Did the Republicans have the votes to impeach Clinton?

[helderheid]

[dkofos]

1. NO But that didn't stop them.

[GOTV]

4. And, therefore, it didn't stop Clinton. Get the lesson there? n/t

[John Q. Citizen]

22. No, I don't see the lesson. Unless the Dems impeached a popular bush for a blow job.

[GOTV]

28. The lesson is: impeachment will not stop Bush - only conviction will do that.

And therefore impeachment without conviction gets us nothing.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

31. impeachment may even backfire and make him look like a victimised darling

it worked for clinton

[GOTV]

32. I agree. Further, acquittal in the Senate formalizes Bush abuses as within presidential bounds. n/

[Poiuyt]

57. I disagree

An impeachment trial will bring Bush and Cheney's crimes out into the open and they will be there for history to judge as well as the current general public. America won't sympathize with him once they see what he's done. Remember, most Americans don't follow politics like we do. Clinton looked victimized because his crime was lying about sex. Bush's crime was a crime (or crimes) against the people of the US and against the Constitution. You also have to remember that Clinton had strong approval ratings before the impeachment trial, while Bush's ratings are very low. People will be less willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

The reason I want his crimes brought out in the open so much is because of Bush's planned $500 million library. It's going to be a think tank to write books and articles about how wonderful Bush was as president. If the evidence has been read into the public record, they won't be able to bullshit the people as easily.

[A wise Man]

63. I'm in agreement with you

There is more evidence on Bush than any genuine criminal can claim. There are Videos and sound bites, abuse of power, lies after lies after lies,3,000+ Troops which have died for the lies, outting a covert agent, spying for political gains on Americans, conspiracy in the raise of gas prices, firing of attorneys for not seeking false prosecution of Dems., Caging. These are only a few crimes he and his administration have committed. Don't tell me that if I or any other citizen in this country had done these crimes we would get off scott free. "I DON'T THINK SO".

[John Q. Citizen]

33. It gets us the undivided attention of the broadcast media to focus on the

usurption of powers by an out of control executive.

It gets us compelled testimony and documents that aren't subject to executive privledge.

It gets us the eyes of nation, and if the case is made, it gets us a population that's pissed of at Senators who would vote party over country.

The case against Clinton was very weak, in terms of an impeachable offense. We don't have that PR problem...

[GOTV]

38. To focus on what they always focus on.... how bad democrats are for the country

You're delusional if you think impeachment with somehow change the media's focus away from its corporatist message.

The impeachment will be a stick to beat the Dems with on Fox, CNN, ABC, etc. The dems will survive only with huge public support. Support of a magnitude not currently being indicated in the polls.

[John Q. Citizen]

41. So out of fear the Dems won't uphold their oath? That's a good message....

but it will be loud and clear.

[GOTV]

44. They did not take an oath to impeach and so it is not clear they are violating their oath n/t

[John Q. Citizen]

46. To defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic....

[GOTV]

52. Right. It says "defend" and does not specify which tools, so impeachment remains optional

and therefore they can remain in compliance with their oath without impeaching.

[John Q. Citizen]

55. Not to me, and to many others. It makes the Dems look scared to defend the constitution,

To hold bush accountable, and it makes them look like they are putting their party before their country.

If the Repos won't do what's right, then that's on them. Just the same as if the Dems won't do what's right.

[William769]

56. Then run for Congress!

and stop being a keyboard commando. It's really that simple.

[John Q. Citizen]

58. Yes, you are an expert on simple. I do vote, and I do support those who take their oath

of office seriously.

[William769]

59. Apparently not. NT

[GOTV]

64. Many people can be wrong. Fact: failing to take action YOU think necessary is not breach of oath

They determine what actions are required.

[John Q. Citizen]

69. Well, seeing how 24% of Democrats oppose impeaching cheney, and how

29% of independants oppose impeaching cheney, perhaps the Dem congress critters are afraid the Repos won't like them?

[GOTV]

75. Did you reply to the wrong post? We were talking about the oath and why they're not breaking it...

... your response sheds no light on the topic.

[John Q. Citizen]

78. I'm musing about why Pelosi would take part of the constitution off the table,

and break her oath to defend the constitution.

Maybe she's ashamed of the constitution, and doesn't want to defend it for that reason?

edited to add- And pointing out that she's ignoring her own constituents as well as voters across the country.

I thought she was a representative, not a unitary decider.

[GOTV]

80. She didn't break her oath. Impeachment is not part of her oath, and it's only opinion ...

... impeachment is necessary.

Your speculations are silly.

[A wise Man]

68. To this we must remember

The impeachment of Clinton was the republicans idea of hate for the Clintons. The impeachment of Bush will come from the people and so much the democrats. All they would have to do is bring to the public his sound bite, his lying, his deceptions, his spying and others just like so many here at "DU" have brought to our attention.

[Big Blue Marble]

47. If a solid case for removal is built with the American People

and the Republicans refuse to convict, they will be held accountable.

The key is build the case with evidence that the American People understand.
This is nothing like the Clinton impeachment. He was a popular president.
Times were good and the charges were shaky at best.

Never the less the Repubs did not flinch in impeaching. They did so
not having the votes in the Senate.

[GOTV]

53. We need to build that case prior to impeachment so we can start with huge public support n/t

[Tesha]

62. It did affect Gore, though. Get the lesson there? (NT)

[GOTV]

67. Prove it, or even provide evidence that the impeachment caused Gore to lose n/t

[Tesha]

70. No, you prove it didn't. (NT)

[GOTV]

73. You made the claim, if you had no evidence, then your claim has no credibility....

... And given that Gore got the majority of the votes I don't think he was hurt by the impeachment.

[cmkramer]

81. Yes

In fact, they did impeach him. What they didn't have was the votes to convict.

[EFerrari]

2. No, but they had the media.

[William769]

3. Yes, Thats why he was impeached. NT

[helderheid]

5. 67 votes in the senate?

[GOTV]

8. No, and so Clinton served his full term vindicated and unfazed n/t

[helderheid]

11. I wouldn't say that.

[GOTV]

16. You don't need to. The history books say it. n/t

[William769]

20. His approval rating leaving office already says it. NT.

[John Q. Citizen]

35. The case was weak. Was OJ vindicated? Would the public have elected any of

his jurers to public office?

[William769]

37. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

[John Q. Citizen]

43. The public knew it was weak. Which is why it was percieved as an attempt

by the Repos to get Clinton for no good reason.

The case against bush is very strong. Exceedingly strong.

[GOTV]

42. Yes. OJ was accused, found not guilty, and is a free man today....

... in a separate civil trial he was found liable and got a big fine.

See the difference? No conviction, no consequence.

[John Q. Citizen]

45. So you believe the public thinks he's innocent, or that he got away with murder?

[William769]

48. I'm still trying to figure out your ulterior motive for trying to link Clinton with Bush.

If people don't remember, history they are bound to repeat it.

[GOTV]

54. The public is irrelevant. OJ is a free man. No conviction, No consequence...

... same with Bush if we can't convict.

[Big Blue Marble]

50. Clinton may have been unfazed,

but after the 2000 election, the Republicans held the Presidency, the House, the Senate, and The Supreme Court. Just
how were they penalized for impeaching Clinton?

[GOTV]

76. I did not say they were penalized. And the SC gave them the presidency, not the voters

[aquart]

9. They had the votes in the House. Not the Senate.

[William769]

10. Thats conviction, not Impeachment. NT.

[GOTV]

15. Impeachment+Conviction=America saved. Impeachment alone = nothing

[William769]

21. Saved from what?

[GOTV]

23. I shifted gears and was referring to the current situation, that is, saved from Bush n/t

[William769]

27. Thanks for clarity, I thought you were talking about bill Clinton.

[GOTV]

29. Yeah, sorry, I admit it was awkward on my part. n/t

[John Q. Citizen]

39. It would let Dems and independants know thier elected officials will uphold their oath.

Maybe that's not worth anything, though....

[bunkerbuster1]

12. You're confusing "impeachment" with "conviction"

[whistle]

14. It did not stop President Clinton from doing what exactly?

...Clinton never had the intent to bring down our constitutional democracy.

[William769]

17. Why ask me, I was just correcting the OP.

:shrug:

[GOTV]

18. It did not stop Clinton from anything in anyway. n/t

[proud2BlibKansan]

6. No but they had guts

and our Dems lack them.

[Debi]

7. Yes, Clinton was impeached

I don't know if they had the votes to convict him.


Oh, and some Democrats supported the impeachment.

[whistle]

24. No democrats voted Clinton Guilty, it was total theater by then republicans

...and the right wing neocons lurking in the shadows waiting for their opportunity to pounce

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton#Voting_guilty

<snip>
Senate vote: perjury charge

Voting not guilty
Republicans: Chafee of Rhode Island, Collins of Maine, Gorton of Washington, Jeffords of Vermont, Shelby of Alabama, Snowe of Maine, Specter of Pennsylvania, Stevens of Alaska, Thompson of Tennessee, and Warner of Virginia.

Democrats: Akaka of Hawaii, Baucus of Montana, Bayh of Indiana, Biden of Delaware, Bingaman of New Mexico, Boxer of California, Breaux of Louisiana, Bryan of Nevada, Byrd of West Virginia, Cleland of Georgia, Conrad of North Dakota, Daschle of South Dakota, Dodd of Connecticut, Dorgan of North Dakota, Durbin of Illinois, Edwards of North Carolina, Feingold of Wisconsin, Feinstein of California, Graham of Florida, Harkin of Iowa, Hollings of South Carolina, Inouye of Hawaii, Johnson of South Dakota, Kennedy of Massachusetts, Kerrey of Nebraska, Kerry of Massachusetts, Kohl of Wisconsin, Lincoln of Arkansas, Landrieu of Louisiana, Lautenberg of New Jersey, Leahy of Vermont, Levin of Michigan, Lieberman of Connecticut, Mikulski of Maryland, Moynihan of New York, Murray of Washington, Reed of Rhode Island, Reid of Nevada, Robb of Virginia, Rockefeller of West Virginia, Sarbanes of Maryland, Schumer of New York, Torricelli of New Jersey, Wellstone of Minnesota, and Wyden of Oregon.


Voting guilty
Republicans: Abraham of Michigan, Allard of Colorado, Ashcroft of Missouri, Bennett of Utah, Bond of Missouri, Brownback of Kansas, Bunning of Kentucky, Burns of Montana, Campbell of Colorado, Cochran of Mississippi, Coverdell of Georgia, Craig of Idaho, Crapo of Idaho, DeWine of Ohio, Domenici of New Mexico, Enzi of Wyoming, Fitzgerald of Illinois, Frist of Tennessee, Gramm of Texas, Grams of Minnesota, Grassley of Iowa, Gregg of New Hampshire, Hagel of Nebraska, Hatch of Utah, Helms of North Carolina, Hutchinson of Arkansas, Hutchison of Texas, Inhofe of Oklahoma, Kyl of Arizona, Lott of Mississippi, Lugar of Indiana, Mack of Florida, McCain of Arizona, McConnell of Kentucky, Murkowski of Alaska, Nickles of Oklahoma, Roberts of Kansas, Roth of Delaware, Santorum of Pennsylvania, Sessions of Alabama, Smith of New Hampshire, Smith of Oregon, Thomas of Wyoming, Thurmond of South Carolina, and Voinovich of Ohio.

Democrats: None.


Senate vote: obstruction of justice charge

Voting not guilty
Republicans: Chafee, Collins, Jeffords, Snowe, Specter

Democrats: Akaka, Baucus, Bayh, Biden, Bingaman, Boxer, Breaux, Bryan, Byrd, Cleland, Conrad, Daschle, Dodd, Dorgan, Durbin, Edwards, Feingold, Feinstein, Graham, Harkin, Hollings, Inouye, Johnson, Kennedy, Kerrey of Nebraska, Kerry of Massachusetts, Kohl, Lambert-Lincoln, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Mikulski, Moynihan, Murray, Reed of Rhode Island, Reid of Nevada, Robb, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Schumer, Torricelli, Wellstone, Wyden


Voting guilty
Republicans: Abraham, Allard, Ashcroft, Bennett, Bond, Brownback, Bunning, Burns, Campbell, Cochran, Coverdell, Craig, Crapo, DeWine, Domenici, Enzi, Fitzgerald, Frist, Gorton, Gramm, Grams, Grassley, Gregg, Hagel, Hatch, Helms, Hutchinson, Hutchison, Inhofe, Kyl, Lott, Lugar, Mack, McCain, McConnell, Murkowski, Nickles, Roberts, Roth, Santorum, Sessions, Shelby, Smith, Smith, Stevens, Thomas, Thompson, Thurmond, Voinovich, Warner

Democrats: None

[AngryAmish]

25. That was for the trial, Clinton was impeached

Impeachment is like a grand jury indictment.

[Debi]

30. No Democrats voted for conviction -

however, Russ Feingold did vote to impeach. Look at the OP it asked about impeachment, not conviction.

[eggman67]

40. How did a Senator vote to impeach?

"Russ Feingold did vote to impeach"

The House impeaches, not the senate

[Debi]

60. My apologies Feingold voted to continue the trial in the Senate

rather than dismiss.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/01/28/feing... /

Here are the Democratic House members who voted to impeach:



Rep. Leonard Boswell Democrat IA
Rep. Gary Condit Democrat CA
Rep. Robert Cramer Democrat AL
Rep. Pat Danner Democrat MO
Rep. Bob Etheridge Democrat NC
Rep. Lane Evans Democrat IL
Rep. Virgil Goode Democrat VA
Rep. Ralph Hall Democrat TX
Rep. Lee Hamilton Democrat IN
Rep. Chris John Democrat LA
Rep. Ronald Kind Democrat WI
Rep. Dennis Kucinich Democrat OH
Rep. Nicholas Lampson Democrat TX
Rep. William Lipinski Democrat IL
Rep. James Maloney Democrat CT
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy Democrat NY
Rep. Paul McHale Democrat PA
Rep. Mike McIntyre Democrat NC
Rep. David Minge Democrat MN
Rep. James Moran Democrat VA
Rep. Collin Peterson Democrat MN
Rep. Owen Pickett Democrat VA
Rep. Owen Pickett Democrat VA
Rep. Tim Roemer Democrat IN
Rep. Norman Sisisky Democrat VA
Rep. Ike Skelton Democrat MO
Rep. John Spratt Democrat SC
Rep. Charles Stenholm Democrat TX
Rep. Ellen Tauscher Democrat CA
Rep. Gene Taylor Democrat MS
Rep. Jim Turner Democrat TX
Rep. Robert Weygand Democrat RI

[Tulum_Moon]

72. You cannot tell me this

All the names you just wrote down and posted voted to IMPEACH CLINTON!!!!And Owen Picket voted twice?
I don't believe this. Did I miss something?

[Debi]

79. Here's the roll call on the HR

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1998/roll498.xml

Sorry about the double name...x(

[rinsd]

13. They needed 12 Democrats + their 55 Senators.

[whistle]

34. Also, the question now that needs to be asked is who were those

...Republican elected representatives and senators really working for, certainly not for the general welfare of the country and not their constituent voters. They worked for the lobbyists and special interests a much smaller and tighter group of people and those republicans still march in lockstep to the demands of big oil, bankers and wealthy foreign interests, NOT AMERICA!

[William769]

19. Also it should be noted that they did not even have a majority vote

Let alone a super majority vote to convict him.

[GOTV]

26. Clinton served until 1/20/01. without impeachment he would have served until 1/20/01. Get it? n/t

[John Q. Citizen]

51. You don't get the value of impeaching bush, but that's OK. I think you will, later.

[GOTV]

65. You're right. Later, when conviction is possible, I will see the value of impeachment n/t

[murloc]

36. Well yes they did

Clinton was impeached, ergo they had enough votes to do so.

What they lacked however, was enough votes to sustain a conviction.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

49. No, they had a special independent inquisitor/prosecutor ...

who somehow was allowed to stray from his assigned mission to investigate Whitewater dealings.

[whistle]

71. Was somehow allowed to stray from his assigned mission? That was

...the mission by the noecon lead rethuglicans throughout Clinton's eight years in office and we now know that the Monica Lewinski affair was in fact a sting operation set up by Kenneth Starr using Linda Tripp to trap Monica into cooperating. :wtf:


<snip>
Monica Lewinsky's Day From Hell: January 16, 1998

STARR'S STING OPERATION & WHAT HAPPENED IN
ROOM 1012 OF THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL

OFFICE OF INDEPENDENT COUNSEL
RECORD OF INTERROGATION


What Happened to Lewinsky on January 16, 1998

Within hours of gaining approval to expand his investigation to the Lewinsky matter, Starr and his deputies in the Office of Independent Counsel arranged to have Linda Tripp bait a trap for Monica Lewinsky. Tripp invited Lewinsky to lunch at the food court of the Pentagon City Mall in Washington, where she was seized by FBI agents working for the OIC and taken to room 1012 of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel. There she met six deputy IOC prosecutors, ready to go to work on her with hardball tactics. She also was met by her supposed friend, Linda Tripp, who she immediately understood had set her up. "Make her stay and watch," Lewinsky told the prosecutors, "I want that treacherous bitch to see what she has done to me." The IOC had rented Tripp a room at the hotel, to better enable her to tell lawyers for Jones, who would depose President Clinton the next day, what happened during Lewinsky's interrogation.

At the time Starr's Office approached Lewinsky she had a lawyer who was working with her on preparing her (false) affidavit for the Jones case. Department of Justice regulations prohibit prosecutors from approaching a criminal suspect known to have a lawyer, but the IOC would later content Lewinsky was not a "represented party" within the meaning of the regulations because she hired her lawyer to help in a civil, not criminal, matter.

Deputy Prosecutor Michael Emmick told Lewinsky that the OIC was ready to charge her with a list of federal crimes that included perjury, witness tampering, and obstruction of justice. Emrick warned her that, if convicted, she could face up to 27 years in prison. The IOC even had a basis for charging his mother with a crime, Emrick maintained. All this could be avoided, he said, but only if Lewinsky agreed to cooperate with the OIC and were a body wire for monitoring of future conversations between her and Clinton, Betty Currie, and Vernon Jordan.

In fact, the OIC prosecutors greatly exaggerated the punishment that Lewinsky might face--two years would be a much better estimate than 27. Moreover, the most serious charge Lewinsky might face concerned the filing of a perjurious affidavit in the Jones case (denying her sexual relationship with the President), and at the time she was seized that affidavit had not yet been filed in the court in Little Rock. She still had time to call her lawyer who could have called FedEx to cancel delivery of the affidavit--if only the OIC had given her the chance to do so.

When Lewinsky, sobbing and shaking from the shattering events, asked to call her lawyer, Frank Carter, she was rebuffed. Carter, they said, was a civil lawyer (in fact, he had been a public defender for six years) and she needed a criminal attorney. Not only did they want to the leverage that a perjury charge would give them, but OIC prosecutors also were determined to prevent Clinton from learning that Lewinsky's story had been exposed. They wanted him to lie the next morning in his deposition. Despite Lewinsky's early request, no call was placed to the law office of Frank Carter until 5:23 p.m., after the office had closed for the three-day Martin Luther King weekend.

For eleven hours, OIC prosecutors continued to press Lewinsky to accept a body wire and tape conversations with the President, but she refused to give in to their demand. Her decision not to cooperate with the OIC that night, many commentators believe, saved the Clinton Presidency.

The "perjury trap" set for the President by the IOC has been criticized even by a respected federal judge, and Reagan appointee, Richard A. Posner. In his book, An Affair of State: The Investigation, Impeachment, and Trial of President Clinton, Posner writes: "To conduct a sting operation against the President of the United States, in concert with the President's partisan enemies, is certainly questionable as a matter of sound enforcement policy. It is also a potent argument against the independent counsel law, without which such a scheme would be unthinkable."

<MORE>

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/clinton/lewinskyday.html

[zbdent]

61. They kept pushing it in 1998 ... when they expected to have an

enormous landslide in November and a breeze to conviction in early 1999 ...

To their surprise, they lost EVEN MORE GROUND in November, and had to pretty much call an emergency session of the House to vote to impeach him before they lost the votes they had in the House due to swearing in of new Dem members 1/3/1999 ...

[MonkeyFunk]

66. No they didn't

it's why they lost two house speakers, and lost seats in a 6-year election.

Republicans were hurt by the impeachment attempt, Clinton was helped by it.

[ComerPerro]

74. did we give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

What is your point?

[tandem5]

77. impeachment is the proceeding much like a regular trial...

they had the votes to impeach Clinton, they did not have the votes to remove him from office. So when we talk about impeaching Bush lets just skip to it shall we - Remove Bush from office!

So to say "Impeach Bush!" is much like saying of the guy who killed a family of four, "let's send that guy to Superior Court to be judged for his alleged crimes by a jury of his peers!" For rhetorical effect I much rather say "let's lock him up and put away the key!" or, if you are pro death penalty, "Flip the switch and fry that SOB!"

Okay so I'm off topic.