Inside Impeachment Diary Of A Congressman

This diary provides an inside look at what many members of Congress privately think about impeachment from both a Republican and Democrat perspective and the huge burden of proof required to impeach a sitting President. A key point, yet so often ignored by both authors and commentators, is the extraordinary burden of proof for “high crimes and misdemeanors” that must be met to make a presidential impeachment even remotely possible. While the previous media commentors and book authors convey a cursory understanding of impeachment, they only scratch the surface of a much deeper issue, and that often leaves listeners with more questions than answers. This book will fill that void. Also, this account will be of immense use to current U.S. senators and representatives, and of great interest to historians and enthusiasts of political process. More than anything, however, this diary it will be appealing to a broad popular audience. While readers may not agree with some of the political stance on issues, the record of conversations and events will be valuable to all, regardless of partisan ideology. Perhaps the most important points from this book will be the lessons learned from the impeachment process. Every American should read this valuable book to understand how our constitution works. “Having served in Congress during the Impeachment of President Clinton, I find the diary of the impeachment process by Rep. Stearns fascinating and clearly an insider’s view from both sides of the political aisle. —Congressman Tim Petri “From a historical standpoint, this new book by Mr. Stearns on the impeachment process is a welcome addition to better understanding how the process in the House of Representatives really works. It also will provide insight if another impeachment is begun.” —Andy Glass, Contributing Editor, Politico, “As a Member of Congress who actually took part in the debate on Bill Clinton’s 1998–99 impeachment, Cliff Stearns vividly brings to life what was then only the second impeachment of a president in the history of the US. The entire process, its equivalent to an indictment by a grand jury, and the serious and highly personal exchanges of the House Members are much-needed guidelines to understand why impeachment did come up again and will in the future.” —John Gizzi, Senior White House Correspondent, Newsmax

This diary provides an inside look at what many members of Congress privately think about impeachment from both a Republican and Democrat perspective and the huge burden of proof required to impeach a sitting President. A key point, yet so often ignored by both authors and commentators, is the extraordinary burden of proof for "high crimes and misdemeanors" that must be met to make a presidential impeachment even remotely possible. While the previous media commentors and book authors convey a cursory understanding of impeachment, they only scratch the surface of a much deeper issue, and that often leaves listeners with more questions than answers. This book will fill that void. Also, this account will be of immense use to current U.S. senators and representatives, and of great interest to historians and enthusiasts of political process. More than anything, however, this diary it will be appealing to a broad popular audience. While readers may not agree with some of the political stance on issues, the record of conversations and events will be valuable to all, regardless of partisan ideology. Perhaps the most important points from this book will be the lessons learned from the impeachment process. Every American should read this valuable book to understand how our constitution works.

Barber B. Conable, Jr.—perhaps the most respected member of Congress of his era—kept a frank, insightful, revealing journal available now for the first time thanks to the efforts of editor Bill Kauffman in The Congressional Journal of Barber B. Conable, Jr., 1968–1984. The journal is an honest, searching, sometimes humorous, occasionally cutting, and always fascinating look inside Congress. Conable, a Republican member of the House from upstate New York, wrote perceptively about Presidents Nixon, Ford, H. W. Bush, and the leading congressional figures of the day. For seventeen years he wrote about the big events as well as daily political life in an era that included Vietnam, Watergate, political realignment, and major changes in entitlements and taxes, where he played a key role. Displaying his gift for clear expression and astute insight, Conable narrates the machinations of major tax measures, trade bills, and such special interests of his as public financing of congressional campaigns. While he is never shy about expressing personal judgments, he revels in the give and take of legislative politics. Conable had an acute sense of the human dynamics of legislating: In addition to the tax bills he shaped and struggled with as the leading Republican on the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, his work with the 1982–1983 Social Security Commission, led by Alan Greenspan, is a classic exercise. Conable thought a deal was critical for the solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund but politically almost impossible given the differing priorities of the chief protagonists, President Reagan and House Speaker Tip O’Neill. In the journal Conable pronounces the effort doomed on January 13, 1983. Two days later he marvels at the political and personal dexterity and skill that ended up producing a deal. The journal illuminates Conable’s intellect, his commitment to his constituents, and his appreciation of principled pragmatism; his writings are in real time, not rendered retrospectively to make himself look better, a rarity among political legacies.

Four experts on the American presidency examine the three times impeachment has been invoked—against Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton—and explain what it means today. Impeachment is a double-edged sword. Though it was designed to check tyrants, Thomas Jefferson also called impeachment “the most formidable weapon for the purpose of a dominant faction that was ever contrived.” On the one hand, it nullifies the will of voters, the basic foundation of all representative democracies. On the other, its absence from the Constitution would leave the country vulnerable to despotic leadership. It is rarely used, and with good reason. Only three times has a president’s conduct led to such political disarray as to warrant his potential removal from office, transforming a political crisis into a constitutional one. None has yet succeeded. Andrew Johnson was impeached in 1868 for failing to kowtow to congressional leaders—and, in a large sense, for failing to be Abraham Lincoln—yet survived his Senate trial. Richard Nixon resigned in August 1974 after the House Judiciary Committee approved three articles of impeachment against him for lying, obstructing justice, and employing his executive power for personal and political gain. Bill Clinton had an affair with a White House intern, but in 1999 he faced trial in the Senate less for that prurient act than for lying under oath about it. In the first book to consider these three presidents alone—and the one thing they have in common—Jeffrey A. Engel, Jon Meacham, Timothy Naftali, and Peter Baker explain that the basis and process of impeachment is more political than legal. The Constitution states that the president “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” leaving room for historical precedent and the temperament of the time to weigh heavily on each case. This book reveals the complicated motives behind each impeachment—never entirely limited to the question of a president’s guilt—and the risks to all sides. Each case depended on factors beyond the president’s behavior: his relationship with Congress, the polarization of the moment, and the power and resilience of the office itself. This is a realist view of impeachment that looks to history for clues about its potential use in the future.

An account of the attempt to remove Andrew Johnson from the presidency. It demolishes the myth that Johnson's impeachment was unjustified.

Some vols. include supplemental journals of "such proceedings of the sessions, as, during the time they were depending, were ordered to be kept secret, and respecting which the injunction of secrecy was afterwards taken off by the order of the House".