English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

if you agree tell why same for if you don't

2007-03-07 04:20:08 · 28 answers · asked by Babi Girl 1 in Politics & Government Politics

28 answers

Don't need a point of view. I have facts. Perjury and obstruction of justice.

2007-03-07 04:24:49 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 9 5

I'm a Republican and I didn't enjoy it. I thought it was petty at the time. I never agreed with Clinton's politics but, I've always had respect for the office of president.

just for the record Clinton ran against sitting president George H. Bush in 1992. Just something that should be set straight after reading through other answers

2007-03-07 04:47:33 · answer #2 · answered by archangel72901 4 · 2 0

He lied and impeded an Federal investigation.

He would have looked bad and lost political points if he admitted to his actions. Most likely, the whole thing would of run its course. His political base doesn't care about his behavior. Those that did care had already written him off.

He broke the law and got away with it. What started as a moral lapse ended up as perjury. However, he got off because he had a favorable jury. Its hard to believe a ******** could get you impeached. The problem is the perjury. I can't get around that. Libby did the same thing and was rightly convicted.

2007-03-07 04:39:13 · answer #3 · answered by TTU 2 · 2 0

President of usa of america bill Clinton became into impeached by using the abode of Representatives on December 19, 1998, and acquitted by using the Senate on February 12, 1999. the charges, perjury and obstruction of justice, arose from the Monica Lewinsky scandal and Paula Jones regulation in positive condition. The trial court docket situations have been in particular occasion-line, with out Democratic Senators vote casting for conviction and easily 3 Democratic Representatives vote casting to question. In all, 55 senators voted "not accountable," and 40 5 voted "accountable" on the charge of perjury. The Senate additionally acquitted on the obstruction charge with 50 votes forged each and every way.

2016-12-18 07:39:44 · answer #4 · answered by lesniewski 4 · 0 0

Dirty politics. The Republicans in Congress, especially Bob Barr, wanted to show their power by bringing him up on impeachment charges. The charge was supposedly lying to a grand jury which was the same thing Scooter Libby was convicted of this week. Clinton probably should have told the truth about Monica Lewinsky, but that shouldn't have warranted impeachment. The Senate did not vote to remove him from office. The ironic thing is that Al Gore would have been president had Clinton been removed and it would have been likely that he would have been elected in 2000 instead of Bush. Go figure.

2007-03-07 04:34:28 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 3

He was impeached because it was a Republican Congress who didn't like the fact that Clinton come off a little sleezy at times in his dealings. He had the name "Slick Willie" long before he entered the White House. I attribute it to the fact that he was super intellegent, and was hard to be backed into a corner when debating him or fighting him on an issue. He always found a way out of bad situations.

The Republicans in Congress resented him for that, and since they couldn't get him though the Whitewater affair or anything else (they had Special Prosecutor Ken Starr investigating EVERYTHING trying to get some dirt), they decided the only thing they could say was he lied abut an affair. They said he had no integrity because he lied about having sex with an intern. Me personally, I think ANYONE would lie in that situation. Besides that... no one elses business...

Anyways, because he lied, the Republicans had what they needed to impeach... Of course it was ridiculous and an ABSOLUTE WASTE OF TAXPAYER MONEY, but whatever...

It's funny that our current President G Dubya has a scandal every single week, and ones that involved people getting killed, not getting medical care, torturing, etc., but he's yet to be impeached... Double standard? hmmmmmm??

2007-03-07 04:31:18 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 3

Bill Clinton was the target of a monumental and treasonous campaign to bring down a sitting president.

In 1992 after Bill Clinton narrowly defeated Bob Dole in a tight three way race (with Ross Perot getting 19% of the vote), the Republican braintrust decided that the majority of voters did not vote for Bill Clinton. Thus, they saw it as a legitimate recourse to do everything in their power to bring him down. (Needless to say they didn't bother with the nasty inconvenient truth staring them in the face that an even greater majority of people did not vote for Dole, but that's the kind of logic they practice).

Anyway, Republicans grabbed onto anything they could find that smelled like a scandal and investigated and investigated and investigated, turning over every rock they could find spending over $70 million of the taxpayer's money looking for an excuse to get rid of Bill Clinton. They pursued every allegation, no matter how impossible, insane or completely absurd - portraying Vince Foster's suicide as a homicide (and when that didn't work, as the result of Hillary ending their phantom affair), Whitewater, Troopergate, and on and on. Finally, they managed to catch Bill Clinton in a lie about Monica Lewinsky while he was testifying under oath about yet another completely unrelated investigation.

Clinton was impeached for that lie.

Now, on another note, while Conservatives love to hang 9/11 around Bill Clinton's neck for not doing anything about terrorism or Osama bin Laden during the 90s, there are two important facts to point out here. First, when Clinton did send a cruise missile to blow up bin Laden's camp in the midst of the Lewinsky mess, every single Conservative commentator, politican and hanger-on swore up and down that bin Laden was no threat and this was merely a means of distracting us from the impeachment. Secondly, Conservatives have to own up to their complicity in 9/11, in that their constant hounding of Clinton for eight years at the very least distracted him from doing something about bin Laden, and possibly preventing 9/11.

2007-03-07 04:36:38 · answer #7 · answered by wineboy 5 · 2 2

He was impeached because despite being a very intelligent man instead of telling the perverted Republican Congress that his consenual sexi was none of their #$%^&* business - he lied and said he did not have sex with Monica.

And this cost the American Taxpayers over forty million dollars and five years of the Republicans Special Prosecutors time and effort!

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!

Clinton got the BJs - but the Republicans and the rest of the American public got the Shaft!

Only in America!

2007-03-07 04:29:16 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 3

Not point of view - historical fact.

The Impeachment Trial in the Senate commenced on January 7, 1999, with the announcement by the Sergeant-at-Arms of the presence of the managers on the part of the House of Representatives to conduct proceedings on behalf of the House concerning the impeachment of the President of the United States. After Congressman Hyde read the Articles of Impeachment approved by the House, the Senate then adjourned, reconvening later that day with Chief Justice Rehnquist present, who was sworn in as presiding officer for the trial and who in turn swore in the 100 senators as jurors for the proceedings. The President's case was outlined in the White House Trial Memorandum submitted on January 13, which was countered by the House Rebuttal to White House Trial Memorandum. In subsequent sessions, the Senate voted to adopt a series of motions to limit evidence primarily to the previously video-taped depositions, affidavits and other documents previously introduced, and also voted to close its final deliberations to the public.

The Senate voted on the Articles of Impeachment on February 12, with a two-thirds majority, or 67 Senators, required to convict. On Article I, that charged that the President "...willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury" and made "...corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence" in the Paula Jones lawsuit, the President was found not guilty with 45 Senators voting for the President's removal from office and 55 against. Ten Republicans split with their colleagues to vote for acquittal; all 45 Democrats voted to acquit. On Article II, charging that the President "...has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice"..., the vote was 50-50, with all Democrats and five Republicans voting to acquit.

Following the vote, President Clinton, in televised remarks from the White House, said:

Now that the Senate has fulfilled its constitutional responsibility bringing this process to a conclusion, I want to say again to the American people how profoundly sorry I am for what I said and did to trigger these events and the great burden they have imposed on the Congress and on the American people.

I also am humbled and very grateful for the support and the prayers I have received from millions of Americans over this past year.

Now I ask all Americans, and I hope all Americans here in Washington and throughout our land, will rededicate ourselves to the work of serving our nation and building our future together. This can be and this must be a time of reconciliation and renewal for America.

2007-03-07 04:25:51 · answer #9 · answered by aiminhigh24u2 6 · 5 3

Impeaching a president only means bringing charges against them. His charges were regarding his dishonesty. Once impeached, most Presidents resign.

I think it's bullshit. One President can be impeached for having an affair and another President who is waging a war which more than half of his country disagrees with, taking BILLIONS of dollars to fight an illegitimate enemy with pre-emptive, dangerous tactics doesn't even get a slap on the wrist.

2007-03-07 04:27:09 · answer #10 · answered by Winette 5 · 1 5

Lieing under oath in sexual harressement case and
Obstruction of justice.

I am willing to be you that most of your responses will be from liberals something about a BJ.

It was about a man using his powers of office to smear the victim and preventing a woman from having her day in court.

Her name was Paula Jones in case you need the name.

Since the democrats rally around Clinton for doing this I don't see why they made a big deal about Scooter Libby.

2007-03-07 04:27:13 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 5 3

fedest.com, questions and answers