JohnCorrespondent

Two, almost three, presidents have been impeached in my lifetime: The two are Bill Clinton and Donald Trump. One other president was on the verge of being impeached but resigned first: Richard Nixon. All three of them have been accused of dishonesty. As I recall, Bill Clinton was described as either having "lied to the American people" or having "lied under oath", or both (done together as one event).

The impeachment of Bill Clinton made much of that. He was placed under oath when he testified before the Senate in his impeachment hearing(s).

Probably all presidents have been bad in one way or another, if only because they failed in the Herculean task of reforming some of the bad things. But one of the most explicit and official examples of OBJECTING to p**********l bad behavior was in the Clinton impeachment in which some officials acted like they REALLY cared that he lied under oath or "lied to the American people". That seemed to be the one most major thing the impeachment hinged on.

There are a couple of other presidents whom I'd add to the list of presidents under consideration: Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Some of you are probably familiar with what people think _they_ did wrong. (In the case of Reagan, people didn't talk about him directly so much as about what happened in his Administration -- more focus was on people like Oliver North.)

Impeachment is not the only indication that something may be seriously wrong. Maybe all presidents are bad, but I invite you to choose one of the above five presidents as a bad one.

Now, regarding _any_one_ of those five presidents:

1. Did he deceive or mislead anybody important -- the American people? -- Congress?

2. If he did, then did it matter? Was it important enough that we should care about it?

3. Was there something harmful about what he did? Again, is it important enough that we should care about it?

4. Did it have to happen that way? Was it just par for the course? Or did it really make things significantly worse, that the president said, did, failed to say, or failed to do, as happened? Was the president "at fault" or "the wrong person for the job"?

Audio and text of what one of those presidents knew and said are found at the following link:

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/10/911368698/trump-tells-woodward-he-deliberately-downplayed-c****av***s-threat

JW

Clinton was not about lying to the Senate. He lied to the court in the Paula Jones trial.

DaWg44

You might want to re-think Reagan if you blame him for North. That affair was a helluva lot more complicated than what anyone got out of hearings, was pretty much beyond anything Reagan could control. It was like trying to herd cats after they had been on the run for years.

Milosia2 Loc: Cleveland Ohio

I think it was lying about the bj he got from Monica in the Oval Office.
He lied about getting it.
But, then who wouldn’t and why would it be anyone else’s business besides
ken Starr’s.

Milosia2 Loc: Cleveland Ohio

after Reagan was denied. Funding for Central American freedom fighters Reagan tried the end around with north by trading missiles to Iran for arms in Central America. Reagan had funding for the sandanistas but changed allegiances to the freedom fighters.
another Republican t*****r.

kemmer

Trump lied about having sex with Stormy Daniels, while instructing Cohen to pay her $130,000 to keep her mouth shut. Maybe 20 bucks or so would have bought Monica Lewinski's silence.

JohnCorrespondent

I agree with you (with almost every word).

Without studying the matter, I too have always thought "it was [about] lying about the bj he got from Monica in the Oval Office". I think he did get the bj and did lie about it, but I'm not even sure about those facts, and have never cared much about them one way or the other. Most presidents, probably including Clinton, have done much worse things than that -- things that don't have anything to do with sex, but having to do with things like international intrigue or c**ps or wars or economic policies or pollution policies, for example. Those are the things they ought to be impeached about. I liked, and still like, the Clinton presidency, but only in comparison to worse presidencies. I'm generally in favor of impeaching high officials such as presidents, so that the American people can learn more about what's really going on. But maybe that's "just wishful thinking" to imagine that a legal process such as impeachment could really be about (a) facts, (b) evidence, and (c) things that matter (all at the same time).

This is a big relief for me, to see another person giving voice to what I've long thought:

"But, then, who wouldn't [lie about that]"

and:

"and why would it be anyone else's business ...".

I would have left out the words "besides Ken Starr's". But I suppose you might have some good reason for including them.

ChJoe

The Trump impeachment was a total sham. He did nothing wrong at all. It was based upon a lie by a whistle blower who was probably Vindman or his brother. Vindman lied to Congress about what he heard as well.

JohnCorrespondent

In a more rational world, I would have expected that somewhere along the way, someone would have raised the question "Was the sexual relationship mutually consensual?"

In our less rational world, somewhere along the way, it was either (a) widely agreed that there was something wrong with the sexual relationship, or (b) widely agreed that it was not mutually consensual, or both (a) and (b); but scant attention was ever paid to trying to explain or justify either (a) or (b), as if there were some such underlying assumption that always kicks in, in such events.

JohnCorrespondent

I agree. ("After Reagan was denied funding ..." etc.)

I believe Reagan let it be known, among his insiders, the kinds of operations he would allow or not allow. Such operations (such as "Iran-Contra" maneuvering and trading) are typically done not by direct explicit order from the top boss, but instead less directly in ways that protect the top boss with plausible deniability -- or even just deniability (even if implausible) sufficient to make it awkward and ineffective to try to prosecute the top boss.

One of the things Reagan is famous for is the phrase "I don't recall". That was basically his defense in Iran-Contra. I've always felt that Iran-Contra was a significant matter. If I were the top boss I would take notes and try to keep track of a significant matter, and be as honest about it as I could.

If all one needs to do is say "I don't recall", one could get away with a lot. It doesn't seem like responsible leadership, to me.

But another question about Iran-Contra is: Did it create any significant damage or harm? I mean, could we just look at Iran-Contra and say something like, "Meh. A secretive deal to send weaponry to Iran. Congress didn't approve. So what? There's no harm in that, or nothing worth getting up about."(??).

JW

He lied to the COURT. In a nation built on law, you don't do that.

Smedley_buzkill

You are missing something here: All of Trump's alleged misdeeds you are prating of occurred when he was a private citizen. Clinton has a legacy of not being able to keep it in his pants while he was AG and Governor of Arkansas, and President. There is a difference between playing hide the weenie in private and doing it on the taxpayers' dime.

JohnCorrespondent

"you don't do that" -- Not exactly.

You shouldn't do that. <-- That's true.

How about: "You can't do that and get away with it."? Nope, even that's not true.

Lying to courts happens all the time. Frequently it's when there are two sides to a case telling opposing things to the court.

I think that usually when people lie to a court, they get away with it.

Courts aren't what they're cracked up to be. They're great in theory but often poor in practice. And it's a great shame and a misfortune to have been born into a world where that's true.

What's wrong about the Clinton impeachment, in my view, is that the one time when such a big public deal is made about lying to a court, it's about this sexual matter which so far as I know was mutually consensual. Why couldn't it have been something about selling military secrets to China or wh**ever else a president did that has real impact on national security or real impact on the lives of many people? How about misleading the American public about C***d? That's what I think is worth taking seriously. Why isn't there a court case about that? Why isn't Trump being called to testify under oath about that? Is that just too insignificant, in Republicans' view, whereas a mutually consensual sexual affair is what we should all be focusing on instead -- and every detail about it is everybody's business? Speaking of which, who decreed that Trump can brag about his sexual exploits and 70 million people (Trump-supporting v**ers who want another four years of that guy) _don't_ care about it _then_? How am I supposed to think Trump supporters, or even "Republicans", are credible after all this?

JW

You really don't get it. No one gives a Tinker's damn about who is having sex with whom. Other than the fact that Clinton performed the nation's greatest example of Left wing hypocrisy in its stance on protecting and promoting consideration of women, he exceeded even that in his hypocritical disdain for the concept of justice by lying to the court and attempting to fix testimony by intimidating witnesses. BTW - According to L*****t ideology, an affair between the POTUS and an intern cannot be consensual because of the power disparity.

As for Trump misleading the people about C****-**, how exactly; by telling people to follow the CDC guidelines but not to worry? Now there's a crime.

Finally, to the philosophical issue of lying to the court, however far it may fall short of ideal does not justify any deliberate undermining of it. Especially by the President whose Oath centers on seeing the law faithfully executed.

Sicilianthing

>>>

Plausible...

I’ve lately been wondering if Trump is a double agent ...