Clinton's impeachment act of revenge

[TexasTiger 13,000]

If I had suggested this, I would be insulted roundly on this board, but its from the guy who oversaw the thing.

BTW, the "youthful indiscretion" claimed by Hyde occurred when he was 43 years old-- whiny liberal excuses-- oh wait...

Clinton impeachment was retaliation for Nixon, says retiring congressman

Henry Hyde

By Andy Shaw

April 21, 2005 — Republican Congressman Henry Hyde made some surprising comments Thursday on the impeachment hearings of President Bill Clinton. He now says Republicans may have gone after Clinton to retaliate for the impeachment of Richard Nixon. Hyde is stepping down after this term.

Hyde's comments came as he talked with ABC7 political reporter Andy Shaw about his 30 year in Congress.

In an exclusive interview, Hyde delivered a big dose of candor and some reflective second guessing. He said, among other things, he might not try to impeach President Clinton if he had it to do all over again.

The 81-year-old DuPage County Republican, who mastered the art of disagreeing without being disagreeable, will be stepping down in January of 2007 after 16 terms and 32 years.

"I am leaving voluntarily, but it's because my physical strength is ebbing. Father Time and Mother Nature have been pursuing me, and I'm 81," said Rep. Henry Hyde, ®-Illinois.

Hyde is known for his eloquence, courtesy, civility and his fierce partisanship on behalf of conservative GOP principles, including authorship of the Hyde Amendment, which outlawed federal funding of abortions, and leadership of the House judiciary committee in the impeachment of President Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice stemming from an affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

When asked if he would go through with the Clinton impeachment process again, Hyde said he wasn't sure. It turned into a personal and political embarrassment for Hyde when an extra-marital affair he had in the 1960's became public amid accusations of hypocrisy. He called the affair a youthful indiscretion.

"Accusations hurled at me to intimidate me were misplaced, and I regret having to deal with them, but they didn't intimidate me," Hyde said.

The veteran DuPage County congressman acknowledged that Republicans went after Clinton in part to enact revenge against the Democrats for impeaching President Richard Nixon 25 years earlier.

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/news/042105_ns_hyde.html

[DKW 86 7,440]

Well.....Duh!

[TrueBlue72 0]

It is called politics. The demoncrats opened the "impeachment door" in '73 with Nixon and now whine that the same tactic was used against them. The writer only says what any astute political observer already knows.

Thirty or so years ago, the demoncrats, led by Robert (KKK) Byrd opened the door on eliminating the ability to filibuster to advance the dem's agenda when they had the majority in congress. But now the dems refer to the same move as "the nuclear option" when the Republican party is poised to do the same.

Demoncrats revel in being the opposition party where they can sit back and take pot shots at those who have to make the decisions, but when their time comes as the majority party, they are clueless as to what to do. They simply go back to the same old worn out socialist policies that have failed the country since the Roosevelt administration in the 40's.

[WarTim 3,457]

How dare those darn republicans hold slick willy responsible for breaking the law!

[AURaptor 1,126]

For all the impact this 'article' is suppose to have created w/ such a bombshell of a position by Sen. Hyde, why no actual quote from the Senator himself ? - The veteran DuPage County congressman acknowledged that Republicans went after Clinton in part to enact revenge against the Democrats for impeaching President Richard Nixon 25 years earlier... - :huh:

Oh, ok. Because the artilce says so, I guess. One would think that with such an exclusive interview, there'd be something there to base it on. From this post, the only quotes Andy Shaw saw fit to add ( or get?) were about the Senator's retiring at age 81 and his extra-marital affair, decades ago.

I'm sure that Senator Hyde shares that view, as he was around to see Lincoln get shot, but so what ? It doesn't change the facts. Clinton tried to keep a citizen ( Paula Jones ) from the due process of law, a law that HE himself signed. The irony is deliciously sweet.

[Tiger Al 0]

It is called politics.  The demoncrats opened the "impeachment door" in '73 with Nixon and now whine that the same tactic was used against them.  The writer only says what any astute political observer already knows. 

Thirty or so years ago, the demoncrats, led by Robert (KKK) Byrd opened the door on eliminating the ability to filibuster to advance the dem's agenda when they had the majority in congress.  But now the dems refer to the same move as "the nuclear option" when the Republican party is poised to do the same. 

Demoncrats revel in being the opposition party where they can sit back and take pot shots at those who have to make the decisions, but when their time comes as the majority party, they are clueless as to what to do.  They simply go back to the same old worn out socialist policies that have failed the country since the Roosevelt administration in the 40's.

156688[/snapback]

The "impeachment door" was opened on 9/17/1787 when the US Constitution was signed and passage through that door occurred in May, 1868, when Andrew Johnson was impeached. I'm sure you already knew that, though.

As for Nixon, he was never impeached as he resigned before it happened. But, had he not resigned, was impeaching him the wrong thing to do?

[DKW 86 7,440]

Demoncrats revel in being the opposition party where they can sit back and take pot shots at those who have to make the decisions, but when their time comes as the majority party, they are clueless as to what to do. They simply go back to the same old worn out socialist policies that have failed the country since the Roosevelt administration in the 40's

TB72, Both parties are equally guilty of this. I hate to say it but Gingrich was the world's best bomb thrower. As an out of power whip, he is/was the best. Brought down Jim Wright of Texas eventually and then got run out of town with basically the same book writing ethics problems.

As for Nixon, he was never impeached as he resigned before it happened. But, had he not resigned, was impeaching him the wrong thing to do?

Clinton and Nixon both broke the law and should have been impeached/removed.

I am trying to be a very impartial observer here on this but Nixon was wrong with the cover up, and Clinton was wrong to give false testimony/perjury in trying to disallow due process with Paula Jones. Both crooks and should have been removed, imho.

[AURaptor 1,126]

If I had suggested this, I would be insulted roundly on this board, but its from the guy who oversaw the thing..

..... sorry TexasTiger, but like much of what the Left builds their castles on, this story fell apart because it simply had no foundation.

Hate to say I told ya so, but.......wait, no I don't . I called this one just as I read it. The writer tried to claim that Hyde said that the impeachment of Clinton was retaliation for what happened to Nixon. Hyde never said any such thing. The story was a complete ruse, presented on a false pretense. ABC has since pulled the story.

[Tiger Al 0]

Hate to say I told ya so, but.......wait, no I don't . I called this one just as I read it.  The writer tried to claim that Hyde said that the impeachment of Clinton was retaliation for what happened to Nixon. Hyde never said any such thing.  The story was a complete ruse, presented on a false pretense.  ABC has since pulled the story. 

156848[/snapback]

You've actually gone a little too far in your defense of Hyde. On the video he was asked if Clinton was payback for Nixon and he said, "I can't say that it wasn't..." and then talked about how the reps would look if they didn't impeach, etc. Hardly a flat denial. However, I doubt (hope?) that revenge was the primary reason, either, but more of an ironic byproduct.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Hate to say I told ya so, but.......wait, no I don't . I called this one just as I read it.  The writer tried to claim that Hyde said that the impeachment of Clinton was retaliation for what happened to Nixon. Hyde never said any such thing.  The story was a complete ruse, presented on a false pretense.  ABC has since pulled the story. 

156848[/snapback]

You've actually gone a little too far in your defense of Hyde. On the video he was asked if Clinton was payback for Nixon and he said, "I can't say that it wasn't..." and then talked about how the reps would look if they didn't impeach, etc. Hardly a flat denial. However, I doubt (hope?) that revenge was the primary reason, either, but more of an ironic byproduct.

156856[/snapback]

I didn't defend Hyde in the least bit. I have no clue where you get that idea. This was a case of shoddy reporting which tried to pass off a story for something which it was not. The story was pulled for that very reason, so don't even pretend that Hyde admitted to something which he clearly did not.

[Tiger Al 0]

I didn't defend Hyde in the least bit.

I guess I mistook this:

Hyde never said any such thing.

as a defense for what the story said he said.

The story was pulled for that very reason, so don't even pretend that Hyde admitted to something which he clearly did not.

I'm not arguing the reasons why the story was pulled. I'm simply saying that the man said that he couldn't say impeaching Clinton wasn't retaliation for Nixon because that's exactly what Hyde said. I also said that I didn't think that was the main, primary or only reason that Clinton was impeached.

This is from your article on another thread:

Andy Shaw asked Hyde if the Clinton proceedings were payback for Nixon's impeachment.

    "I can't say it wasn't, but I also thought that the Republican party should stand for something, and if we walked away from this, no matter how difficult, we could be accused of shirking our duty, our responsibility," said Hyde.

Your denying what Hyde actually said makes you guilty of the same thing you accused the reporter of doing. And, in your zeal to point out the "evils" of "the media," you've also overlooked the fact that ABC voluntarily pulled the story and reeditted it due to excessive commentary by the author. In other words, they governed themselves. They realized that the piece was erroneously misleading and they fixed it. I know that doesn't fit with your "media" conspiracies to bring the "republicans" down but, oh well.

[AURaptor 1,126]

They realized that the piece was erroneously misleading and they fixed it. I know that doesn't fit with your "media" conspiracies to bring the "republicans" down but, oh well.

Actually it does fit the not so conspiratorial nature of the Left leaning media. Much like Dan Rather faking documents to try to influence an election. Only this time, the smoking gun of the article simply wasn't there. No quote to support the headline, no story. This actually happens more times than not, but this time they actually did the right thing by correcting themselves- for once.

ABC pulled the story because they were caught for flat out bad journalism. For some reason, you can't seem to grasp that simple fact. Hyde not being able to say if the Clinton impeachment was some sort of payback for what occured some 25 yrs prior is a far cry from what the story claimed. Hyde can't say. Might be true for some Republicans, then again, it might not. One can speculate that it IS why Hyde might have moved for impeachment, but he never says that, does he? Never mind the fact that Clinton was indeed guilty of perjury.

So, help me out here...are you more annoyed that ABC pulled the story, or that I'm right?

[Tiger Al 0]

So, help me out here...are you more annoyed that ABC pulled the story, or that I'm right?

I'm not annoyed either way.

ABC pulled the story because they were caught for flat out bad journalism.

See, here you go again. According to your article from "Wizbang,"

The Raw Story contacted the station who acknowledge that the story was pulled and reedited due excessive commentary by the author.

Sounds like ABC had already decided to change it before they were "caught." Regardless, evil ABC corrected it.

Hyde not being able to say if the Clinton impeachment was some sort of payback for what occured some 25 yrs prior is a far cry from what the story claimed. Hyde can't say. Might be true for some Republicans, then again, it might not. One can speculate that it IS why Hyde might have moved for impeachment, but he never says that, does he?

He said he couldn't say it wasn't, meaning that if it wasn't a primary motive, it was enough of a factor that he couldn't flatly deny the possibility. As you said, some republicans may have had that for a reason, some may not. I'm sure that as the leader of the House Judiciary Committee, he had his finger on the pulse of how the republicans felt and what they wanted, so I don't believe that his answer was as uninitiated as you put it...Some might, some might not...I can't say. It was also not the condemnation that the reporter thought it was, either.

Bottom line: ABC saw a problem and they fixed it.

[AURaptor 1,126]

See, here you go again. According to your article from "Wizbang,"

Not only from Wizbang , but even I could see the problem right away, as could anyone who read that story objectively. . So, Wizbang and I both saw the problem w/ the atricle, and so did ABC, because they PULLED THE ARTICLE! ABC saw the problem and fixed it...AFTER they ran w/ it and it was pointed out to them that they were wrong.

Why is this still an issue w/ you?

[Tiger Al 0]

AFTER they ran w/ it and it was pointed out to them that they were wrong.

Who pointed it out to them?

[AURaptor 1,126]

Who pointed it out to them?

We may never know that one. I'm sure they'll claim they pointed it out, even after they ran w/ it, in an obvious CYA move.

[Tiger Al 0]

Who pointed it out to them?

We may never know that one. I'm sure they'll claim they pointed it out, even after they ran w/ it, in an obvious CYA move.

156996[/snapback]

If you don't know who pointed it out then why do you assert that it must have been pointed out to them as opposed to being done internally?

[AURaptor 1,126]

If you don't know who pointed it out then why do you assert that it must have been pointed out to them as opposed to being done internally?

Because they're the ones who put it out in the 1st place. They ran w/ it. Boy, you really hate admitting defeat, huh?

[Tiger Al 0]

If you don't know who pointed it out then why do you assert that it must have been pointed out to them as opposed to being done internally?

Because they're the ones who put it out in the 1st place. They ran w/ it. Boy, you really hate admitting defeat, huh?

157001[/snapback]

So you just say someone pointed it out but don't really know that to be true? It's that "evil media" trying to get the republicans thing, huh?

[AURaptor 1,126]

So you just say someone pointed it out but don't really know that to be true? It's that "evil media" trying to get the republicans thing, huh?

Seems you somehow missed the whole Dan Rather / faked documents story right before the election. Bloggers, ( and no, I don't know specifically who) pointed out that the documents were likely forgeries, and sure enough.... they were. Precedent has been set, so it's by no means a stretch w/ the whole ' evil media' thing.

[Tiger Al 0]

So you just say someone pointed it out but don't really know that to be true? It's that "evil media" trying to get the republicans thing, huh?

Seems you somehow missed the whole Dan Rather / faked documents story right before the election. Bloggers, ( and no, I don't know specifically who) pointed out that the documents were likely forgeries, and sure enough.... they were. Precedent has been set, so it's by no means a stretch w/ the whole ' evil media' thing.

157008[/snapback]

So you just say someone pointed it out but don't really know that to be true?

[AURaptor 1,126]

So you just say someone pointed it out but don't really know that to be true?

This has become beyond tedious. They ran w/ a false story, and had to retract it because nothing in the story supported the claim. Now you're somehow trying to turn this around on me because of something I said ? That's hilarious.

[Tiger Al 0]

So you just say someone pointed it out but don't really know that to be true?

This has become beyond tedious. They ran w/ a false story, and had to retract it because nothing in the story supported the claim. Now you're somehow trying to turn this around on me because of something I said ? That's hilarious.

157012[/snapback]

No, it wasn't a false story, it was misleading. There's a difference. If Hyde were asked if Clinton was payback for Nixon and he said "No, it wasn't" but the article read, "Clinton impeachment was retaliation for Nixon, says retiring congressman

Henry Hyde," then THAT would be a false story. He said he couldn't say it wasn't.

It's only getting tedious because your hatred for "the media" is so great that you commit the same fouls that you accuse them of but have far too much pride to simply say "I stretched it a little." It doesn't make your little "Gotcha" on ABC less potent.

[AURaptor 1,126]

It's only getting tedious because your hatred for "the media" is so great that you commit the same fouls that you accuse them of but have far too much pride to simply say "I stretched it a little." It doesn't make your little "Gotcha" on ABC less potent.

There you go again. I've committed zero fouls here. This is what has you all flummoxed. I'm not part of this story, all I've done is post the facts. ABC retracted a false, misleading - call it as you like - story. How many times are we going to do this dance step ?

One last time, for the kids on the short bus....

ABC ran a story. The headline made a claim for which the article could not support. The story was misleading - to a great degree. So much so that ABC pulled the story. As soon as the story was posted by TexasTiger, I pointed out the simple fact that no where in the story was any quote given which would support the claim that the Clinton impeachement was an act of revenge. It seems I wasn't the only one, because many others caught ABC's faux pas as well. Eventaully someone in ABC wised up and decided to pull the story. That's it. End of discussion.

[Tiger Al 0]

The writer tried to claim that Hyde said that the impeachment of Clinton was retaliation for what happened to Nixon. Hyde never said any such thing.

My entrance into this thread with you was based solely on this section of your response to TexasTiger, as I told you.

Maybe you didn't follow TexasTiger's link to the COMPLETE article. If not, that's understandable why you would think the article was false based on the part TT posted. If so, just say so. If not, then what was Hyde's response to the question he was asked about Clinton's impeachment?