Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zoltan! who wrote (8011)	10/7/1998 5:59:00 PM
From: Les H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Impeachment Argument Spans Decades By GLEN JOHNSON Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) _ As the House nears a decision on beginning a presidential impeachment inquiry, the words of four legislators echo across the decades and take on new meaning. Four members of the current Congress served on the House Judiciary Committee in 1974 during its impeachment hearings against President Nixon. As they consider President Clinton's situation, it is often with words that run counter to arguments they made about the Republican president whose conduct was at issue 24 years ago. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, then a young Republican representative from Mississippi, had this to say in Nixon's defense: ''Could any man withstand such scrutiny, could any man go through all of this without some evidence of a questionable statement under pressure or while frustrated, or even without revealing some mistakes? I submit no.'' Today, Lott is untroubled by the mass of the investigation against Clinton and said recently that ''bad conduct'' alone could be grounds for impeachment. He is hardly alone in a role reversal that has created a mirror image of the Nixon proceedings. In 1974, Republicans preached caution as Congress investigated a president from their own party. Today, it's the Democratic Party complaining of a rush to judgment. In 1974, the Democrats warned about a president who had run amok, who had abused his office. Today, the same arguments come mainly from Republicans. A current member who sat on the Judiciary Committee for the Nixon hearings, Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., stressed the need for morality from public officials in 1974. ''What really is sad about this thing is that morality is no longer expected in government,'' he said. ''We don't hear anything about truth, morality, the protection of our Constitution in any of the presidential conversations, whether they be in the tape or whether they be edited transcripts.'' Last month, though, Rangel brushed off the Clinton allegations as far less serious than the charges Nixon faced. ''We were sent to Congress as legislators and not as marriage counselors,'' he said. Another member, Sen. Paul Sarbanes, D-Md., also has largely stood mute about the Clinton allegations. On the House Judiciary Committee in 1974, he stressed that the oath of office requires a president to ensure the nation's laws are faithfully executed. ''This duty to take care is affirmative,'' Sarbanes said at the time. ''So is the duty faithfully to execute the office. The president must carry out the obligations of his office diligently and in good faith.'' Lott, meanwhile, complained to the committee in 1974 about the ''reams of paper, thousands of pages, volumes of material'' gathered against Nixon. Today, he and his Republican allies have rebuffed attempts to crimp at least as exhaustive investigation into Clinton. The White House has taken notice. It recently pointed out that Lott signed the Judiciary Committee's minority report in 1974, which said framers of the Constitution ''intended that the president should be removable by the legislative branch only for serious misconduct dangerous to the system of government.'' Former White House press secretary Mike McCurry said: ''In 1974, Trent Lott signed a minority report for the committee that was quite clear. It was the kinds of crimes that subvert the Constitution and damage the country. And the question before the House is: Does the president's conduct in this instance rise to that level? And we argue strenuously that it does not.'' Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., is the only member of the 1974 panel who remains on the Judiciary Committee today. One of his statements then echoes one made today by many Republicans now. Conyers said of Nixon: ''The president took the power of his office and, under the guise of protecting and executing the laws that he swore to uphold, he abused them, and in so doing, he has jeopardized the strength and integrity of the Constitution and laws of the land and the protections that they ought to afford all of the people.'' As for Clinton, Conyers believes he has not done anything of Nixonian proportions. ''This is not Watergate,'' Conyers said as the Judiciary Committee met Monday. ''It is an extramarital affair.''