Impeachment

[Soul Crusher]

Charlie Rangel: Obama answers not enough
By: Kevin Robillard
May 15, 2013 08:11 AM EDT
 
Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that he believes President Barack Obama owes the American public explanations for both the seizure of Associated Press phone records by the Department of Justice and the IRS targeting of conservative groups.

“I don’t think anyone truly believes that the president has given us a sufficient answer for America, much less the press,” Rangel said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “I think this is just the beginning and the whole idea of comparing this with Nixon, I really think is just, it doesn’t make much sense. But the president has to come forward and share why he did not alert the press they were going to do this. He has to tell the Americans, including me: What was this national security question? You just can’t raise the flag and expect to salute it every time without any reason and the same thing applies to the IRS.”

(PHOTOS: 10 slams on the IRS)

The White House has said Obama wasn’t involved in either the IRS decision to target conservative groups — a position backed up by an inspector general report released Tuesday — or in the DOJ’s decision to broadly subpoena phone records for 20 Associated Press phone lines in three cities.

Rangel is a member of the House Ways And Means Committee, which will hold a hearing on why the IRS gave tougher scrutiny to conservative groups’ non-profits applications on Friday morning.

“In Watergate, Senator Baker said it all, everybody uses this: ‘What did he know and when did he know it?’” Rangel said. “I am confident that the President is angry as hell about this, as he should be. The IRS is no place for partisanship, Democrat or Republican.”

(Also on POLITICO: TOP 5 Obama scandal responses)

But Rangel, a staunch Obama ally, said the press should give Obama time to sort out what happened.

“We have to give him an opportunity to root out any wrongdoing, whether it’s just negligence or criminal,” Rangel said. “But, for right now, to say that the president should be doubted? No. He has to come forward and give more of an answer than he has done.”

Follow @politico
 
© 2013 POLITICO LLC
 

[240 is Back]

Watch... Rangel will be calling for impeachment before Mccain and graham lol.........

[LurkerNoMore]

It's fun watching idiots reveling with delight in what they think is an accumulation of crap that will either make Obama resign or be impeached. If the President plays his cards right, he might last out the week.   

At least the meltdowns are amusing for the rest of us.

[Soul Crusher]

Obama escaping ScandalFest 

[ Invalid YouTube link ]

[LurkerNoMore]

It's fun watching idiots reveling with delight in what they think is an accumulation of crap that will either make Obama resign or be impeached. If the President plays his cards right, he might last out the week.   

At least the meltdowns are amusing for the rest of us.

x2

[Soul Crusher]

Axelrod: Government ‘So Vast,‘ Obama Can't Know About Wrongdoing
 NRO ^ | May 15, 2013 | Andrew Johnson

Posted on Wednesday, May 15, 2013 2:29:03 PM by COUNTrecount

Axelrod: Government ‘So Vast,‘ Obama Can't Know About Wrongdoing

By Andrew Johnson

May 15, 2013 9:13 AM

The government is simply too big for President Obama to keep track of all the wrongdoing taking place on his watch, his former senior adviser, David Axelrod, told MSNBC. “Part of being president is there’s so much beneath you that you can’t know because the government is so vast,” he explained.

Axelrod also defended the administration against criticism of the Department of Justice’s decision to seize reporters’ phone records, noting that Joe Scarborough had criticized the administration for the number of national-security leaks that had occurred. Scarborough was having none of it: ”I’ve heard the president’s defenders trying to say this, and I congratulate you guys for going off into a room, calling each other, and coming up with this bogus argument, but never did I suggest that 100 AP reporters have all of their phone records seized, their cell-phone records seized, their home phone numbers seized.”

“So please, save that for somebody else to buy into that,” he demanded. “Answer my question.”

[LurkerNoMore]

It's fun watching idiots reveling with delight in what they think is an accumulation of crap that will either make Obama resign or be impeached. If the President plays his cards right, he might last out the week.   

At least the meltdowns are amusing for the rest of us.

x3

[Dos Equis]

How many times can Lurker quote himself in one thread?  My money is on 5 to 10.   

[LurkerNoMore]

How many times can Lurker quote himself in one thread?  My money is on 5 to 10.   

As many times as it is relevant.  How many times will that be based on the whining it is directed at?  5 to 10?

[Soul Crusher]

As many times as it is relevant.  How many times will that be based on the whining it is directed at?  5 to 10?

To think you clowns thought obama would be n rushmore one day. 

[LurkerNoMore]

To think you clowns thought obama would be n rushmore one day. 

I never said that.

Nor did I ever say he would be divorced, resigning, deported, not running, etc.. etc.. etc...

Once again when impeachment doesn't occur this time, just like the last half dozen of times you got your panties wet for it, what is your excuse going to be? 

[blacken700]

the stupid party in full swing 

[Soul Crusher]

Even liberals are talking about impeachment

May 15, 2013 by Joe Saunders Leave a Comment







0
inShare.




Email

Print

American Prospect, a liberal flagship publication co-founded by longtime Clinton family friend Robert Reich, is openly worrying about the possibility President Obama could face impeachment over the Benghazi bumbling.
 
And blaming the media!
 
American Prospect contributing editor Paul Waldman writes that given “the media’s inability to resist a presidential scandal story … this whole thing might not end unless and until Barack Obama is impeached.”
 
That paragraph comes right after Waldman writes that “just a few days ago it looked for all the world like Benghazi would take its place with Solyndra and ‘Fast and Furious’ as one more wished-for scandal that, despite the best efforts of Republicans, failed to take flight.”
 
“Failed to take flight,” though, is really another way of saying “were ignored or explained away” by a supposedly adversarial press. Try to imagine how “Katrina,” “Abu Ghraib” or “enhanced interrogation” a few years back “failed to take flight.”
 
Waldman doesn’t explain how the media’s “inability to resist a presidential scandal story.” somehow managed to resist two of them — one that involved the loss of a half-billion taxpayer dollars to White House cronies, another that led to the death of an American border guard and God knows how many others.
 
He also doesn’t mention the media’s “inability to resist” covering for Obama going back to the Jeremiah Wright “God damn America” days.
 
And now, four Americans are dead at the hands of foreign savages, the administration is exposed as lying about it from Day One, and Waldman wants his readers to believe Obama’s troubles are all the fault of Fox News, naturally, conservative talk radio, and a Washington press corps that’s suddenly, unaccountably taking an interest in the underside of an administration it’s spent four years cheerleading for.
 
“The [impeachment] train is moving and there may be no way to stop it,” Waldman concludes.
 
A pity, that.


http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/05/15/even-liberals-are-talking-about-impeachment-69565

[LurkerNoMore]

It's fun watching idiots reveling with delight in what they think is an accumulation of crap that will either make Obama resign or be impeached. If the President plays his cards right, he might last out the week.   

At least the meltdowns are amusing for the rest of us.

x4

[Straw Man]

Even liberals are talking about impeachment

May 15, 2013 by Joe Saunders Leave a Comment

American Prospect, a liberal flagship publication co-founded by longtime Clinton family friend Robert Reich, is openly worrying about the possibility President Obama could face impeachment over the Benghazi bumbling.
 
And blaming the media!
 
American Prospect contributing editor Paul Waldman writes that given “the media’s inability to resist a presidential scandal story … this whole thing might not end unless and until Barack Obama is impeached.”
 
That paragraph comes right after Waldman writes that “just a few days ago it looked for all the world like Benghazi would take its place with Solyndra and ‘Fast and Furious’ as one more wished-for scandal that, despite the best efforts of Republicans, failed to take flight.”
 
“Failed to take flight,” though, is really another way of saying “were ignored or explained away” by a supposedly adversarial press. Try to imagine how “Katrina,” “Abu Ghraib” or “enhanced interrogation” a few years back “failed to take flight.”
 
Waldman doesn’t explain how the media’s “inability to resist a presidential scandal story.” somehow managed to resist two of them — one that involved the loss of a half-billion taxpayer dollars to White House cronies, another that led to the death of an American border guard and God knows how many others.
 
He also doesn’t mention the media’s “inability to resist” covering for Obama going back to the Jeremiah Wright “God damn America” days.
 
And now, four Americans are dead at the hands of foreign savages, the administration is exposed as lying about it from Day One, and Waldman wants his readers to believe Obama’s troubles are all the fault of Fox News, naturally, conservative talk radio, and a Washington press corps that’s suddenly, unaccountably taking an interest in the underside of an administration it’s spent four years cheerleading for.
 
“The [impeachment] train is moving and there may be no way to stop it,” Waldman concludes.
 
A pity, that.


http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/05/15/even-liberals-are-talking-about-impeachment-69565

Hmmm, I wonder why the good people at bizpacreview.com didn't bother to include the paragraph that immediately follows the statement about impeachment. 

I guess that have to exclude the parts that contradict their claim so the dumb fucks who read their site won't get the actual full story but only the bizpacreview approved spin

Let's take a look

http://prospect.org/article/scandal-makers

So suddenly it looks like this isn't going away, not because there was appalling malfeasance (or any malfeasance at all), but because once the train is moving, it's almost impossible to stop. Put together the right's desperate longing for an Obama scandal—turn on Fox News or listen to conservative radio, and you'll see eyelids fluttering in ecstasy as this story gains momentum—with congressional Republicans' helplessness in the face of pressure from their base, and the media's inability to resist a presidential scandal story, and this whole thing might not end unless and until Barack Obama is impeached.

"But that's crazy," you may say. And yes, it is. Furthermore, it would be unbelievably stupid of Republicans to push it that far, just from the perspective of their own political self-interest. But that doesn't mean they won't do it. It's a little glib to say that they'd do it because they're nuts, but the truth is that impeachment could well become the inevitable end point of a process that has nothing to do with the actual facts, with all the different parts of the conservative machine feeding coal into the boiler as the train gets faster and faster.

[Soul Crusher]

Eagan: Even liberals are leaping off bandwagon



Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Margery Eagan


You know the worm has turned when even MSNBC’s Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow hold their noses at the stench from Barack Obama’s scandals — when so many stories from the so-called liberal press now describe the erstwhile Messiah as “aloof,” “arrogant” and “holier than thou.”

Obama announced the acting IRS chief’s resignation last night. It’s a start. But not quite enough to make up for the continuous late-night news loop from the Benghazi cover-up to the IRS scandal to the seizing of phone records of Associated Press editors and reporters.

Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart — the chief news source for millions of young and liberal Obama voters — has laced into the president nonstop over White House claims that the president has learned of all this malfeasance on the TV news, just like any old bar stool Joe.



.

The way things are going, Stewart said, “I wouldn’t be surprised if President Obama learned Osama bin Laden had been killed when he saw himself announcing it on television.”

The same media types accused of covering Obama on bended knee — such as myself — are now turning our collective backs. And no wonder. What we’re learning about his administration has undermined our basic trust in government.

Yet the president seems oblivious to how serious and unsettling these scandals are, and how much damage he’s done to his own agenda. And how he’s fed right into the fears of the tin-foil hat set who can point to these very scary power grabs and say, “See? He really is coming to get us.”

Obama is no Nixon — at least not yet. Tricky Dick was the prime mover behind the White House “plumbers,” the notorious “enemies list” and the Watergate break-in, while Obama remains oddly passive in the face of his own administration’s perfect storm of scandals.

As for the IRS, we can’t forget its long and disgraceful history of targeting citizens for political payback: from Clinton ladies Gennifer Flowers and Paula Jones to Martin Luther King Jr. to the John Birch Society and supposed communist sympathizers. The Wall Street Journal just reported that congressmen from both parties are seeking hundreds of politically motivated audits in the Clinton era.

Until now, whenever Obama screwed up, Hillary voters could say, “I told you so.” But that ended when Hillary, inexplicably, told congressmen pressing her on why Americans at our embassy were killed, “What difference does it make?”

Now we die-hard Dems are depressed, discouraged ... and bracing for “Joe Biden in 2016.”

[LurkerNoMore]

It's fun watching idiots reveling with delight in what they think is an accumulation of crap that will either make Obama resign or be impeached. If the President plays his cards right, he might last out the week.   

At least the meltdowns are amusing for the rest of us.

x5

[Dos Equis]

x5

lol

How many times can Lurker quote himself in one thread?  My money is on 5 to 10.   

I wonder how many times I can quote myself in one thread??  lol

[LurkerNoMore]

As many times as it is relevant.  How many times will that be based on the whining it is directed at?  5 to 10?

x2

[240 is Back]

This rep won't call for it - but says it's not "off table".  THAT is as ballsy as they get?  Where are the other top repubs on this?  


Jason Chaffetz: Impeachment not off table


 
"Rep. Jason Chaffetz says he’s not taking impeachment off the table when it comes to President Obama’s handling of the attacks in Benghazi.

The Salt Lake Tribune reported Monday that the Utah Republican had called the handling of Benghazi an “impeachable offense,” and that he had vowed to keep searching for answers from the White House."

"Asked Tuesday on CNN what he meant by the comments, Chaffetz said it wasn’t what he was hoping for, but that impeachment was in the “realm of possibility.”

“It’s not something I’m seeking, it’s not the endgame, it’s not what we’re playing for,” he said. “I was simply asked if it was within the realm of possibilities, and I’d say ‘yes.’”


http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/jason-chaffetz-impeachment-91385.html

[Soul Crusher]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/16/rachel-maddow-obama-ap-irrevocable-harm_n_3284975.html

Madcow is off the reservation now too

[Dos Equis]

The Nixon Articles of Impeachment:

Articles of Impeachment
This is the full text of the Articles of Impeachment adopted by House Judiciary Committee on July 27, 1974.

■Analysis of the Judiciary Committee Votes
Article 1
RESOLVED, That Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanours, and that the following articles of impeachment to be exhibited to the Senate:

ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE NAME OF ITSELF AND OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AGAINST RICHARD M. NIXON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF ITS IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HIM FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANOURS.

ARTICLE 1

In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his consitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that:

On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities.

The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan included one or more of the following:

1.making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;

2.withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;

3.approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counselling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings;

4.interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees;

5.approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious payment of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals who participated in such unlawful entry and other illegal activities;

6.endeavouring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States;

7.disseminating information received from officers of the Department of Justice of the United States to subjects of investigations conducted by lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States, for the purpose of aiding and assisting such subjects in their attempts to avoid criminal liability;

8.making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the executive branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct: or

9.endeavouring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favoured treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.
In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

Adopted 27-11 by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, at 7.07pm on Saturday, 27th July, 1974, in Room 2141 of the Rayburn Office Building, Washington D.C.

http://watergate.info/impeachment/articles-of-impeachment

[Dos Equis]

President Andrew Johnson, who was acquitted:

On February 24, three days after Johnson's dismissal of Stanton, the House of Representatives voted 126 to 47 in favor of a resolution to impeach the president of high crimes and misdemeanors. The two sponsors of the resolution, Thaddeus Stevens and John A. Bingham, were immediately dispatched to inform the Senate that the House had officially voted for impeachment.

One week later, the House adopted eleven articles of impeachment against the president. The articles charged Johnson with:

1.Dismissing Edwin Stanton from office after the Senate had voted not to concur with his dismissal and had ordered him reinstated.
2.Appointing Thomas Secretary of War ad interim despite the lack of vacancy in the office, since the dismissal of Stanton had been invalid.
3.Appointing Thomas without the required advice and consent of the Senate.
4.Conspiring, with Thomas and "other persons to the House of Representatives unknown," to unlawfully prevent Stanton from continuing in office.
5.Conspiring to unlawfully curtail faithful execution of the Tenure of Office Act.
6.Conspiring to "seize, take, and possess the property of the United States in the Department of War."
7.Conspiring to "seize, take, and possess the property of the United States in the Department of War" with specific intent to violate the Tenure of Office Act.
8.Issuing to Thomas the authority of the office of Secretary of War with unlawful intent to "control the disbursements of the moneys appropriated for the military service and for the Department of War."
9.Issuing to Major General William H. Emory orders with unlawful intent to violate the Tenure of Office Act.
10.Making three speeches with intent to show disrespect for the Congress among the citizens of the United States.
The eleventh article was a summation of the first ten.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Andrew_Johnson#Impeachment

[Dos Equis]

President Bill Clinton

Articles of Impeachment and
Judiciary Committee Roll Call Votes
Updated Sunday, December 19, 1998

Following are the text and roll call votes for the four articles of impeachment approved by the House Judiciary Committee on December 11 and 12, 1998. Also see the text and votes on a censure resolution.


UPDATE: The Full House's Impeachment Vote

1. The president provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury regarding the Paula Jones case and his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
House: Passed 228-206
Committee: Passed 21-16
Full Text
Roll Call Vote

2. The president provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony in the Jones case in his answers to written questions and in his deposition.

House: Failed 229-205
Committee: Passed 20-17
Full Text
Roll Call Vote
 
3. The president obstructed justice in an effort to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence related to the Jones case.
House: Passed 221-212
Committee: Passed 21-16
Full Text
Roll Call Vote

4. The president misused and abused his office by making perjurious, false and misleading statements to Congress. (Amended by a 29-5 vote. See draft version.)
House: Failed 285-148
Committee: Passed 21-16
Full Text
Roll Call Vote
 
(Editor's Note: Members' names link to their Congressional Guide profiles, which contain their e-mail and other contact information. Also see profiles of Judiciary Committee members.)

Resolution Impeaching William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Resolved, that William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:

Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.


Article I

In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administra tion of justice, in that:
On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before a Federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following: (1) the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee; (2) prior perjurious, false and misleading testi mony he gave in a Federal civil rights action brought against him; (3) prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil rights action; and (4) his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action.

In doing this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Article I passed on a 21-16 vote.

Voting Aye
Henry Hyde (R-Ill.)
James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.)
Bill McCollum (R-Fla.)
George Gekas (R-Pa.)
Howard Coble (R-N.C.)
Lamar Smith (R-Tex.)
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)
Charles Canady (R-Fla.)
Bob Inglis (R-S.C.)
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)
Steve Buyer (R-Ind.)
Ed Bryant (R-Tenn.)
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio)
Bob Barr (R-Ga.)
William Jenkins (R-Tenn.)
Asa Hutchinson (R-Ark.)
Edward Pease (R-Ind.)
Christopher Cannon (R-Utah)
James Rogan (R-Calif.)
Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)
Mary Bono (R-Calif.)

 Voting Nay
John Conyers (D-Mich.)
Thomas Barrett (D-Wis.)
Barney Frank (D-Mass.
Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)
Howard Berman (D-Calif.)
Rick Boucher (D-Va.)
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.)
Bobby Scott (D-Va.)
Mel Watt (D-N.C.)
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)
Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.)
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.)
Martin Meehan (D-Mass.)
William Delahunt (D-Mass.)
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.)
Steven Rothman (D-N.J.)


Article II

In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administra tion of justice, in that:
(1) On December 23, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton, in sworn answers to written questions asked as part of a Federal civil rights action brought against him, willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony in response to questions deemed relevant by a Federal judge concerning conduct and proposed conduct with subordinate employees.

(2) On January 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in a deposition given as part of a Federal civil rights action brought against him. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony in response to questions deemed relevant by a Federal judge concerning the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee, his knowledge of that employee's involvement and participation in the civil rights action brought against him, and his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of that employee.

In all of this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Article II passed on a 20-17 vote.

Voting Aye
Henry Hyde (R-Ill.)
James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.)
Bill McCollum (R-Fla.)
George Gekas (R-Pa.)
Howard Coble (R-N.C.)
Lamar Smith (R-Tex.)
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)
Charles Canady (R-Fla.)
Bob Inglis (R-S.C.)
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)
Steve Buyer (R-Ind.)
Ed Bryant (R-Tenn.)
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio)
Bob Barr (R-Ga.)
William Jenkins (R-Tenn.)
Asa Hutchinson (R-Ark.)
Edward Pease (R-Ind.)
Christopher Cannon (R-Utah)
James Rogan (R-Calif.)
Mary Bono (R-Calif.)

 Voting Nay
Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)
John Conyers (D-Mich.)
Thomas Barrett (D-Wis.)
Barney Frank (D-Mass.
Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)
Howard Berman (D-Calif.)
Rick Boucher (D-Va.)
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.)
Bobby Scott (D-Va.)
Mel Watt (D-N.C.)
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)
Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.)
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.)
Martin Meehan (D-Mass.)
William Delahunt (D-Mass.)
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.)
Steven Rothman (D-N.J.)

 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
Article III


In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to a Federal civil rights action brought against him in a duly instituted judicial proceeding.

The means used to implement this course of conduct or scheme included one or more of the following acts:

(1) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to execute a sworn affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false and misleading.

(2) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to give perjurious, false and misleading testimony if and when called to testify personally in that proceeding.

(3) On or about December 28, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly engaged in, encouraged, or supported a scheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in a Federal civil rights action brought against him.

(4) Beginning on or about December 7, 1997, and continuing through and including January 14, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton intensified and succeeded in an effort to secure job assistance to a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him in order to corruptly prevent the truthful testimony of that witness in that proceeding at a time when the truthful testimony of that witness would have been harmful to him.

(5) On January 17, 1998, at his deposition in a Federal civil rights action brought against him, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly allowed his attorney to make false and misleading statements to a Federal judge characterizing an affidavit, in order to prevent questioning deemed relevant by the judge. Such false and misleading statements were subsequently acknowledged by his attorney in a communication to that judge.

(6) On or about January 18 and January 20-21, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton related a false and misleading account of events relevant to a Federal civil rights action brought against him to a potential witness in that proceeding, in order to corruptly influence the testimony of that witness.

(7) On or about January 21, 23 and 26, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton made false and misleading statements to potential witnesses in a Federal grand jury proceeding in order to corruptly influence the testimony of those witnesses. The false and misleading statements made by William Jefferson Clinton were repeated by the witnesses to the grand jury, causing the grand jury to receive false and misleading information.

In all of this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Article III passed on a 21-16 vote.

Voting Aye
Henry Hyde (R-Ill.)
James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.)
Bill McCollum (R-Fla.)
George Gekas (R-Pa.)
Howard Coble (R-N.C.)
Lamar Smith (R-Tex.)
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)
Charles Canady (R-Fla.)
Bob Inglis (R-S.C.)
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)
Steve Buyer (R-Ind.)
Ed Bryant (R-Tenn.)
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio)
Bob Barr (R-Ga.)
William Jenkins (R-Tenn.)
Asa Hutchinson (R-Ark.)
Edward Pease (R-Ind.)
Christopher Cannon (R-Utah)
James Rogan (R-Calif.)
Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)
Mary Bono (R-Calif.)

 Voting Nay
John Conyers (D-Mich.)
Thomas Barrett (D-Wis.)
Barney Frank (D-Mass.
Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)
Howard Berman (D-Calif.)
Rick Boucher (D-Va.)
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.)
Bobby Scott (D-Va.)
Mel Watt (D-N.C.)
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)
Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.)
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.)
Martin Meehan (D-Mass.)
William Delahunt (D-Mass.)
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.)
Steven Rothman (D-N.J.)

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Article IV


Using the powers and influence of the office of President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has engaged in conduct that resulted in misuse and abuse of his high office, impaired the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, and contravened the authority of the legislative branch and the truth-seeking purpose of a coordinate investigative proceeding in that, as President, William Jefferson Clinton, refused and failed to respond to certain written requests for admission and willfully made perjurious, false and misleading sworn statements in response to certain written requests for admission propounded to him as part of the impeachment inquiry authorized by the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States.

William Jefferson Clinton, in refusing and failing to respond, and in making perjurious, false and misleading statements, assumed to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives and exhibited contempt for the inquiry.

In doing this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Article IV passed on a 21-16 vote.

Voting Aye
Henry Hyde (R-Ill.)
James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.)
Bill McCollum (R-Fla.)
George Gekas (R-Pa.)
Howard Coble (R-N.C.)
Lamar Smith (R-Tex.)
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)
Charles Canady (R-Fla.)
Bob Inglis (R-S.C.)
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)
Steve Buyer (R-Ind.)
Ed Bryant (R-Tenn.)
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio)
Bob Barr (R-Ga.)
William Jenkins (R-Tenn.)
Asa Hutchinson (R-Ark.)
Edward Pease (R-Ind.)
Christopher Cannon (R-Utah)
James Rogan (R-Calif.)
Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)
Mary Bono (R-Calif.)

 Voting Nay
John Conyers (D-Mich.)
Thomas Barrett (D-Wis.)
Barney Frank (D-Mass.
Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)
Howard Berman (D-Calif.)
Rick Boucher (D-Va.)
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.)
Bobby Scott (D-Va.)
Mel Watt (D-N.C.)
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)
Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.)
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.)
Martin Meehan (D-Mass.)
William Delahunt (D-Mass.)
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.)
Steven Rothman (D-N.J.)

 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/impeachvote121198.htm
 

[Straw Man]

Still haven't seen anyone who can articulate exactly what the scandal is