Nobody says that, it was for lying under oath. (Perjury)
2006-12-13 05:48:22
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
People who are ignorant of what actually occurred use this as a way of trivializing Clinton's impeachment. Clinton was impeached for lying under oath and attempting to obstruct justice by witness tampering in the Paula Jones case.
2006-12-13 11:11:31
·
answer #2
·
answered by VoodooPunk 4
·
4⤊
2⤋
It's easy to trivialize it when it was an Impeachment Crusade in Search of an Offense from the start. Whitewater didn't pan out-- as if a real-estate transaction before he took office could discredit his performance IN office-- so the best they could do was a cheap sex scandal and perjury trap-- an irrelevant question the judge should never have asked to begin with, in a nuisance lawsuit that should have been postponed until he left office. You people should be ashamed of yourselves for stooping so low and for distracting this country from the growing threat of Al Qaeda so you could have your silly Impeachment nonsense.
2006-12-13 11:21:12
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
Lizardmam has it right. Clinton was impeached for lying under oath to congress, to a grand jury, and to the American people. Just because he was not removed from office doesn't mean he wasn't impeached. He was. Saying that it was done because of a "BJ" from Monica Lewinsky is just the liberal's way of trivializing it. How about when he instructed Monica Lewinsky and his secretary to lie for him? If any ordinary citizen lied under oath and manipulated witnesses, he'd be in prison.
2006-12-13 11:17:04
·
answer #4
·
answered by rduke88 4
·
1⤊
3⤋
He WAS impeached by Congress, but for lying under oath. That offense is considered contempt of court when we do it, and the president is not above the law. He can not abuse his position.
People, being impeached does not necessitate removal from office. There have been 2 presidents impeached throughout American history: Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. Neither were convicted and removed from office, and both completed their terms.
2006-12-13 11:08:45
·
answer #5
·
answered by lizardmama 6
·
6⤊
2⤋
Because the thing that started it all was Monica and the BJ. He was not "lying" about, oh, Iran/Contra (funding "freedom fighters" through illegal arms dealing), or spying on your political opponents (watergate) or at least recklessly manipulating evidence as the basis for war. The fact is that the GOP kept Clinton mired in scandal so that he wouldn't get anything done.
And no one said he did nothing wrong. What we keep saying is that what he did wrong (the sexual encounter) was not the proper basis for an investigation in the first place. And by his acquittal, by the way, that was proof that he did nothing wrong.
2006-12-13 11:16:25
·
answer #6
·
answered by Perdendosi 7
·
1⤊
3⤋
In all fairness, he was not.
He was tried under the impeachment laws for lying under oath.
Unfortunately he was acquitted by congress, there by setting a
precedent. "It's okay to lie under oath if you are a Liberal but
you can't report intel as fact even if you don't know the intel was
flawed at the time, if you are a conservative".
MERRY CHRISTMAS and have a nice day.
Thank you very much, while you're up!!!!
2006-12-13 11:11:03
·
answer #7
·
answered by producer_vortex 6
·
4⤊
3⤋
funny if he would've been impeached for giving a BJ!
2006-12-13 11:05:49
·
answer #8
·
answered by TJ 4
·
5⤊
1⤋
He was impeached for lying about getting a BJ. The question should be - why was congress asking about his BJs in the first place?
2006-12-13 11:06:31
·
answer #9
·
answered by Amanda S 6
·
2⤊
6⤋
Who says that? He was impeached for lying to congress.
2006-12-13 11:04:58
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
2⤋
Pressident Clinton wasn't impeached they tried to , But ken Starr couldn't get the job done. But Monica Lewinsky could!!!
2006-12-13 11:07:46
·
answer #11
·
answered by rush 2
·
2⤊
4⤋