office. That is all. Under no circumstances will I vote to
censure the president. The Senate's role is not to punish to president, it is
not to force the president to take responsibility for his actions, and it is not
to force him to recite some public act of contrition. The Senate's role is
simply to decide whether he is fit to remain in office. It should do so quickly
and move on.
interactive.wsj.com
Censure was an extra-constitutional diversion by Clinton defenders, nothing more. Republicans will oppose it for that principled reason and Dems will not support it after its raison d'etre has vanished.
It is sad to see Moynihan go out taking the low road to sophistry. I guess they have his FBI file too. |
