Ohio Flag

Former Rep. James Traficant



This website was created and maintained by Robert & Boris Korczak for Former Representative & friend Jim Traficant

The site is a labor of love from Jim's friends.


follow @jtraficant at http://twitter.com

Special Thanks To: Ex CIA Agent Boris Korczak for much of the archive material as well as Christopher Sciumbata. Special thanks to Former Congressional Staffer Robert Korczak for conserving the archives and maintaining the website.

Suffering Acne Problems?


TRAFICANT, James A., Jr., 

Saturday, December 19, 1998

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Rep. James A. Traficant, Jr. (D–OH) announced last night that he will vote against all four articles of impeachment against the President of the United States.  Traficant issued the following statement:

 I once said that an America with two legal standards, is an America with no legal standards.  I still believe that.  And I further believe that the House needs to take appropriate action today.  I do not question the motives of any member today.  Both parties agree, to a greater or lesser extent, that the President broke the law.
 Any prudent person in this body can justify an indictment on charges listed in the committee report.  But no prudent person would apply the death penalty to an act of perjury over a consensual sexual affair.  And make no mistake, impeachment is tantamount to political capital punishment.  Our duty today is to further justice.  True justice is not found in fancy books.  True justice evolves to fit the need.  If the founders wanted a simple legal disposition, they would have had impeach- ment handled by the Supreme Court.  The founders chose a political disposition.  They knew that judges appointed to lifetime terms could take the constitution and mold it like clay in their hands.  The founders also knew that those same judges are not accountable to the voters.

 So here we are.  And we're not at a joint meeting of Kiwanis and Rotary.  Did the president commit perjury?  It appears so.  Does the punishment of impeachment fit the crime in this case?  No.  The American people aren't dumb.  After four years of intense investigation the independent counsel came up with nothing on Whitewater, nothing on Filegate, nothing on Travelgate, nothing on Chinagate and nothing on the Vincent Foster files.

 Judge Starr's case is essentially, what did the President touch, when did he touch it, and was he alone when he touched it?  I don't mean to make light of this.  Punishment is in order -- not impeachment.  The arguments over censure are ludicrous.  Some say the Constitution does not permit censure.  I say the Constitution does not prohibit censure.  The founders ensured that a political resolution can be achieved.  Thus, the House should censure the President.  And upon the conclusion of his term, the President should be subject to prosecution.

 The bottom line is that "high crimes and misdemeanors" is the standard today.  And I submit, an impeachable offense is one that threatens liberty -- not chastity.2009