was it for political reasons or high crimes and misdemeanors??
give me a full report, or as much as you feel,
im doing a paper on it, just wondering everyone's opinions.
2007-04-07
14:36:46
·
24 answers
·
asked by
serrsly
3
in
Politics & Government
➔ Other - Politics & Government
he was impeached, he just wasnt impeached and found guilty.
2007-04-07
14:43:02 ·
update #1
i am doing my own paper, its halfway finished, im just wondering everyones opinion on the subject.
2007-04-07
14:45:42 ·
update #2
Former President Clinton was in fact impeached on Dec. 19, 1998 by the house of representatives, for perjury and obstruction of justice. I think the confusion most people have is that he was later, acquitted of the charges. He was originally being tried for a sexual assault. During the testimony while he was under oath, he was questioned about the charge, which is where he lied. The case ended up being dismissed, but it was learned that he did in fact lie during his questioning, prompting the subpeona to the grand jury. During the grand jury investigation, he was caught lying again. So as far as your question is concerned, the impeachment had more to do with the felonious act of lying under oath than anything else. It is funny how those that argue 'political persecution', tend to overlook the fact that all of his problems started when he was brought to court for the sexual assault charge and decided to lie about it....
2007-04-07 15:12:48
·
answer #1
·
answered by Adam Smith 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
He replaced into effectively impeached. He replaced into no longer removed from workplace. that's 2 very diverse issues. the dwelling house of Representatives votes to question -- that vote exceeded. The Senate then votes even though if to eliminate from workplace -- that vote failed. Your assessment to criminal justice is unsuitable: the impeachment is the equivalent of an indictment. even though if the defendant is acquitted at trial, that's nevertheless precise to assert that he replaced into indicted. EDIT: nicely, what somebody emphasizes is thoroughly based on what they like to emphasise. somebody who replaced into serious of Clinton will emphasize the impeachment, together as somebody who replaced into supportive of Clinton could emphasize the acquittal. that's all an issue of the element you're attempting to make. It merely seems such as you're attempting to make a various element that some others, it rather is all.
2016-10-21 07:48:46
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
yes he was impeached. It was for lying about having the affair. It had absolutely nothing to do with anything of any importance, it was something that should have stayed between he and his wife. When questioned by the press at the beginning he said something to the effect of "I don't have time for this, I have a country to run". That was just about the only thing he ever really said about it until it was all over with.
2007-04-07 14:47:26
·
answer #3
·
answered by Chrissy 7
·
2⤊
2⤋
"I did not have sex with that woman." He was in fact impeached for perjuring himself and obstruction of justice.
Many have done it (JFK, FDR), but no one else was caught being with such an inexperienced, clueless fool as Monica Lewinski.
We had a Rhode's Scholar trying to redefine the sex act to the American people.
We may be gullible, but, we're not that gullible.
2007-04-07 15:26:49
·
answer #4
·
answered by Firespider 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Clintons impeachment had nothing to do with Monica Lewinski. He was impeached because he lied to a grand jury in the Paula Jones rape case in which he was the accused.
Cheney was harassed because he shot somone in the face by accident. Clinton was impeached when he shot someone in the face on purpose.
2007-04-07 14:55:07
·
answer #5
·
answered by Toeless_Joe_Jackson 5
·
1⤊
3⤋
Lied under oath to a Grand Jury. That is a Felony which is considered a high crime (when you have the chief law enforcement officer in the COUNTRY lie under oath, thats a felony)
IT WAS NOT ABOUT HIS AFFAIR. IF JUST TOLD THE TRUTH THE IMPEACHEMENT WOULD HAVE NEVER HAPPENED.
But since he was a gutless liar he got in trouble by committing a felony. No matter to the libs though they "FEEL' it was no big deal so to heck with the LAW and let him be.
2007-04-07 14:48:51
·
answer #6
·
answered by jonepemberton 3
·
4⤊
2⤋
He wasn't impeached. He almost was though. They were going to impeach him. It was all just over that stuff with Monica Lewinsky. I agree with most of you. What he and Hilary did in the privacy of their own bedroom (or offices) should only be their business and none of ours. The way I think of it... His adultry was not getting in the way of his work. Not like he was going to bomb a country just cause he wasn't getting any. lol. I'm not saying it's ok to cheat on anyone because it never is. All I'm saying is that they were just making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Take Care,
Cindy
xoxo
2007-04-07 14:48:25
·
answer #7
·
answered by agarthfan_1999 4
·
0⤊
3⤋
All politicians lie. That's their reputation. The republican controlled congress impeached clinton just so they can have a republican president in the future. They succeded!
2007-04-07 16:01:42
·
answer #8
·
answered by Ian C 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
on paper, impeached for lying under oath..
in reality, impeached because of a bunch of immature, cry baby republicans who thought that they would do anything (even behave immorally/irrationally) to put themselves on top..instead of acting like adults and trying to get the vote during the next election...they acted like spoiled rotten immature, whinny babies, screaming and crying and holding their breath till they turned blue till they got their way.
They tried since the day he was elected to pin any old thing on him..Anyone ever ask why he was even asked about his sex life in a court of law?? This wasn't a divorce court.
god forbid someone should reduce the national debt, create jobs, and provide liberty and freedom for more Americans than ever before! (bad clinton!! BAD!!)
Now, lets examine how the current administration is illegally: lying, cheating, bribing, torturing, imprisoning, spying, and many other things that are not only illegal, but unconstitutional..and no one is dragging their lying cheating butts into a court of law asking how many mouths their d*cks have been in!
2007-04-07 14:51:21
·
answer #9
·
answered by spottedmyappy 3
·
1⤊
3⤋
He lied under oath to a federal grand jury. That is a big no-no for anybody. Anyone else would have been jailed though.
2007-04-07 16:20:46
·
answer #10
·
answered by sfs18 3
·
0⤊
0⤋