You've probably heard the quote of the day from Lamar Smith (disclaimer: I have chopped up this crap in no particular order):
Nothing is going to come out of this hearing with regard to the impeachment of the president... I know it, the media knows it, even the speaker knows it... The Democratic leadership has said time and again they have intention of bringing any impeachment resolution for the president or the vice president to the House floor. Why? Because they know it wouldn't pass... These relentless efforts of some individuals to malign the outgoing administration only demeans and harms the institution of Congress... This hearing will not cause us to impeach the president; it will only serve to impeach our own credibility... It seems that we are hosting an anger management class...
He was singing a different tune in 1998. Why? Because Bill Clinton lied about getting a blowjob. But don't take my word for it, read below:
As a distinguished Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee said during the Nixon impeachment proceeding, "It is wrong, I suggest, it is a misreading of the Constitution for any member here to assert that for a member to vote for an article of impeachment means that that member must be convinced that the president should be removed from office. The Constitution doesn't say that. The powers relating to impeachment are an essential check in the hands of this body, the legislature, against and upon the encroachment of the executive. In establishing the division between the two branches of the legislature -- the House and the Senate -- assigning to the one the right to accuse and to the other the right to judge, the framers of this Constitution were very astute. They did not make the accusers and the judges the same person."
After consideration of all the evidence presented, I am convinced it is sufficient for the House to charge the president with several wrongful actions.
I feel the evidence shows that the president committed perjury by lying under oath, obstructed justice, and abused the power of his office.
So why not investigate Bush for obstruction of justice, when we know full well, as Kucinich asserts and as the Scooter Libby trial demonstrated, that both Bush and Cheney made false and misleading statements leading up to and following the Iraq invasion. Wait, before I go off, let's let the Lamar Smith of 1998 continue, he still has some "distinguished" advice for us:
Judiciary Committee members will be consistent if they follow the precedent established in 1974. Individuals from both parties agreed with a Democratic congresswoman from Texas when she said, "The president engaged in a series of public statements and actions designed to thwart the lawful investigation by government prosecutors. Moreover, the president has made public announcements and assertions which the evidence will show he knew to be false. These assertions," she said, "are impeachable."
It only gets better:
So if the president were just an ordinary person living in the United States, it is not certain that he would be found to have committed a crime. What then, makes this a case that rises to the impeachment level?
I think there are two factors: the repeated and deliberate nature of the lies, and the uniqueness of the office of the presidency.
It was determined by the independent counsel that, quote, "On at least six different occasions from December 17th, 1997 through August 17th, 1998 the president had to make a decision. He could choose truth, or he could choose deception. On all six occasions the president chose deception, a pattern of calculated behavior over a span of months."
See a trend here?
During this time not only did the president tell a judge and then a grand jury less than the truth, he also told lies to the American people, the news media, members of Congress, his cabinet, and senior White House advisers.
Oh, I'm confused, are we talking about 2008 or 1998?. Surely this will clear up the confusion, when Lamar Smith talks about how the President...
...turned his personal flaws into a public matter when he made the whole country complicit in his cover story. This was no impulsive act of passion. It was a coldly calculated political decision. He spoke publicly from the Roosevelt Room. He assembled his cabinet and staff and assured them that he was telling the truth. Then he sat back, silently, and watched his official spokespeople, employees of the U.S. government, mislead the country again and again and again..."
You can read the whole thing for yourself, but I'm going to end with this little gem of wisdom from Representative(?) Smith:
We already know the president still might be deceiving us today were it not for physical evidence that forced him to change his story.
How true, how true, how sadly true for all of those people who died because Bush did indeed deceive us.