To: jttmab who wrote (797 ) 7/10/1999 1:49:00 PM From: jlallen Read Replies (1) | Respond to
Nixon was impeached for many of the very same infractions as Clinton and I've never heard any argument that Nixon's infractions should not result in impeachment. You are wrong about my knowledge on the impeachment/removal issue as well. I would submit that in this case what Clinton did was even worse than Nixon's attempted coverup of Watergate. In Clinton's case (BTW remember he's a lawyer and officer of the Court under oath in addition to his Presidential oath), he tried to deny another citizen her day in Court, guaranteed to her by the Constitution and laws he was sworn to faithfully execute by perjuring himself, offering false evidence to the Court and misusing the power of his office to cover up what HE did, not his dumb lackeys but HE himself. He then stonewalled an IC investigation and affirmatively lied to the American people costing the US Treasury millions of dollars. Your analogy to Hamilton is inapposite because Hamilton was never President. The President should be held to the highest standard as his is the highest elective office. But more to the point, it is a weak excuse for an argument to say that because someone else got away with behavior which should have resulted in impeachment, Clinton should to. This is a case of a very callous, amoral, unprincipled individual putting himself above the laws we all must abide. Nothing more. And I submit to you sir that is EXACTLY the type of offense impeachment was meant to remedy.
