Take a look at what the GOP actually said while you had your fingers in your ears back in 1998, and put it in your back pocket for future use. You never know when it might come in handy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/impeach121498.htmTOM DELAY:
"I would just hope," said DeLay, "that the president would
put the American people ahead of his own ambitions and resign."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/barrtext121198.htmBOB BARR (R-Ga.):
While reverence for parallels with the Nixon impeachment is seductive but inappropriate, there are some points worth noting. In the Nixon case, for example,
lying to Congress and to the American people in just such a manner, provoked a separate article of impeachment. Is the
danger of such an attack on our constitutional processes any less dangerous today?
Sadly, I believe the case we are discussing today is
but a small manifestation of ...utter and complete disregard for the rule of law. Throughout his presidency, his administration has been so successful at thwarting investigations and obstructing the work of Congress and the courts, that it may be decades before history reveals the vastness of his abuse of power, or the extent of the damage it has wrought. (I think this one is my favorite.)President Clinton apparently subscribes to the same theory Richard Nixon articulated in a 1977 interview with David Frost. Nixon said
"When the president does it, that means it is not illegal." That was dead wrong then, and it is dead wrong today -- wrong, that is, unless one subscribes to the principle that the president is not only above the law, but that he is the law. (No, this one is my favorite!)http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/hutchinsonstext121198.htmASA HUTCHINSON (R-Ark.):
I believe the damage to the State and to the integrity of government occurs when those in high office violate a court oath and the constitutional oath to assure the faithful execution of the laws.
One of the president's own witnesses, former Congressman Wayne Owens, stated in 1974 that for an action to be impeachable conduct, quote, "It must be a violation of a principle of conduct which members of the House determine should be applied to all future presidents and established as a constitutional precedent," end quote.
I believe Mr. Owens is correct. I have no trouble in setting a benchmark that future presidents cannot willfully and repeatedly lie under oath in an official judicial proceeding without jeopardizing their office. On the contrary, I have a great deal of trouble in lowering the standards to say to future presidents, "Lying under oath, no matter how often and now matter how intentional, is considered acceptable conduct."
As the Supreme Court said in the "United States vs. Holland," quote, "Perjury, regardless of the setting, is a serious offense that results in incalculable harm to the function of the legal system, as well to private individuals," end quote.
In my judgment, perjury goes to the heart of our judicial process and our very system of government and constitutes a "high crime and misdemeanor."...
The final argument of the president is that to go forward with an impeachment trial would traumatize the country. First, as usual, I believe that the trauma is overstated. But more importantly, the strength of the Constitution is understated. I believe our Constitution is strong, and we need to follow it and trust it. It will work as the Founding Fathers designed it. As Barbara Jordan (sp) stated in a similar time in 1974, my faith in the Constitution is whole. It is complete. It is total. I share that belief.
...My preeminent concern is that the Constitution be followed and that all Americans, regardless of their position in society, receive equal and unbiased treatment in our courts of law.
The fate of no president, no political party, and no member of Congress merits a slow unraveling of the fabric of our constitutional structure. As John Adams said, we are a nation of laws, not of men.Our nation has survived the failings of its leaders before, but it cannot survive exceptions to the rule of law in our system of equal justice for all. There will always be differences between the powerful and the powerless. But imagine a country where a Congress agrees the strong are treated differently than the weak, where mercy is the only refuge for the powerless, where the power of our positions govern all of our decisions. Such a country cannot long endure. God help us to do what is right, not just for today, but for the future of this nation and for those generations that must succeed us.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/peasetext121198.htm"
EDWARD PEASE (R-Ind.):
As I have earlier observed,
I am not prepared to accept that the standard of performance for an American president is simply that he or she is not indictable. I agree with those who assert that every American is entitled to privacy in his or her personal life and that, no matter what we may think of another's actions in that regard, it is, to use the vernacular, simply none of our business -- period.
Our business does include, through, the performance of public duties, the integrity of the judicial process, and the protection and defense of the Constitution. Accordingly, I have concluded that perjury or false statements under oath, obstruction of justice and
abuse of the Office of the Presidency are all impeachable offenses. I believe, given the facts before this committee, that each of them has been proven by a preponderance of the evidence in this case.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/rogantext121198.htm"
JAMES ROGAN (R-Ca.):
Next, the Constitution solemnly required President Clinton, as a condition of his becoming president,
to swear an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and to take care that our nation's laws be faithfully executed.That oath of obligation required the president to defend our laws that protect women in the workplace,
just as it also required him to protect our legal system from perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power. Fidelity to the presidential oath is not dependent on any president's personal threshold of comfort or embarrassment. Neither must it be a slave to the latest polling data. Even more disturbing is the current readiness of some to embrace out of political ease a thoroughly bastardized oath, so long as the offender expresses generalized contrition while at the same time rejecting meaningful constitutional accountability.
...
There is no business of government more important than upholding the rule of law. A sound economy amounts to nothing beside it, because without the rule of law, all contracts are placed in doubt and all rights to property become conditional.
National security is not more important than the rule of law, because without it, there can be no security and there is little left defending. And the personal popularity of any president when weighed against this one fundamental concept that forever distinguishes us from every other nation -- no person is above the rule of law.
Mr. Chairman, the evidence clearly shows that the president engaged in a repeated and lengthy pattern of felonious conduct, conduct for which ordinary citizens can and have been routinely prosecuted and jailed. This simply cannot be wished or censured away. With his conduct aggravated by a motivation of personal and pecuniary leverage rather than by national security or some other legitimate government function, the solemnity of my own oath of office obliges me to do what the president has failed to do -- defend the rule of law, despite any personal or political costs.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/bonotext121198.htm
MARY BONO (R-Ca.):
How can anyone look their children in the eye and tell them that they must tell truth, after they see the president of the United States lie to the entire nation on television?
He abused his power as chief executive to protect himself at the expense of his family, his friends, his Cabinet and sadly, the American people.
I do believe the public deserves a president who adheres to a higher principle, and I am not afraid to admit that. It is what our forefathers fought and died for; it is what our veterans risked their lives for; it is what we all pray for, for our children.
...
And that concerns me greatly. ...
Today, the president's lawyers asked us to put an end to this process for the good of the nation. If the president had really wanted to save the nation the turmoil of this past year, he should have been more truthful or forthcoming from the beginning. Or, as some have already suggested, he could have simply resigned.
So I say to the president today, if you really believe that this process will cause our nation irreparable harm, I ask you for the good of the nation -- resign and spare our country a lengthy and divisive impeachment process. The simple truth is that this issue would not even be before us if the president simply told the truth or settled with Paula Jones in the beginning, rather than telling his political operatives that they would just have to win instead.
...
That is one reason why so many Americans have lost faith in our legal system. The lesson women learn from the Paula Jones case is not to challenge a powerful person, certainly not someone who has the best lawyers and the resources of a nation at his disposal. Believe me, the example this sends is that any person who challenges a figure of authority is going to be subjected to all types of abuse. Let me tell you, that is a very scary message.
Another concern that is very scary is the effect the president's behavior will have on our national security. Just a few months ago, I found myself, along with many other Americans and even the media, wondering if our strike against terrorism was life imitating art or a genuine response to a terrorist organization. Just the thought that the possibility existed that the president was engaging in a "Wag the Dog" scenario was chilling and profoundly disappointing. As a nation, we deserve better.
You know, a lot of people ask me if I'm concerned about voting to impeach a popular president. They talk about his high approval ratings and the polls that say most Americans oppose impeachment. But I cannot allow my decision to be based on the president's popularity or the numbers in a poll. History will judge us on the facts, and I want future generations to look at the evidence and say that what we did was based on the law and upon our constitutional duty.
I know that the president is a very likeable man. I understand why people want this issue to just go away. But the issue we are facing is at the very core of our constitutional system, and while many people may like this president, I hope that they love their country more, because that is what I will base my vote on -- my love for this country and on our Constitution. If we do not uphold its principles, the foundation of our system of government will be undermined forever.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/hydetest121198.htm
HENRY HYDE (R-Ill.):
The rule of law protects you and it protects me from the midnight fire on our roof or the 3 a.m. knock on our door. It challenges abuse of authority. It's a shame "Darkness at Noon" is forgotten, or "The Gulag Archipelago," but there is such a thing lurking out in the world called abuse of authority, and the rule of law is what protects you from it. And so it's a matter of considerable concern to me when our legal system is assaulted by our nation's chief law enforcement officer, the only person obliged to take care that the laws are faithfully executed.
...
Now we're told an impeachment trial would be too divisive and too disruptive, that it would reverse two elections. We're not reversing any election. Bob Dole will not end up president of the United States if there is an impeachment. We are following a process wisely set down as a check and balance on executive overreaching, by our Founding Fathers.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/impeach121498.htm
"I think the president should step down," Hyde said in one of two television appearances he made the day after the Judiciary Committee completed its two-month impeachment inquiry. "I think he could really be heroic if he did that. He would be the savior of his party. . . . It would be a way of going out with honor. If he doesn't, it's hard to predict what the consequences are."
EDIT TO ADD:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/cannontext121198.htm
Christopher Cannon (R-Utah):
But we do want the president and those around him and future presidents and those around them to know that we will not allow weakness of character, willfulness, or any other trait of a president to undermine the sacredness of oaths, because Kennedy and Jay are right. ...
There are some, who call themselves Americans and who understand these principles, who cover them over with facile arguments because they want to preserve their power.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
