Along with the above noted question does anyone know of anyone else, as a citizen "other" than Bill Clinton that has been prosecuted for the same type of perjury, while Clinton remains unpunished.
2006-08-30 04:09:32 · 11 answers · asked by B'klyn Barracuda 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The question is a "Legal" one. As usual Liberals respond by, name calling, character attacks and rants. Didn't their parents ever tell them as Little Liberals, it's O.K. to say, "I don't know".
2006-08-30 04:19:19 · update #1
He was. It's called impeachment. That's the technical name for the trial for someone in his elected position. See Article I Sections 2 and 3, and Article II Section 4 of the Constitution.
The trial happened. The House indicted on charges, and the Senate heard those charges. He was just acquitted of the charges.
2006-08-30 05:43:36 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Clinton was impeached for his perjury. The senate voted to not prosecute. Probably because of all the dirt the clintons dug up on everyone. The damage was done, they let him stay in office. They didn't want to put the country through what they through with Nixon. Allowing clinton to stay ensured a republican victory.
2006-08-30 04:16:48 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
some factors: A. we do not favor to prosecute GWB for conflict crimes for no reason... you look to intend you both commit conflict CRIMES OR DO not something...there's a huge middle floor... entire wars are fought on that middle floor... B. those attacks were from diverse communities... some were stopped... what number kinfolk terrorists have attacked us in view that Clinton? 0... McVeigh became stuck and now useless... C. we've had many attacks less than Bush... our troops are hit with IEDs continuously, numerous at or extra functional than the cole attacks... why does it count number as a significant terrorist attack less than Clinton even as our troops are attacked... yet not less than Bush? D. you contain an tried attack in a itemizing of significant attacks? why? what about tried Bush attacks? there have been some... why count number for one and in no way the different? your record is bias, your factors are bias... you ignore about maximum data in an attempt to slam Clinton... ordinary truth: maximum folk weren't targeted on terrorism contained in the 90s... congress really stated a peep, in truth they COMPLAINED even as Clinton did take some movements... could he have stopped 9-11... probably... would cons were complaining and crying all the way and in no way gave him ANY credit for it and stated it wasn't a real chance... 100 p.c. certain... as they DID for the duration of his time period... so that you'll purely be complaining now "why did he flow after that bin encumbered guy... he wasn't a real chance"... if he did...
2016-12-05 23:34:52 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well now cowboy, if we went around actually prosecuting former or current Presidents for such infractions, we might likely have a difficult time keeping any warm bodies in the Oval Office.
Besides, he was impeached - and acquitted. A rather lengthy ordeal for the country, from what I recall.
2006-08-30 04:17:22 · answer #4 · answered by buzzfeedbrenny 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Don't we (as a nation) have anything better to do than chase around the President racking up high dollar trials over a lie? It isn't like he lied about national security. Everyone lies to cover their butt.
Perjury Trial Date Set In Kiplyn Davis Case.
http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_157113141.html
Government setback in Estrada perjury trial
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/southeast/10/29/phili.estrada/
Ebersole Perjury Trial Underway in Richmond
http://www.winchesterstar.com/TheWinchesterStar/030415/Area_ebersole.asp
2006-08-30 04:15:49 · answer #5 · answered by Zelda 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I will tell you what. We can prosecute Clinton to the fullest extent of the law for perjuring himself, on an issue of trivial importance. I am sure conservatives consider the issue of a man lying about his sexual indiscretions to be of serious import, but to most sensible people it is a puerile fixation. However, if one is going to prosecute Clinton on this minor offense, Bush needs to be put on trial for misleading the American people into an immoral war. Let’s be a bit even handed in our witch hunt, shall we?
2006-08-30 04:15:21 · answer #6 · answered by Lawrence Louis 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Why wasn't Nixon prosecuted for Watergate? Why wasn't Reagan prosecuted for Iran-Contra? Why wasn't Bush I prosecuted for any number of his actions through the past 50 years? Why won't Junior be prosecuted for war crimes?
What a moron.
2006-08-30 05:38:23 · answer #7 · answered by TurboLover 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Clinton was impeached. Later on he was aquitted.
The fact is that HE WAS IMPEACHED
2006-08-30 04:12:58 · answer #8 · answered by smitty031 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
because of presidential immunity, he must be impeached first before he was to be prosecuted....
2006-08-30 04:25:31 · answer #9 · answered by joseph_abri 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I pity you because your life is empty.
2006-08-30 05:06:51 · answer #10 · answered by a_delphic_oracle 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋