AHC: Bill Clinton Impeached

[usertron2020]

UT,

lying under oath, conspiracy to withhold and destroy evidence, witness tampering and obstruction of justice are worthy of removal from office... Martha Stewart did shit less than that and got 12 months in prison

forget how hypocritical the accusers were... Bill Clinton engaged in the following scenario

Boss A (bill) sexually solicited employee B (Jones)
employee B sued Boss A for sexual harassment
employee B's legal team discovers Boss A has a sexual relationship with employee C (monica)
employee B's legal team brings up relationship with employee C as material evidence of Boss A's habit of soliciting women in the work place to enhance their case
Boss A instructs employee C to destroy gifts/photographs (physical evidence of their affair) and to deny the affair to the grand jury and himself denies the affair (witness tampering, conspiracy and perjury)


in any real world case like this Boss A would be referred by employee B's team for criminal prosecution

and it wasn't a perjury trap... it was material evidence to be disclosed to a grand jury;

Except that the interests of those seeking redress were wholly in terms of whatever damage they could inflict on Clinton WHILE HE WAS IN OFFICE! Their goals being completely political, and not giving a goddam about Paula Jones is reflected not only by McMillan engineering the firing of Davis & Cammaratta (who had gotten Jones the best possible deal she was going to get anyway), but by the fact that once Clinton had survived impeachment AND left office in 2001 all the political funding for the various Clinton Wars PACs promptly dried up.

It was never about the criminal justice system, much less about Paula Jones' civil rights. It was what it always was: Nailing Slick Willie by any means necessary. That, the "liberal democrats" understood. For that matter, so did the Republicans. The difference was, the GOP was being completely disingenuous about their true motives.

 

[BlairWitch749]

Except that the interests of those seeking redress were wholly in terms of whatever damage they could inflict on Clinton WHILE HE WAS IN OFFICE! Their goals being completely political, and not giving a goddam about Paula Jones is reflected not only by McMillan engineering the firing of Davis & Cammaratta (who had gotten Jones the best possible deal she was going to get anyway), but by the fact that once Clinton had survived impeachment AND left office in 2001 all the political funding for the various Clinton Wars PACs promptly dried up.

It was never about the criminal justice system, much less about Paula Jones' civil rights. It was what it always was: Nailing Slick Willie by any means necessary. That, the "liberal democrats" understood. For that matter, so did the Republicans. The difference was, the GOP was being completely disingenuous about their true motives.

why should jones have had to settle; she was entitled to her day in court if she wanted it,

attacking the accusers as hypocrites or politically motivated (which I don't dispute) doesn't reduce or change the crimes bill was actually guilty of (conspiracy, obstruction, perjury and witness tampering)

in any sort of functioning justice system bill would have been referred for criminal charges for those 4 items and served the appropriate penalty

"it's not illegal if the president does it" nobody should be above the law

 

[Cook]

...doesn't reduce or change the crimes bill was actually guilty of...

I had to re-read this a couple of times to work out that this wasn’t a reference to a crimes bill that had been introduced to Congress, but was actually what crimes Bill had got away with.


Sorry, continue…

 

[Derek Jackson]

WI The Starr report and Lewisnki revelations came out later, after the mid termelections in 1998

In otl it seems to me that Clinton benefited from the reaction to the impeachment movement.

If Dems panicked I can kind of imagine a number thinking voting for conviction would be the safest thing

I can also see a huge hostile public reaction

 

[usertron2020]

why should jones have had to settle; she was entitled to her day in court if she wanted it,

attacking the accusers as hypocrites or politically motivated (which I don't dispute) doesn't reduce or change the crimes bill was actually guilty of (conspiracy, obstruction, perjury and witness tampering)

in any sort of functioning justice system bill would have been referred for criminal charges for those 4 items and served the appropriate penalty

"it's not illegal if the president does it" nobody should be above the law

And I could agree to that, IF IT WERE ALL LEFT TO AFTER HIS PRESIDENCY! But as you say, that wasn't the real driving force behind all this, was it? It wasn't about Jones getting her day in court, but dragging a Democratic President ass-naked and backwards through the legal briar patch. THAT is why two hard core right wing political operatives like Davis and Cammaratta were FIRED. Because in the end, they were lawyers FIRST, and political operatives SECOND. They stayed true to the best interests of their client, which they saw as being Paula Jones, NOT the Vast Right Ring Conspiracy[SIZE=-4](tm)[/SIZE] (VRWC).

The VRWC[SIZE=-4](tm)[/SIZE] had NO interest whatsoever in suing an ex-President, no matter what financial or criminal penalties he may have faced. As to "no one being above the law", this is all stemming from a CIVIL SUIT, and everything coming out of it. NOT from a break-in to Republican Campaign Headquarters. The American People got it right. If justice for Paula Jones was what you wanted, while avoiding the farce of civil suits against a present sitting (AND FUTURE SITTING) President of the United States, then a post-1/20/2001 suit is harmless. BUT, harming Democratic POTUSes was what the VRWC[SIZE=-4](tm)[/SIZE] was all about, so...

 

[usertron2020]

WI The Starr report and Lewisnki revelations came out later, after the mid termelections in 1998

In otl it seems to me that Clinton benefited from the reaction to the impeachment movement.

If Dems panicked I can kind of imagine a number thinking voting for conviction would be the safest thing (1)

I can also see a huge hostile public reaction (2)

Derek Jackson

Not to be sarcastic, but were you politically aware at the time?

1) Its hard to know what margin the Republicans would have enjoyed following a sixth year White House incumbent off-year election (without Monicagate), but the predictions for the Senate were about 5-6 pickups for the GOP (it was a wash OTL). If that happened, you'd still be about 7-8 votes short. And this, in an environment of no compromise from the GOP and a smaller, more radicalized Democratic Senate caucus. And a House Republican Caucus with such an overwhelming majority (they were predicted to pickup 30-40 seats, not losing five seats as OTL) that not only would they ignore the House Democrats, as OTL, but probably tack on a couple more Impeachment Articles as well.

2) Yes, but I'm not sure in what way you mean. Remember that this would have been when the worst of Newt's actions became public (never happened during Impeachment), and the peccadilloes (as OTL) of hypocritical House members would still be coming to light (perhaps, with additional time, with more Republican affairs exposed). Gore elected in a landslide, Democratic Control of the House, GOP control of the Senate by a slender reed. If this seems too much, remember 2000 was the election in which the 1994 Gingrich Landslide would be defending itself in the Senate.

 

[BlairWitch749]

And I could agree to that, IF IT WERE ALL LEFT TO AFTER HIS PRESIDENCY! But as you say, that wasn't the real driving force behind all this, was it? It wasn't about Jones getting her day in court, but dragging a Democratic President ass-naked and backwards through the legal briar patch. THAT is why two hard core right wing political operatives like Davis and Cammaratta were FIRED. Because in the end, they were lawyers FIRST, and political operatives SECOND. They stayed true to the best interests of their client, which they saw as being Paula Jones, NOT the Vast Right Ring Conspiracy[SIZE=-4](tm)[/SIZE] (VRWC).

The VRWC[SIZE=-4](tm)[/SIZE] had NO interest whatsoever in suing an ex-President, no matter what financial or criminal penalties he may have faced. As to "no one being above the law", this is all stemming from a CIVIL SUIT, and everything coming out of it. NOT from a break-in to Republican Campaign Headquarters. The American People got it right. If justice for Paula Jones was what you wanted, while avoiding the farce of civil suits against a present sitting (AND FUTURE SITTING) President of the United States, then a post-1/20/2001 suit is harmless. BUT, harming Democratic POTUSes was what the VRWC[SIZE=-4](tm)[/SIZE] was all about, so...

UT,

relax man, keep it to arena of ideas... you aren't dealing someone trying to justify newt et all himself

it COULDN'T wait till after Clinton's presidency... the incident with Paula Jones happened in 1991... the statute of limitations in AR for sexual harassment was only 36 months; so if she didn't file by 1994 she couldn't file ever

the supreme court (including clinton friendly justices like john paul stevens) ruled UNANIMOUSLY that he couldn't postpone the lawsuit; although judge weber granted him large scale special privilages like not having to be deposed in front of the grand jury in person

cameretta may have liked the first offer... but he was also actively raping paula jones with asb legal fees, and of course he would want to accept because that would get him paid the fastest, Paula Jones (admittedly partisan hack) second legal team secured a much larger settlement (which means they accomplished their job)

bringing up nixon is unnecessary, what he did was worse; but what is your point that because committed a less heinous crime than nixon that he isn't a criminal worthy of punishment? and as much as the witch hunters were gigantic scumbags in their own right there is no defense to be made of bill or his actions

 

[usertron2020]

BlairWitch749

In the legal arena your arguments are rock solid and right on.

But remember that Impeachment, Senate Trial, Conviction, and Removal are all exercises in politics, not legality. Meaning that everything is all about PERCEPTION, not the law. That's why in the Senate Trial Chief Justice Rehnquist was so powerless. He could preside, but it was the individual Senators, all on an equal level (no seniority, nothing about who was on what committee, or committee chairmanship, or in which party, who made the rules.

Which is exactly why the politics of the matter were so important. These were democratically elected representatives sent by their states to act not as judges, but as legislators. And the POV of the American People DID make a huge difference to these people. Even if the Dems had taken a bath in 1998, instead of the other way around, individual Senators of Blue States would be justified to (and constitutionally quite free to) follow the wishes of their constituents. That's why Trial, Conviction, and Removal is not carried out by the Judiciary.

As an example of what was going on even in the hyper-partisan House, when the House Judiciary Committee (1) was taking Ken Starr's testimony? One of the Republican members (a future Impeachment Manager, tho I confess I don't remember his name) said to Starr: "In your opinion, Judge Starr, wouldn't it be unconstitutional for the Senate to disrespect the decision of the House after it voted for Impeachment?" Well, Starr was too much a constitutional lawyer to swallow this claptrap, as much as he was loving the GOP's softballs, so he said: "Well, I'm not sure I could agree with that..." The jeers (led by Barney Frank) from the Dems on the committee were loud and long.

1) Both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees are filled to bursting with the most fanatical of both parties. They tend to come from the safest of seats, and are True Believers looking to secure things like judgeships for their side.

EDIT: Sorry if I sounded like I was lumping you with the fanatics in the Hard Right. For a long time, you've made your disgust of the VRWC[SIZE=-4](tm)[/SIZE] quite clear. As in being Slick Willie's biggest enablers.