Replies

And maybe those events, while bad and scandalous did not reach the level of Impeachement.

...or perhaps they did but the congress at the time simply lacked the backbone or partisan makeup to carry through with it much like the US Senate lacked the backbone to convict Clinton. Congress is a fundamentally political institution and, being one, they can and do opt for lesser but nevertheless certain expressions of disapproval than the extremely rare act of impeachment.

However, Clinton did get impeached for lying under oath.

Clinton got impeached on two counts - perjury and obstruction of justice.

Lincoln did not.

I don't believe Lincoln ever testified before a court on one of the many cases involving him thus the occasion for perjury would not arise. He did indeed obstruct justice though to the point of using military officers to harrass sitting judges, unconstitutionally suspending their salaries, and impeding their rulings from being carried out and their membership from meeting. Lincoln's obstruction of justice in those regards actually exceed Clinton's in severity.

And maybe those events, while bad and scandalous did not reach the level of Impeachement. ...or perhaps they did but the congress at the time simply lacked the backbone or partisan makeup to carry through with it much like the US Senate lacked the backbone to convict Clinton.

They got him impeached didn't they?

Congress is a fundamentally political institution and, being one, they can and do opt for lesser but nevertheless certain expressions of disapproval than the extremely rare act of impeachment.

And Congress is suppose to be the check on Presidental tyranny via impeachment.

Sorry, that your accusations against Lincoln have no historical validity, but you just go on continue living in the world of fantasy.

However, Clinton did get impeached for lying under oath. Clinton got impeached on two counts - perjury and obstruction of justice.

Lincoln did not. I don't believe Lincoln ever testified before a court on one of the many cases involving him thus the occasion for perjury would not arise. He did indeed obstruct justice though to the point of using military officers to harrass sitting judges, unconstitutionally suspending their salaries, and impeding their rulings from being carried out and their membership from meeting. Lincoln's obstruction of justice in those regards actually exceed Clinton's in severity.

I guess Congress did not see it that way.

Events were a little different, like a Civil War going on.

or perhaps they did but the congress at the time simply lacked the backbone or partisan makeup to carry through with it much like the US Senate lacked the backbone to convict Clinton.

Just under half of the congress was recalled by their states. Even the remaining puppets refused to authorize the suspension of habeas, and that was with the puppeteer's hand so far up their backside they probably squeaked when the talked.

Using lack of impeachement as evidence of support is a joke. By corallary, failing to try Jefferson Davis implies total judicial, legislative, and executive support of his actions.