By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Original Sources (www.originalsources.com)
February 12, 1999
In the strange twists and turns of the Clinton Impeachment Trial, surely there is no greater irony than that of establishing the precedent that today, the birthday of Honest Abe Lincoln, the U.S. Senate will vote to uphold a new standard: Bill Clinton should not be required to adhere to the same standards required of Judges.
In 1989, Al Gore and 48 current senators voted to convict an impeached judge because he lied to a grand jury. Sen. Kent Conrad, who voted to convict and remove from office Judge Walter Nixon for lying to the grand jury said recently: "You've got a different case, a different set of facts, a different standard."
Well, that's obvious. In 1989, 48 current senators, including Senators Lott, Majority Leader, and Daschle, minority leaders. Two of the articles against Judge Nixon were approved on votes of 89-8 and 78-19. Why the different and lower standard for Bill Clinton? As near as I can determine it is because polls indicate that the American people don't want him removed from office, even though 89% now believe he lied under oath and obstructed justice.
This may mean a new impeachment procedure. Impeachment via TV and public opinion polls. At least they could legitimize it by conducting a referendum, if the plan for America's future is to ignore the constitution. The Bill Clinton impeachment has established a new policy of sexual harassment which is totally opposite what the Democrats attempted to establish in the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill hearings. Senator Kennedy, who has had several problems over the years with women and sex, appeared to have completely recanted in his comments on why he would vote against Clarence Thomas, even though Anita Hill had no verification of her bizarre charges of "sexual harassment" that consisted, she said, entirely of "dirty talk:"
"The hearings on Professor Hill's charges were exhaustive and they were difficult and painful for all the participants, witnesses and Senators alike. But the hearings educated the country on an issue of great and growing significance. Overnight, as on perhaps no other issue in our history, the entire country made a giant leap of understanding about sexual harassment, that offensive conduct will never be treated lightly again. All women, and all men, too, owe Professor Hill a tremendous debt of gratitude for her willingness to discuss her experience and for the courage and dignity with which she did so.
"The most distressing aspect of the hearings was the eagerness with which many of Judge Thomas' supporters resorted to innuendos and scurrilous attacks on Professor Hill for her testimony about her charges of deeply offensive and humiliating actions by Judge Thomas. They have charged that Professor Hill's allegations were an effort to play on racial fears and racial stereotypes. But the issue here is sexual oppression, not racial oppression. I have spent much of my public life fighting against discrimination in all its ugly forms, and I intend to keep on making that fight. I reject the notion that racism is relevant to this controversy. It involves an Afro-American man and an Afro-American woman, and it ultimately involves the character of America itself."
So, how come, Sen. Kennedy, if Anita Hill made a "giant leap forward" for speaking up after years of silence about alleged "dirty talk" do you simply ignore the "sexual oppression" of Paula Jones when Bill Clinton, as governor, exposed himself and solicited oral sex from Paula Jones. Why wasn't HER experience "distressing" to you.
In fact, it is totally ignored in the impeachment of Bill Clinton, along with your ignoring repeated lying to a grand jury and obstruction of justice.
Just for history's sake, there have been 16 impeachments over the history of this nation, the majority of them judges who were removed. The 16 impeachments are below:
To comment mmostert@originalsources.com
From: Associated Press
The following information comes mainly from two sources - The Senate, 1789-1989: Addresses on the History of the United States Senate by Senator Robert C. Byrd, and Impeachment of the Federal Judiciary...A Constitutional Analysis by Steven W. Fitschen of The National Legal Foundation & Minuteman Institute.
Federal District Judge John Pickering (NH). Four Articles: issuing an order which violated an act of Congress; refusal to hear witnesses in a case; refusal to allow an appeal of a case; drunkenness and blasphemy. Impeached March 2, 1803, found guilty March 12, 1804, and removed from office.
Associate Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase (DC). Eight Articles: "highly arbitrary, oppressive, and unjust" treatment of attorneys, witnesses, grand juries and juries; violating due process. Impeached March 12, 1804; found not guilty on March 1, 1805.
Federal Judge James H. Peck (MO). One Article: "arbitrarily, oppressively, and unjustly" holding a lawyer in contempt. Impeached April 24, 1830; found not guilty on January 31, 1831.
Federal District Judge West H. Humphreys (TN). Seven Articles: supporting the secession movement; acting as a Confederate judge. Impeached May 6, 1862, found guilty on June 26, 1862, removed from office, and disqualified from future office.
Federal Judge Mark H. Delahay (KS). No Articles because resignation came before they could be drafted. Impeached February 28, 1873; resigned, no action taken.
Federal Judge Charles Swayne (FL). Twelve Articles: falsifying expense accounts; unauthorized use of railroad car in the possession of a receiver he had appointed; not residing in his district; "unlawfully" holding attorneys in contempt. Impeached December 13, 1904; found not guilty February 27, 1905.
U.S. Commerce Court (Circuit) Associate Justice Robert Archbald (DC). Thirteen Articles: influence peddling with litigants before him while a district and circuit judge. Impeached July 11, 1912, found guilty January 13, 1913, removed and disqualified from future public office.
Federal Judge George W. English (IL). Five Articles: disbarring lawyers; summoning state officials and members of the press to court to threaten them with jail or removal from office; threatening jurors; favoritism in appointing bankruptcy referees; allowing referees to also serve as attorneys in their cases; personally benefiting from collusion with referees; use of profanity. Impeached April 1, 1926; resigned December 13, 1926, before Senate trial could begin.
Federal Judge Harold Louderback (CA). Five Articles: setting up a false residence in anticipation of a divorce action by his wife; IMPROPRIETY relating to bankruptcy receiver. Impeached February 24, 1933; found not guilty on May 24, 1933.
Federal District Judge Halsted Ritter (FL). Seven Articles: corruption in a receivership case; practicing law while serving as a federal judge; income tax evasion. Impeached March 2, 1936, found guilty April 17, 1936, and removed but not disqualified from future office; sued for salary, but court ruled courts have no authority to review impeachments.
Federal District Judge Harry Claiborne (NV). Four Articles: had been convicted of income tax evasion, but as a convicted felon, he refused to resign. Impeached July 22, 1986, found guilty October 9, 1986, and removed from office.
Federal District Judge Alcee Hastings (FL). Seventeen Articles: taking a bribe; lying and submitting false evidence in his criminal trial; revealing wire tap information. Impeached August 3, 1988, found guilty October 20, 1989, and removed from office.
Federal District Judge Walter L. Nixon, Jr. (MS). Three Articles: perjury before a grand jury for which he had been convicted in a criminal trial. Impeached May 10, 1989, found guilty November 9, 1989, removed from office.
The three non-judges impeached were Tennessee's U.S. Senator William Blount in 1797 (not guilty because senators are not "civil Officers" as mentioned in the Constitution), President Andrew Johnson, also from Tennessee, in 1867 (not guilty by a one-vote margin), and Secretary of War William Belknap in 1876 (voted not guilty of "bribery" only because he had already resigned ). Presidents, Vice Presidents, and "other civil Officers" may be impeached under the federal Constitution. "Other civil Officers" refers only to cabinet secretaries and federal judges.
Every one of these sixteen impeachments was a "first" in one way or another - the first impeachment involving the "good Behaviour" clause (Archibald), the first involving "stale," six-year-old allegations (Ritter), the first initiated by a state legislature (Swayne), etc.. So the notion that the impeachment of Judge John Nixon is impossible because "it's never been done for that reason before," because it might not fit some precedent or historical pattern, is as extreme and no less absurd as would be the notion that he should be impeached for being religiously opposed to capital punishment.