Was Bill Clinton really prosecuted for getting blown?

Question

It's disgusting, but I don't think you can be convicted of being a pig. I was quite certain in January of 1994 Independent Counsel was appointed to investigate the Clinton's role in Whitewater and their finances personal, political and business finances in the 1980s. We know what can of worms THAT opened don't we? Travelgate, Filegate, sexual assauts ( Kathryn Willey), Campaign finance, abuse of power (IRS audits of Clinton enemies) Lewinsky didn't even start 'working' at the Whitehouse until 1995.

I assumed that was just icing on the cake, because the swine chose to lie about it. He was under investigation PRIOR TO getting his rocks off. And lying about something so misicule among the whole host of his crimes is what finally did get him impeached. No one gives a rip where he puts his deformed organ (unless you're Paula Jones or Juanita Broaddrick). So can you libs please stop claiming repubs investigated him for SEX--it started long before that and rightfully so.

schneid123-it's still relavent when a majority of libs are demanding Bush be impeached for his so called 'crimes' and your slick Willy was impeached for (libs words-not mine) having sex.

Quit believing the investigation was about Lewinsky and I will quit bringing the truth to your attention.

Answer 1

Anyone notice how many democrats think that the republicans hired ken Starr to investigate Clinton?

Don't they know that Janet Reno is the one , at the urging of the majority party in congress at the time ( the democrats ), who appointed a special procuter to investigate Clinton.

Then after that Democrat majority congress renewed the independant council law, Kenneth Starr was appointed by a Three judge panel, to comply with the new Independant council law, the democrats just passed.

You can try all you want to blame it on republicans, but the facts say, the justice dept and congress were in the hands of the democrats when the investigation was started.

Once a independant council is appointed, its not like congress can then unappoint them later.

If they could, the republican congress would have unappointed fritzgerald after it came out that richard armitridge outed valerie plame.

Answer 2

No, it was lying under oath that was significant with the relationship with Lewinsky. Slick Willy was not the first President to have extra-marital affairs while in office and won't be the last. Part of this is because statistically you won't be elected if you are single or have been divorced. President Reagan was the only President that has ever been elected that had been divorced. As far as the whole witch hunt during the Clinton years, it was the Republicans trying to make the Democrats look bad to put their party in a better image for the next election. Kinda sounds like what the Democrats are doing with "W" now! Does anybody really think that the Democrats really give a rats behind about President Bush's Attorney General? Heck no, they just want some bad PR for the republicans. Both parties need to quit trying to make the other look bad and try to make themselves look good instead, wow, that's a radical idea isn't it?

Answer 3

Clinton was found “Not Guilty” by the Senate. The Republicans were out to get Clinton no matter what it was for. The Republican majority in the House impeached Clinton just because they could. They really didn’t care whether he could be convicted or not. The whole process was part of a relentless political hunt and an underhanded strategy.

Clinton’s popularity nevertheless remained high but it gave the Republicans a major campaign talking point. Bush often talked, during his campaign, about restoring “moral integrity” to the White House. Now isn’t that ironic!

Answer 4

The Republicans investigated Clinton for one reason: THEY HATED HIM. And they hated him for two reasons: he represented everything they hated -- freedom, respect for women, minorities and the poor, "Sixties values," etc. -- and because he won. They never impeached Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore or John Kerry, because they lost. (Except for Gore, and they sort of impeached him by stealing the election.)

No, it wasn't about sex. If it was, Newt Gingrich would never have become Speaker, Henry Hyde would never have become Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and they would have done the math: Patti was born seven months after Ronald Reagan married Nancy Davis, and seven-month preemies didn't survive in those days.

The Democrats of 1973-74 began the impeachment process against Nixon because there was evidence he committed crimes, and he resigned because the Republicans knew the evidence was real. The Democrats of 1986-87 did not try to impeach Reagan because they didn't have the goods. The Republicans of 1998-99 knew they didn't have admissible or credible evidence against Clinton, but they did it anyway. Why? As Clinton himself would say, because they could. And they still couldn't get a majority of the Senate they controlled, let alone the two-thirds necessary to remove him from office, because the evidence was so bogus.

The Democrats of 2007? They won't impeach Bush and Cheney. Not because they don't have evidence. They do. His lies and crimes are legion. But they know that you look like a bunch of damn fools when you impeach a President for partisan gain. Rather, they will keep Bush in office for partisan gain. Remove him, and you remove the reason to vote Democratic in 2008. The soonest appointment they can get for the exterminator to remove the infestation is November 4, 2008, and we have to wait that long.

Just remember: The only thing Ken Starr could charge Clinton with was lying about sex. And even that didn't fit the legal definition of perjury or obstruction of justice. He admitted he had nothing on the other pseudo-scandals. It was an $80 million strikeout. The greatest waste of money in American history. And it was morally wrong and hypocritical besides.

The Democrats had the moral high ground in 1998. They have it in 2007.

Answer 5

He was never impeached, they had a trial but nothing came of it except disbarred.
I feel what he did was between him and his wife. He did a good job as president. I dont think we should have ever even asked those questions unless it was a sexual harrassment case. It wasnt. I know being the President, you are under the publics eye....I just dont agree that he sould not have a personal life or personal problems. Think about it....most Presidents have no touch with reality. He did.... His marriage was having problems, he had money issues with Whitewater stuff. If you ask me, he is closer to a real american than any other president.

Answer 6

Well actually he lied under oath about the bj and that is what he was impeached for. I really would have liked to see that immoral person sent packing.

The most amazing thing is how he was able to avoid prosecution in all of the other crimes he and hill were involved in.

Answer 7

If the investigation was anything more than a witch hunt, it would have resulted in criminal charges on some of the things the special prosecutor investigated. The sex/perjury charge was all the finest and most highly paid Republican lawyers could come up with after spending 6 years and at least 46 million taxpayer dollars.

Answer 8

The republicans were hunting down anything they could pin on Clinton and all they came up with is a BJ. Granted, he did lie under oath...but I'd lie too if I had to face Hillary!
What he lied about didn't affect me or our nation.
Oh yeah, one of the head honcho neocons, that were hunting down Clinton for getting that B J from an intern, was Newt Gingrich...who was doing the exact same thing with an intern at that same time!!!

Answer 9

You act like that was an isolated incident. He was prosecuted for lying under oath, the same thing that got Nixon.

Answer 10

Of course not. If you could be convicted of being a pig Clinton would face capital punishment. He was convicted of lying under oath. You are not allowed to do that. And no, you are not allowed to lie about sex either.

You can refuse to answer or tell the truth but you may not lie.

Bummer isn't it?


.