Posted on 06/02/2005 10:09:10 AM PDT by Kaslin
But Clinton's misdeeds, unreported, made him controllable.
Nixon was a patriot but did a lot of things not in our long-term interest. (wage and price freeze, opening China, detente..)
You could say that Clinton was the only ELECTED president to be impeached.
Andrew Johnson was not elected as president, but of course was Lincoln's vice president (and a Democrat at that! - it was some kind of fusion ticket), and only became president when Lincoln was killed.
Maybe a minor distinction, but it is made. Certainly 1868, coming off a civil war (or whatever one wishes to call the conflict) was an unusual time.
Some would argue that the Vitenam War era was an unusual time as well.
What was Clinton's excuse, one might ask.
:)
I "could" say bubbafucco was the only one whos name started with a C to ever be impeached. The statement was only president impeached. I suggested he was in error as he was . Elected or not two presidents have been impeached.....
Stay safe !
Understood! No desire to split hairs, although maybe that's what I did.
But I have heard it pointed out that way.
Thanks for good wishes - back at ya!
In another thread it was claimed that Deep Throat was not necessary to the unraveling of the Watergate conspiracy because one of the original burglars, unhappy with lack of payments, wrote a letter to a judge. Within days of the burglary Nixon is taped in the Oval Office claiming that a million dollars could be raised for such payments.
In a separate matter, Nixon was, I believe, charged in the articles of impeachment (voted out of committee) with using a forged document to establish the date of a contribution that resulted in a great tax advantage to which he would otherwise not be entitled.
The historical revisionists are hard at work.
A federal grand jury named the president in March 1974 as an unindicted coconspirator in a conspiracy to obstruct justice in the Watergate investigation.
HILLARY'S WATERGATE SCANDAL
Crime/Corruption News Keywords: HILLARY/ETHICS/WATERGATE
Source: NY Post
Published: 16 August 1999 Author: JERRY ZEIFMAN
Posted on 08/16/1999 09:14:51 PDT by fintan
She violated House and committee rules by disclosing confidential information to unauthorized persons. IN December 1974, as general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, I made a personal evaluation of Hillary Rodham (now Mrs. Clinton), a member of the staff we had gathered for our impeachment inquiry on President Richard Nixon. I decided that I could not recommend her for any future position of public or private trust.
Why? Hillary's main duty on our staff has been described by her authorized biographer as "establishing the legal procedures to be followed in the course of the inquiry and impeachment." A number of the procedures she recommended were ethically flawed. And I also concluded that she had violated House and committee rules by disclosing confidential information to unauthorized persons.
Hillary had conferred personally with me regarding procedural rules. I advised her that Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino, House Speaker Carl Albert, Majority Leader Tip O'Neill and I had previously agreed not to advocate anything contrary to the rules already adopted and published for that Congress. I quoted Mr. O'Neill's statement that: "To try to change the rules now would be politically divisive. It would be like trying to change the traditional rules of baseball before a World Series."
Hillary assured me that she had not drafted and would not advocate any such rules changes. I soon learned that she had lied: She had already drafted changes, and continued to advocate them.
In one written legal memorandum, she advocated denying President Nixon representation by counsel. This, though in our then-most-recent prior impeachment proceeding, the committee had afforded the right to counsel to Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas.
I also informed Hillary that the Douglas impeachment files were available for public inspection in our offices. I later learned that the Douglas files were then removed from our general files without my permission, transferred to the offices of the impeachment inquiry staff, and were no longer accessible to the public.
The young Ms. Rodham had other bad advice about procedures, arguing that the Judiciary Committee should neither 1) hold any hearings with or take the depositions of any live witnesses, nor 2) conduct any original investigation of Watergate, bribery, tax evasion, or any other possible impeachable offense of President Nixon - but to rely instead on prior investigations conducted by other committees and agencies.
The committee rejected Ms. Rodham's recommendations: It agreed to allow President Nixon to be represented by counsel and to hold hearings with live witnesses.
Hillary then advocated that the official rules of the House be amended to deny members of the committee the right to question witnesses. This unfair recommendation was rejected by the full House. (The committee also vetoed her suggestion that it leave the drafting of the articles of impeachment to her and her fellow special staffers.)
The recommendations advocated by Hillary were apparently initiated or approved by Yale Law School professor Burke Marshall - in violation of committee and House rules on confidentiality. They were also advocated by her immediate supervisors, Special Counsel John Doar and Senior Associate Special Counsel Bernard Nussbaum, both of whom had worked under Marshall in the Kennedy Justice Department.
It was not until two months after Nixon's resignation that I first learned of still another questionable role of Ms. Rodham. On Sept. 26, 1974, Rep. Charles Wiggins, a Republican member of the committee, wrote to ask Chairman Rodino to look into a troubling set of events. That spring, Wiggins and other committee members had asked "that research should be undertaken so as to furnish a standard against which to test the alleged abusive conduct of Richard Nixon." And, while "no such staff study was made available to the members at any time for their use," Wiggins had just learned that such a study had been conducted - at committee expense - by a team of professors who completed and filed their reports with the impeachment-inquiry staff well in advance of our public hearings.
The report was not made available to members of Congress. But after the impeachment-inquiry staff was disbanded, it was published commercially and sold in book stores.
Wiggins wrote that he was "especially troubled by the possibility that information deemed essential by some of the members in their discharge of their responsibilities may have been intentionally suppressed by the staff during the course of our investigation."
On Oct. 3, Rodino wrote back: "Hillary Rodham of the impeachment-inquiry staff coordinated the work. ... After the staff received the report it was reviewed by Ms. Rodham, briefly by Mr. Labovitz and Mr. Sack, and by Mr. Doar. The staff did not think the manuscript was useful in its present form."
On the charge of willful suppression, he wrote: "That was not the case ... The staff did not think the material was usable by the committee in its existing form and had not had time to modify it so it would have practical utility for the members of the committee. I was informed and agreed with the judgment."
During my 14-year tenure with the House Judiciary Committee, I had supervisory authority over several hundred staff members. With the exception of Ms. Rodham, Doar and Nussbaum, I recommend all of them for future positions of public and private trust.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a37b838fb5c82.htm
Johnson WAS Impeached and avoided conviction in the Senate by 1 vote. Clinton WAS imeached and avoided conviction in the Senate by 16 votes.
Referring to his past escapades and first time running for Prez, I can remember Hillary saying "lovingly" on TV...We've worked it out. I guess that meant "just don't get caught".
Such love between these two pieces of crud.
Let me get this straight:
Clinton was 'impeachable', but not 'convictable'.
Nixon was a 'criminal', but not 'impeachable'?
Since when does impeachment (indictment for 'high crimes and misdemeanors') mean anything more than what a majority of the House says it means?
You refer to an audit (perhaps politcally motivated) of one of his income tax returns. The statute of limitations had expired on that year (meaning the IRS could not legally assess any additional tax), but Nixon voluntarily waived the statute and paid the additional tax due. You'll never see any democrat do that. The issue of whether Nixon had any crimnal evasion possibilities was never proven, otherwise the rats would have used it immediately.
I would be surprised to hear that the Judiciary Committee had recommended to the House an article of impeachment regarding a tax return that could not be proved.
Also, are you sure about the statute of limitations? There may be a time limit to challenging the accuracy of a tax return for purposes of amending the tax due. This is not necessarily the same as a statute of limitation concerning commission of a felony by use of a forged document. Perhaps you can clarify what you are suggesting and also suggest a reason that Nixon paid the tax.
I was working for the IRS at the time it happened. There is a 3 year civil statute barring additional assessments unless 25% or more of your income was omitted from the return, then it is a 6 year statute. There is no statute of limitations if there is fraud. Since the issue involved a deduction from income, not the omission of income the 6 year statute did not apply. The fraud aspect of the back dated document was never pursued by the IRS, otherwise he wouldn't have needed to voluntarily waive his rights to civilly pay the tax.
My guess is the IRS couldn't prove Nixon knew the appraisal was back dated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.