Comments by "Voix de la raison" (@voixdelaraison593) on "Spicer: Only thing bipartisan about impeachment is opposition to it" video.
-
Rose
IT IS TRULY INTERESTING HOW WHAT WAS ONCE IMORAL IS NOW “JUST DOING BUSINESS”
Sen. Grassley's closed-door impeachment statement
Released into Congressional Record, February 12, 1999
Excerpts From Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) 1999 Speech on Clinton Impeachment:
Some say that this impeachment effort is part of a right-wing conspiracy, it is a Republican plot to get a Democratic President. Let's look at how we got here and see if that argument holds up.
We are here because the President did wrongful acts. We are here because of the independent counsel law.
Opponents called it a tool of partisan attack against Republican Presidents and a waste of taxpayer funds. It was neither.
Also under the law, the Attorney General can initiate the dismissal of an independent counsel if he oversteps his bounds or acts improperly. Not only was this never done by the President's Attorney General but, in contrast, she even agreed several times to expand his jurisdiction, including to cover the Monica Lewinsky matter.
Also under the law, the independent counsel is obliged to send to the House any evidences of crimes that might be impeachable.
In short, this case came about through a legitimate, legal process. It is a process that historically was vigorously defended by this side of the aisle. There are various checks and balances built into the process. They are designed to prevent abuse by the independent counsel, but they were never triggered, even though the President's own Attorney General could move for dismissal.
No, this President is in this predicament because of his own private wrongdoing and because of public policy he pursued. There is no conspiracy.
The President's actions are having a profound impact, of course, upon our society. His misdeeds have caused many to mistrust elected officials. Cynicism is swelling among the grassroots. His breach of trust has eroded the public's faith in the office of the Presidency. The President's wrongdoing has painted all of us in Washington with a very broad brush.
The true tragedy in this case is the collapse of the President's moral authority. He undermined himself when he wagged his finger and lied to our people on national television, denying that relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. That did more damage to his credibility than any other single act.
There was no better reason than that for the resignation of the President. I did not personally call for his resignation in August. That is something the President should decide on his own. But once you lose your moral authority to lead, you are a failure.
The Presidency is not merely an administrative office. . ..It is preeminently a place of moral leadership.
Mr. Clinton should take note.
Next, there is the issue of the abuse of power and authority. The President used his position to enter into an improper relationship with a subordinate--not just a subordinate, a young intern. He later used his power to find her a job.
Another abuse of power: The full powers of the White House were on lease to stonewall the process and to attack the credibility of those who investigated him.
This White House has perfected the art of stonewalling around the truth. I fear that future White Houses will learn much from these experts and will refine and improve their own truth-fighting arsenals. Truth and openness will be casualties.
Last, there is the issue of the poor example the President's actions serve for the Nation, especially for our youth. Is it now OK to lie because the President does it?
These are all questions and issues that emerge from the broader contours of this case, outside the narrow charges in the articles.
With respect to the impeachment charges, many of the President's arguments are based on contorted interpretations of the facts. These interpretations aren't credible. They represent lawyering at its best or, as some would say, at its worst.
It is clear to me that the President committed serious crimes when he coached his secretary, Betty Currie, and when he misled his aides, Sidney Blumenthal and John Podesta. Each of these aides ended up being a witness in official court proceedings. I believe, based on the evidence before the Senate, that the President lied to these witnesses so they would repeat those lies before official court proceedings. That is obstruction of justice.
Mr. Chief Justice, these actions weren't just outrageous, and, more important, morally wrong, but they were also illegal. They were a direct assault on the integrity of the judicial process. The President is guilty of the offenses charged under article II.
The President was not forthright when he testified before the grand jury. Time and time again, he gave answers that were misleading and sometimes deliberately false. The American people have a right to expect their President to be completely truthful, as they can expect you and me to be completely truthful. And the American people have a right to expect their President to be truthful, especially when placed under oath. I will vote guilty on article I as well.
Mr. Chief Justice, these were not easy decisions. They are the product of soul-searching, as it is for all of you. So they leave me with a good conscience. I believe my votes reflect the truth of what happened in this case.
The Senate is about to close this chapter in American history. It may or may not be the final chapter in this story. Nonetheless, our decision in this impeachment trial will stand against the test of time. You only truly understand the present when it is past. In that respect, future generations will serve as our jury and, in the end, history will serve as the final judge. Thank you.
2
-
IT IS TRULY INTERESTING HOW WHAT WAS ONCE IMORAL IS NOW “JUST DOING BUSINESS”
Sen. Grassley's closed-door impeachment statement
Released into Congressional Record, February 12, 1999
Excerpts From Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) 1999 Speech on Clinton Impeachment:
Some say that this impeachment effort is part of a right-wing conspiracy, it is a Republican plot to get a Democratic President. Let's look at how we got here and see if that argument holds up.
We are here because the President did wrongful acts. We are here because of the independent counsel law.
Opponents called it a tool of partisan attack against Republican Presidents and a waste of taxpayer funds. It was neither.
Also under the law, the Attorney General can initiate the dismissal of an independent counsel if he oversteps his bounds or acts improperly. Not only was this never done by the President's Attorney General but, in contrast, she even agreed several times to expand his jurisdiction, including to cover the Monica Lewinsky matter.
Also under the law, the independent counsel is obliged to send to the House any evidences of crimes that might be impeachable.
In short, this case came about through a legitimate, legal process. It is a process that historically was vigorously defended by this side of the aisle. There are various checks and balances built into the process. They are designed to prevent abuse by the independent counsel, but they were never triggered, even though the President's own Attorney General could move for dismissal.
No, this President is in this predicament because of his own private wrongdoing and because of public policy he pursued. There is no conspiracy.
The President's actions are having a profound impact, of course, upon our society. His misdeeds have caused many to mistrust elected officials. Cynicism is swelling among the grassroots. His breach of trust has eroded the public's faith in the office of the Presidency. The President's wrongdoing has painted all of us in Washington with a very broad brush.
The true tragedy in this case is the collapse of the President's moral authority. He undermined himself when he wagged his finger and lied to our people on national television, denying that relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. That did more damage to his credibility than any other single act.
There was no better reason than that for the resignation of the President. I did not personally call for his resignation in August. That is something the President should decide on his own. But once you lose your moral authority to lead, you are a failure.
The Presidency is not merely an administrative office. . ..It is preeminently a place of moral leadership.
Mr. Clinton should take note.
Next, there is the issue of the abuse of power and authority. The President used his position to enter into an improper relationship with a subordinate--not just a subordinate, a young intern. He later used his power to find her a job.
Another abuse of power: The full powers of the White House were on lease to stonewall the process and to attack the credibility of those who investigated him.
This White House has perfected the art of stonewalling around the truth. I fear that future White Houses will learn much from these experts and will refine and improve their own truth-fighting arsenals. Truth and openness will be casualties.
Last, there is the issue of the poor example the President's actions serve for the Nation, especially for our youth. Is it now OK to lie because the President does it?
These are all questions and issues that emerge from the broader contours of this case, outside the narrow charges in the articles.
With respect to the impeachment charges, many of the President's arguments are based on contorted interpretations of the facts. These interpretations aren't credible. They represent lawyering at its best or, as some would say, at its worst.
It is clear to me that the President committed serious crimes when he coached his secretary, Betty Currie, and when he misled his aides, Sidney Blumenthal and John Podesta. Each of these aides ended up being a witness in official court proceedings. I believe, based on the evidence before the Senate, that the President lied to these witnesses so they would repeat those lies before official court proceedings. That is obstruction of justice.
Mr. Chief Justice, these actions weren't just outrageous, and, more important, morally wrong, but they were also illegal. They were a direct assault on the integrity of the judicial process. The President is guilty of the offenses charged under article II.
The President was not forthright when he testified before the grand jury. Time and time again, he gave answers that were misleading and sometimes deliberately false. The American people have a right to expect their President to be completely truthful, as they can expect you and me to be completely truthful. And the American people have a right to expect their President to be truthful, especially when placed under oath. I will vote guilty on article I as well.
Mr. Chief Justice, these were not easy decisions. They are the product of soul-searching, as it is for all of you. So they leave me with a good conscience. I believe my votes reflect the truth of what happened in this case.
The Senate is about to close this chapter in American history. It may or may not be the final chapter in this story. Nonetheless, our decision in this impeachment trial will stand against the test of time. You only truly understand the present when it is past. In that respect, future generations will serve as our jury and, in the end, history will serve as the final judge. Thank you.
1