Maybe when Bill Clinton was impeached, he should have been removed. (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

During Bill Clinton’s Presidency I generally voted either Republican or libertarian; I was not a fan of his (I became a fan of Hillary much later.) Nonetheless I was opposed to his removal. It seemed to me at the time that lying under oath about sex was not a crime that warranted removal from office. 

But- Republicans at the time, Lindsay Graham among them, warned that if we accepted Clinton’s behavior, we would be going down a slippery slope in which society would be willing to accept Presidents behaving more and more unethical in the future. Now as a general rule I am not in favor of “slippery slope” arguments and I rejected this one. But look at today’s polling results: over half of the country doesn’t want Trump removed, and a good portion of them are OK with what he did. Per polling, its not that they accept his argument that he did nothing wrong (over 70% of the public thinks Trump did something wrong with Ukraine), it’s that they figure all or most of these big time politicians in both parties are corrupt, so what the hell? 

So maybe that goes back to Clinton. Maybe the Republicans 20 years ago were right, and we have fallen into that slippery slope and people are willing to accept Trump’s behavior because we said such things were OK when we let Bill lie under oath. Maybe we should have stood up then and said “no we can’t tolerate this” and tossed him out. And that would have changed things. 

Is there any merit to this? Or am I just full of it? 

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

am I just full of it? 

Is this your attempt to get a bunch of people banned?

 

[timschochet]

Is this your attempt to get a bunch of people banned?

lol No. I'm not sure my point here was valid, that's all.

 

[Kal El]

Honestly, we were headed down this slope whether or not Clinton got removed. I'm not sure his staying in office greatly affected the process today.

 

[Godsbrother]

back to Clinton. Maybe the Republicans 20 years ago were right, and we have fallen into that slippery slope and people are willing to accept Trump’s behavior because we said such things were OK when we let Bill lie under oath. Maybe we should have stood up then and said “no we can’t tolerate this” and tossed him out. And that would have changed things. 

Those that accept Trump's behavior don't believe he has done anything wrong.   His phone calls were perfect, he was only cracking down on corruption, and this has all been a witch hunt by a deep state that cannot accept the results of the 2016 election.

So no, it wouldn't have mattered if Clinton was removed from office or not. 

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

lol No. I'm not sure my point here was valid, that's all.

In my view there are reasonable arguments to be made that Clinton should have been removed.  But I think you’re delusional if you think that would change the views of Republicans about the Trump impeachment.

 

[timschochet]

Those that accept Trump's behavior don't believe he has done anything wrong.   His phone calls were perfect, he was only cracking down on corruption, and this has all been a witch hunt by a deep state that cannot accept the results of the 2016 election.

So no, it wouldn't have mattered if Clinton was removed from office or not. 

The bolded is wrong. You're talking about Trump's base, that's not who I was referring to.

Per polling: 70% think Trump did something wrong:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/70-americans-trumps-actions-tied-ukraine-wrong-poll/story?id=67088534

But only 50% support impeachment and removal:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/

So at least 20% of Americans- that's 60 million of us- think Trump did something wrong, but they don't want him removed. THAT'S who I'm talking about. Have these people become callous and cynical about politicians since Clinton? That's the question I'm asking.

 

[timschochet]

In my view there are reasonable arguments to be made that Clinton should have been removed.  But I think you’re delusional if you think that would change the views of Republicans about the Trump impeachment.

Again, I'm not asking about Trump supporters. I'm asking about centrist Republicans, independents, etc., who oppose Trump's removal even though they acknowledge he did something wrong.

 

[Maude]

It’s kind of like the OJ trial in that Trump has the right jury. 

 

[Godsbrother]

The bolded is wrong. You're talking about Trump's base, that's not who I was referring to.

Per polling: 70% think Trump did something wrong:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/70-americans-trumps-actions-tied-ukraine-wrong-poll/story?id=67088534

But only 50% support impeachment and removal:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/

So at least 20% of Americans- that's 60 million of us- think Trump did something wrong, but they don't want him removed. THAT'S who I'm talking about. Have these people become callous and cynical about politicians since Clinton? That's the question I'm asking.

Okay.  I was talking about the GOP in the congress and senate.

 

[Juxtatarot]

At that time I thought he should be removed.  Perjury is a serious crime.  However, I was happy in the end that he wasn’t removed.

That might seem like a contradiction but it’s how I felt.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

During Bill Clinton’s Presidency I generally voted either Republican or libertarian; I was not a fan of his (I became a fan of Hillary much later.) Nonetheless I was opposed to his removal. It seemed to me at the time that lying under oath about sex was not a crime that warranted removal from office. 

But- Republicans at the time, Lindsay Graham among them, warned that if we accepted Clinton’s behavior, we would be going down a slippery slope in which society would be willing to accept Presidents behaving more and more unethical in the future. Now as a general rule I am not in favor of “slippery slope” arguments and I rejected this one. But look at today’s polling results: over half of the country doesn’t want Trump removed, and a good portion of them are OK with what he did. Per polling, its not that they accept his argument that he did nothing wrong (over 70% of the public thinks Trump did something wrong with Ukraine), it’s that they figure all or most of these big time politicians in both parties are corrupt, so what the hell? 

So maybe that goes back to Clinton. Maybe the Republicans 20 years ago were right, and we have fallen into that slippery slope and people are willing to accept Trump’s behavior because we said such things were OK when we let Bill lie under oath. Maybe we should have stood up then and said “no we can’t tolerate this” and tossed him out. And that would have changed things. 

Is there any merit to this? Or am I just full of it? 

there is a reasonable theoretical link regarding what you are talking about, but I just don't see it in concrete terms.  I would say that people don't want him removed because:

-they simply support him virtually always

-don't really think that it's a truly impeachable offense

-have become inured to his ongoing buffoonery

-don't even really pay attention or care about politics and/or things outside of their immediate concern

I'm not sure what evidence you have to tie a direct link between this opinion of not impeaching and the Clinton impeachment.  I doubt that the majority of people could even explain what he did on the call with Ukraine and why it matters.

 

[[scooter]]

If Clinton had been removed from office, then Trump would have been subpoenaed in January 2019 and forced to answer an infinite number of random questions until he made a statement that could be interpreted as perjury.

 

[timschochet]

there is a reasonable theoretical link regarding what you are talking about, but I just don't see it in concrete terms.  I would say that people don't want him removed because:

-they simply support him virtually always

-don't really think that it's a truly impeachable offense

-have become inured to his ongoing buffoonery

-don't even really pay attention or care about politics and/or things outside of their immediate concern

I'm not sure what evidence you have to tie a direct link between this opinion of not impeaching and the Clinton impeachment.  I doubt that the majority of people could even explain what he did on the call with Ukraine and why it matters.

I don't . What I'm suggesting is that there MIGHT be a connection, in terms of the public simply assuming that "they're all corrupt". And maybe the Clinton impeachment (and Watergate before that, and Lyndon Johnson lying about Vietnam before that), has eroded the public trust in government to this point.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This is a long discussion, Tim.

 

[timschochet]

This is a long discussion, Tim.

Hey my favorite kind!

 

[FreeBaGeL]

The bolded is wrong. You're talking about Trump's base, that's not who I was referring to.

Per polling: 70% think Trump did something wrong:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/70-americans-trumps-actions-tied-ukraine-wrong-poll/story?id=67088534

But only 50% support impeachment and removal:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/

So at least 20% of Americans- that's 60 million of us- think Trump did something wrong, but they don't want him removed. THAT'S who I'm talking about. Have these people become callous and cynical about politicians since Clinton? That's the question I'm asking.

Two different polls with two different methodologies with two different margins of error.  I'm not sure they really work in conjunction like that, nor do they necessarily really represent all Americans.  Even further I think the percentage of the people that fall into the "he did something wrong, but shouldn't be removed" camp that would feel differently if Clinton had been removed is very small.

What Trump did is essentially Watergate, and Nixon was removed (resigned before he could be removed, but he would have).

 

[timschochet]

This is a long discussion, Tim.

Anyhow, you're a good person to ask, Saints, because , sorry to say, you come from a state where political corruption has never been an uncommon event. So I wonder if the voters in Louisiana have developed a somewhat jaded view about it? If we could create a microcosm within that state for what Trump has done- say, for instance, your governor held up funds from a district attorney unless the DA was willing to announce a grand jury investigation into one of the governor's rivals- would the public go for impeaching and removing the governor? Or would they shrug and say, "that's to be expected, we'll just vote him out of office."? What would be the outcome?

 

[timschochet]

What Trump did is essentially Watergate, and Nixon was removed (resigned before he could be removed, but he would have).

Right. And we agree that Nixon was removed, and Trump probably won't be. Which begs the question: has our society changed since 1974? Are we less moral? More cynical?

 

[Juxtatarot]

Right. And we agree that Nixon was removed, and Trump probably won't be. Which begs the question: has our society changed since 1974? Are we less moral? More cynical?

If there were conservative talk radio, conservative TV networks, and conservative websites in the early 70s, would Nixon have resigned?

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Right. And we agree that Nixon was removed, and Trump probably won't be. Which begs the question: has our society changed since 1974? Are we less moral? More cynical?

More hardcore tied to party over country at any cost.

 

[Murph]

Right. And we agree that Nixon was removed, and Trump probably won't be. Which begs the question: has our society changed since 1974? Are we less moral? More cynical?

I think in 1974 more Americans had a positive view of government than in 2019. And therefore there was greater outrage at Nixon's abuses of power.

Some may say that our more negative view of government is cynicism. But I'd say it's realism.

 

[timschochet]

If there were conservative talk radio, conservative TV networks, and conservative websites in the early 70s, would Nixon have resigned?

Great great question. Maybe not.

ALTHOUGH- there is some reason to believe that Nixon would not have been very popular among the sort of conservatives who listen to talk radio and watch Fox. Nixon wasn't very conservative at all, and had no hard line about anything- he was one of the most pragmatic Presidents we've ever had. Many of what we now consider our most liberal achievements were accomplished by Richard Nixon. So I'm not so sure. 

 

[Mr Anonymous]

I think in 1974 more Americans had a positive view of government than in 2019. And therefore there was greater outrage at Nixon's abuses of power.

Some may say that our more negative view of government is cynicism. But I'd say it's realism.

I agree with this. More is overlooked because it's hard not to believe that everyone is engaged in the same behavior. We have plenty of evidence that they are. (campaign finance abuses, blackface, lying, catering to special interests, etc.)

 

[IvanKaramazov]

In my view there are reasonable arguments to be made that Clinton should have been removed.  But I think you’re delusional if you think that would change the views of Republicans about the Trump impeachment.

I agree.  It's blindingly obvious that Republicans wouldn't have responded to any principle-rooted argument in favor of removing Trump.

 

[squistion]

Tim, if Clinton started us down a slippery slope, why was Bush not impeached for lying about WMDs and getting us in an unnecessary war that cost thousands of US lives? And where was the impeachment action for Obama? (I am sure they could found a reason if they were using this process for a President they didn't like). 

Yes,  you would be right if it had been routine for every President since Clinton to have had the House approve a vote for impeachment, but that didn't happen. Nor I think we will see again absent the same level of abuse of power and disregard of the Constitution from a future President that we have seen from Trump. 

 

[rockaction]

Maybe instead of cloistering with lawyers on message boards about lying under oath you might want to catch real Americans' sentiments about procedural crimes and executive agencies. 

That's where you're finding the problem here, not with any pop psychology or BOF SIDES kind of thing.  

 

[Mr Anonymous]

Maybe instead of cloistering with lawyers on message boards about lying under oath you might want to catch real Americans' sentiments about procedural crimes and executive agencies. 

That's where you're finding the problem here, not with any pop psychology or BOF SIDES kind of thing.  

That's really what it comes down to. If Americans reach a high enough level of support in polling in favor of impeachment and removal, then you know the President has done something worthy of it.

Gee, I feel like I've said that before. Maybe even many times.

 

[rockaction]

I think it would be better -- assuming the charge is lying under oath during with essentially two nothing burger investigations (THAT IS ASSUMING THAT) -- for our version of democracy if he stayed and then was voted out. That's my two cents.  

 

[skol asylum]

I don't think Clinton's offenses rose to removal but I definitely think Trump's do. I would not have been opposed to a President Gore. I still wouldn't. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't mind if Gore were given the nomination at a brokered convention.

I mean the guy invented the innernets and was warning of climate change when it wasn't cool. Lockbox people. We need a lockbox.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Anyhow, you're a good person to ask, Saints, because , sorry to say, you come from a state where political corruption has never been an uncommon event. So I wonder if the voters in Louisiana have developed a somewhat jaded view about it? If we could create a microcosm within that state for what Trump has done- say, for instance, your governor held up funds from a district attorney unless the DA was willing to announce a grand jury investigation into one of the governor's rivals- would the public go for impeaching and removing the governor? Or would they shrug and say, "that's to be expected, we'll just vote him out of office."? What would be the outcome?

Eh, well, I must say that this cheering for the corrupt populist phenomenon is something that is not uncommon to us, statewide and in NO and surrounding parishes, and all I can say is it's helped get us where we are today - No. 50.

 

[Henry Ford]

I’ll go one step further.  Many believe Johnson should have been removed from office and the fact that he wasn’t at least in part changed the course of history so dramatically that it’s one reason why the United States is still so divided on racial, gender, religious, and cultural grounds. That if Johnson had been removed then equality under the law could have been enshrined in the Constitution without a need for an Equal Rights Amendment, or a Civil Rights Act. Because the Congress would have passed an Amendment that would have included the sentence “All persons are equal before the law."  Proposed by the man who drew up the articles of impeachment.  And who was considered too radical so he and his faction were crushed along with that Amendment.  And impeachment.

The consequences of failing to remove a criminal President are significant. And we won’t really know what they are for years. 

 

[Mario Kart]

Whether or not Clinton should have or should not have been removed, to justify Trump's actions vs. Clinton's, does nothing for the country. Trump's multiple actions should not be compared to Clinton whatsoever due to the extreme nature of Trump's actions. If Trump was getting impeached over a personal matter... don't waste our time. He sought foreign government help... and got it. Nixon did far less and Nixon had the respect of the office to resign. Trump never had respect of the office as his actions prove.

 

[Henry Ford]

That's really what it comes down to. If Americans reach a high enough level of support in polling in favor of impeachment and removal, then you know the President has done something worthy of it.

Gee, I feel like I've said that before. Maybe even many times.

So if enough people support an unconstitutional or illegal act in a presidency, no one and nothing can or should stop him? If he has 50ish% support he should be allowed to do literally whatever he wants?

 

[AAABatteries]

Is this your attempt to get a bunch of people banned?

   

 

[Stealthycat]

Bill having an affair wasn't impeachable.

Bill lying under oath .... that was the the kicker. The very cornerstone of our judicial system is people HAVE to tell the truth under oath. When Bill didn't, he set a precedence that you absolutely can lie under oath and get away with it 

Should Bill have been removed from office? I don't know, I really don't ..... the GOP were witch hunting idiots to start the whole entire thing but the damage Bill did when he lied under oath was massive IMO

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Bill having an affair wasn't impeachable.

Yes it is, when the affair in question involves a subordinate.  This is the reason why Katie Hill rightly isn't in Congress anymore.  

 

[The Commish]

I think this is simply answered by asking the question, "Would Trump have been impeached during the Clinton 90s and/or the Nixon 70s?"  I'd argue that he wouldn't have even had a legit chance of being a candidate back then, but that aside, the obvious answer is "yes".  I personally think these events stand on their own and are independent of each other.  The actors involved is a different story.  What's going on today seem to be the self fulfilling prophecy of those who "warned" us two decades ago.  Actions speak louder than words IMO.

 

[Thunderlips]

It's interesting to see the GOP talking heads opinions on the concepts of perjury now.  Went from something very serious to being nothing more than a trap. 

 

[Stealthycat]

Yes it is, when the affair in question involves a subordinate.  This is the reason why Katie Hill rightly isn't in Congress anymore.  

I think with the massive sexual assault and infidelity that has been in DC for decades no, singling out Bill for it is hypocritical and much what the Democrats are doing right now with Trump

GOP wanted Bill gone - and that was how they saw to do it and it failed miserably and the GOP lost credibility in doing it too IMO

 

[joffer]

Aunt Bethany just wondered aloud how lying about an affair isn’t an abuse of power.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Yes it is, when the affair in question involves a subordinate.  This is the reason why Katie Hill rightly isn't in Congress anymore.  

I agree but during that lame duck impeachment session there wasn't a sexual harassment article that got the votes to move on to the Senate.  Part of this was all but one democrat refused to go along, but there was also a third or so of the republicans which wouldn't cross this bridge in the strange (to me at least) forth article for "abuse of power".    By 1998 I had female subordinates that would have otherwise been attractive so I grasped the consequences, but I'm not sure that most of America had gotten there yet.  (Hoping that they are even there now, but I'm not always so sure.)

So to @timschochetquestions - Yes Clinton should have been impeached and removed for sexual harassment and waving his finger at the American public (me) and lying.  

But "no" the GOP was not right all along.  Maybe in aspects you are mentioning about the eventual consequences, but their approach and eventual charges was all wrong.  And that plays into these consequences.  I'm not sure though that the slippery slope was that you could lie and get away with it as president though as much as create the narrative that to impeach you need "the underlying crime" for an obstruction charge.  In other words the 10 cases of obstruction in the Mueller report were not considered  impeachable worthy because the underlying crimes couldn't be tied to Trump would be the natural follow.  (Not my opinion on what "should be", but what apparently is.)

In the Trump impeachment case though I assume that there is no way there isn't enough votes for the "abuse of power" article which, as long as we don't slide any more would make this different.  But absent some miracle we will slide some more...

But then again as rare as impeachment is for any office yet alone removal, I'm not sure the Senate ever clears the threshold to remove any president.  But as soon as they do it will lead to more slippery slopes.

 

[Dickies]

At that time I thought he should be removed.  Perjury is a serious crime.  However, I was happy in the end that he wasn’t removed.

That might seem like a contradiction but it’s how I felt.

I've been self-reflecting on this since the impeachment inquiry started, so I appreciate tim starting this thread.  I totally get where you are coming from since it's how I feel about it now.  At the time I did not think he should be removed

Even if he was removed I wouldn't have been upset with Gore as President.

 

[BassNBrew]

Interesting topic Tim.  Enjoyed everyone else's thought too.

 

[IC FBGCav]

During Bill Clinton’s Presidency I generally voted either Republican or libertarian; I was not a fan of his (I became a fan of Hillary much later.) Nonetheless I was opposed to his removal. It seemed to me at the time that lying under oath about sex was not a crime that warranted removal from office. 

But- Republicans at the time, Lindsay Graham among them, warned that if we accepted Clinton’s behavior, we would be going down a slippery slope in which society would be willing to accept Presidents behaving more and more unethical in the future. Now as a general rule I am not in favor of “slippery slope” arguments and I rejected this one. But look at today’s polling results: over half of the country doesn’t want Trump removed, and a good portion of them are OK with what he did. Per polling, its not that they accept his argument that he did nothing wrong (over 70% of the public thinks Trump did something wrong with Ukraine), it’s that they figure all or most of these big time politicians in both parties are corrupt, so what the hell? 

So maybe that goes back to Clinton. Maybe the Republicans 20 years ago were right, and we have fallen into that slippery slope and people are willing to accept Trump’s behavior because we said such things were OK when we let Bill lie under oath. Maybe we should have stood up then and said “no we can’t tolerate this” and tossed him out. And that would have changed things. 

Is there any merit to this? Or am I just full of it? 

I am just amazed at the free time you have.

 

[TripItUp]

He should have never been impeached and certainly shouldn't have been removed.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Republicans at the time, Lindsay Graham among them, warned that if we accepted Clinton’s behavior, we would be going down a slippery slope in which society would be willing to accept Presidents behaving more and more unethical in the future. Now as a general rule I am not in favor of “slippery slope” arguments and I rejected this one. But look at today’s polling results: over half of the country doesn’t want Trump removed, and a good portion of them are OK with what he did. Per polling, its not that they accept his argument that he did nothing wrong (over 70% of the public thinks Trump did something wrong with Ukraine), it’s that they figure all or most of these big time politicians in both parties are corrupt, so what the hell? 

So maybe that goes back to Clinton. Maybe the Republicans 20 years ago were right, and we have fallen into that slippery slope and people are willing to accept Trump’s behavior because we said such things were OK when we let Bill lie under oath. Maybe we should have stood up then and said “no we can’t tolerate this” and tossed him out. And that would have changed things. 

I think this is a little like RHE's original post in the Nerdy Impeachment thread. And I think that you could loop Johnson's impeachment into this as well because Johnson's was partly about his unconstitutional behavior but also about his personal misbehavior - misdemeanor - disqualifying him from office.

But I think you misstate it. Clinton did not break any law. He at worst, arguably, suborned perjury in a civil suit and lied under oath in a civil lawsuit. Those were civil matters, no one would have been charged with such things in normal life. And the House did indeed find that impeachable. Like all things Clinton the difficulty was that it was a grey area, not quite illegal but definitely unethical. What to do? The House established his behavior was disqualifying, just as the House had decided so with Johnson's.

The House is not impeaching Trump because of his behavior. They are impeaching him because he used official acts - dispensing military aid and using a visit to the Oval Office - for private purposes, which is the definition of corruption. This is the first time that impeachment has been used for the core purpose of the clause, to call out a President who was using his office at the best of foreign purposes and for private purposes. That captures the spirit of both treason and bribery, and IMO the phrase 'high crimes and misdemeanors' was meant to capture actions in that spirit even if they did not meet the letter by letter definition of those two things, which is what I think we have here.

 

[Mene]

I still subscribe to George Conway's thoughts on the matter.  It's a question of whether you feel the behavior bringing about the impeachment will be repeated if the president is not removed.  It was incredibly unlikely that Clinton was going to have another affair with a subordinate, or pressure anyone else to lie under oath.  It is highly likely that Trump will continue to abuse the power of the presidency, as well as obstruct congress. 

 

[TripItUp]

I still subscribe to George Conway's thoughts on the matter.  It's a question of whether you feel the behavior bringing about the impeachment will be repeated if the president is not removed.  It was incredibly unlikely that Clinton was going to have another affair with a subordinate, or pressure anyone else to lie under oath.  It is highly likely that Trump will continue to abuse the power of the presidency, as well as obstruct congress. 

The Senate majority disagrees with you.

 

[The Commish]

The Senate majority disagrees with you.

Which part?