It is a historical fact that Bill Clinton was Impeached by the house of reps on 12/19/1999, yet most people have gone out of there way to point out that Clinton was not impeached even though:
1) he was impeached and
2) that wasn't part of my question.
I'm trying to understand this. Is this similar to the way Bill Clinton tried to manipulate the meaning of the word 'is' during the impeachment proceedings?
2007-02-24 08:43:21 · 21 answers · asked by Big Brother 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Yep, the General is right, I am aware that they think impeached means tossed out of office. Either way, they're wrong.
2007-02-24 09:26:21 · update #1
You said it!
They want to impeach Bush so bad, but they don't realize YOU HAVE TO BREAK THE LAW to be impeached. Clinton did, the Enron CEOs did, Martha Stewart did and they all have to pay.
2007-02-24 08:47:45 · answer #1 · answered by bamafannfl 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋
The impeachment process is two fold. First, a simple majority in the House of Representives is needed to impeach a sitting President. Then it is tried before the Senate and the Senate needs a two thirds majority vote to convict and punish the impeached President. Bill Clinton was in fact impeached by the House of Representatives, but when the impeachment was tried by the Senate, he was aquitted.
So, yes he was impeached or charged, but the jury acquitted him of these charges.
2007-02-24 16:53:39 · answer #2 · answered by Mr Mojo Risin 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I wouldn't be surprised if 75% believe he was not impeached.
'Is this similar to the way Bill Clinton tried to manipulate the meaning of the word 'is' during the impeachment proceedings?'
No, this is a very common, long-standing misunderstanding of the word 'impeach', one that predates Clinton's presidency. Most people think impeachment requires conviction. It's not a partisan misunderstaning. It's a rather less common word than 'is'.
People routinely misuse much more common words than 'impeach'. For example, 'celibate' now really means--according to some dictionaries--'sexually abstinate' thanks to the epidemic misuse, and similar things are happening to hundreds of other words.
People misuse the word. You make fun of Clinton for being extremely literal and narrow in his interpretions of words. Don't be the same. You know what they mean when they say he wasn't impeached, just as he knew what they really meant when they said 'sexual relations', even after they gave the flawed definition.
2007-02-24 17:04:39 · answer #3 · answered by General Wesc 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
People have never really understood what "impeachment" means. Most have always assumed that it meant removed from office even prior to Clinton.
This stupidity is indicitive of the fact that most of the people on this site know nothing about politics. For example just look how many people believe that Bush is behind 911 and the Bush family is behind the JFK assasination.
2007-02-24 16:51:47 · answer #4 · answered by Nationalist 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Most people just aren't very smart. Before Clinton, what most people knew about impeachment came about from the myth (story, common knowledge) of Nixon: If he had not resigned, he would have been impeached and thrown out of office. That was repeated often enough that people began to think that impeachment and removal from office were the same thing, or that the one inevitably led to the other.
It's easy to find "common knowledge" that runs directly counter to codified norms, especially when there are few or no examples of that norm in practice. Clinton was just a case that brought that to light.
2007-02-24 16:50:55 · answer #5 · answered by Chris A 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
He was impeached by the House of Representatives on two counts, one each of perjury and obstruction of justice.
After being impeached the charges were sent to the Senate who voted to not have hearing or debate on the measure. To put it in layman's terms, he was found guilty but the judge refused to sentnce the convict.
As a result fo this impeachment he holds the distinction of being the only President disbarred from the US Suptreme Court.
2007-02-24 16:57:11 · answer #6 · answered by Jester 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
There's no way of knowing what people believe. You are right, Mr. Clinton was impeached but not convicted by the Senate. I knew that.
2007-02-24 16:47:38 · answer #7 · answered by regerugged 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
He was impeached but people don't realize he was because what were the consequences?
He served the full time and now with Hillary possibly being President for him it will be like another four years.
2007-02-24 16:58:07 · answer #8 · answered by sapphire_630 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
He was impeached (brought to a Senatorial trial).
He was not convicted.
Frankly, this was a low point for partisan politics if
ever there was one.
People tend to link impeachment with actually being
kicked out. That is, they think they are the same thing.
In reality, its more like being charged vs. found guilty.
They are NOT the same thing and our entire court system
exists because there is a difference.
It is a very common mistake, however.
Regarding above comments about having to have
committed a crime to be impeached, that is essentially
the gist of Clinton's bill of indictment.
That is, lying was the crime.
Very similar to Bush telling the Congress in a constitutionally
mandated address (State of the Union) that he
KNEW Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
When Clinton lied, nobody died.
There is no known causal link between Clinton and
the 47 people mentioned above. Bush's lie was
extremely causal to us going to war with Iraq,
the approximately 3000 Americans killed and
the 600000+ Iraqis who died.
You may not like Clinton personally but
comparatively, his hands are spotless.
2007-02-24 16:48:16 · answer #9 · answered by Elana 7 · 2⤊ 5⤋
I knew that the House voted to impeach and that the Senate did not. But he did deserve to be.
2007-02-24 16:51:26 · answer #10 · answered by Johnny Conservative 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋