A Quote by John Dean

There's a political reality about impeachment. It's purely a political process. The interpretation of "high crimes and misdemeanors" can reach a long way, all the way to sex in the Oval Office, which was an absurd use of the impeachment clause.
Impeachment really is not a criminal proceeding. The American people have been conditioned to believe that, you know, high crimes and misdemeanors means what? Impeachment is a purely political process. And it can only succeed if there is the political will for it out there in the country. You can have all the misdemeanors and high crimes you want, but if the president's popular, you're not gonna succeed.
The possibility of impeachment's always there, but impeachment's a political thing, not legal, despite how it's structured. And it's not gonna happen unless there's a political will for it, and by that I mean political will among the people.
Clinton's egregious act of self-indulgence was outdone by an impeachment based not on constitutionally required high crimes and misdemeanors but on a vindictive determination to bring down a president who had offended self-righteous moralists eager to put a different political agenda in place.
I am neither accusing President Obama of having committed high crimes and misdemeanors nor advocating his impeachment.
It is a coup because while the Brazilian Constitution allows for impeachment, it's necessary for the person to have committed what we call high crimes and misdemeanors. And President Dilma did not commit a high crime nor misdemeanor. Therefore, what is happening is an attempt by some to take power by disrespecting the popular vote.
I think it absolutely necessary that the President should have the power of removing his subordinates from office; it will make him, in a peculiar manner, responsible for their conduct, and subject him to impeachment himself, if he suffers them to perpetrate with impunity high crimes or misdemeanors against the United States, or neglects to superintend their conduct, so as to check their excesses.
If a politician takes a bribe to do what he thinks would have been best for the public anyway, he still goes to jail. If he's president, under a Constitution that refers to impeachment specifically for 'bribery,' as well other 'high crimes and misdemeanors,' he should still be removed.
Impeachment must not be a raw exercise of political power in which the House impeaches whoever it wishes for any reason it deems sufficient. Indeed, it is the solemn duty of all of the members of the House in any impeachment case to exercise their judgment faithfully within the confines established by our Constitution.
When people were subjected to the impeachment and removal process, Aaron Burr was right there, looking out for their rights, even though it wasn't in his political interest to do so.
Article II of the articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon was just the simple fact that he talked about and suggested the potential use of the IRS against one or two political opponents.
To be clear, impeachment is above all else a political act.
The left keeps talking about impeachment. I mean, they were talking about impeachment before Donald Trump's inauguration in 2017. And, you know, I think impeaching Obama in January probably would have been a mistake.
If a president makes a reasoned decision about what best serves the nation's interests, even if he turns out to be wrong, he has committed no impeachable offense. The Framers didn't intend, through impeachment, to transform such policy disputes or mistakes into high crimes.
We often get impeachment inquiries or moves for impeachment inquiries on one president or another, and it doesn't go anywhere.
Every time I've talked about impeachment, I've said we've got to connect the dots, we've got to get the facts, we've got to do the investigation. That is what leads to impeachment and I also said that Donald Trump will lead us right there.
It became evident to me that there was a very serious political element at work. I know that the term impeachment was bandied about. I do not believe, however, that the word was used with the ferocity it was more recently or that it was in the Nixon years.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!