Did Clinton really deserve impeachment? What about GW Bush?

Question

I'm still not clear as to the real reason why impeachment proceedings were brought against Bill Clinton- was it because he lied to Congress about a BJ? Okay, GW Bush has also lied MANY times to Congress-
Using the standards to justify the impeachment of Clinton- why hasn't Bush been impeached?

Answer 1

Clinton committed perjury. He lied to a Grand Jury while under oath which is a federal offense, he was even disbarred from law. What law has Bush broke? Not one factual lie/broken law has been brought against President Bush. The hate-mongering Dem controlled Congress would have impeachment charges brought against Bush if there were any laws broken, that is indisputable.

Answer 2

President Clinton lied under oath to a grand jury. That is perjury. The rule of law applies to all people equally. Whether you are the President of the United States or an accused ax murderer, every is sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth in a court of law. Instead of pursuing this matter in a court of law, the government (special counsel, congress, etc) chose to pursue impeachment proceedings against President Clinton.

Sooter Libby lied under oath to a grand jury. The government (Special Council Fitzgerald) chose to pursue this matter in a court of law. Scooter Libby was tried by a jury of his peers in a federal court, found guilty, was convicted and sent to jail. That is the way justice in America is supposed to work.

President Bush has told many lies, half truths, and other misleading statements, but he has not been under oath or committed perjury. Even when he was pressured to finally speak to the 9-11 commission, he only agreed to do so under oath and with Dick Cheney present so they could coordinate their lies together.

Answer 3

you have been tricked by the media. it was never about a bj, it was about denying paula jones her rights by lying (not being mistaken or wrong or exaggerating) under oath.
it is the kind of perjury that put martha stewart and will soon put scooter libby behind bars, even though no ones rights were violated in those cases.
the two do not compare.
after seeing some of these answers and the thumb votes, it is frighteningly revealed that our two major sources of information (the media and the schools) are so skewed, that it may actually go down in history that clinton was never impeached.

this back and forth bickering on YA is fun, but we have got to get a grip on this.

to school 1859, your quote does not suggest that bush did anything wrong, but is does dispel the nonsense that the democrats do not wish to legally harass him.

Answer 4

[To slappingpenguin]
Impeachment is merely the act of bringing charges against a President. Clinton WAS impeached for perjury in regards to lying about the Monica Lewinsky affair.

Impeachment IS NOT the removal of the President from office. It is just charging him with an offense. And while Clinton was acquitted by the Senate during his Impeachment, he was disbarred.

QUOTE:
"Impeachment is so rare that the term is often misunderstood.

==A typical misconception is to confuse it with involuntary removal from office; in fact, it is only the legal statement of charges, paralleling an indictment in criminal law.==

An official who is impeached faces a second legislative vote (whether by the same body or another), which determines conviction, or failure to convict, on the charges embodied by the impeachment. Most constitutions require a supermajority to convict."
END QUOTE

Andrew Johnson was Impeached in 1868 after violating the Tenure of Office Act. He was acquitted of all charges by the Senate.

Bill Clinton was Impeached on 12/19/1998 for perjury to a grand jury and obstruction of justice. Like Johnson, he was acquitted of all charges by the Senate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/impeachment...

Answer 5

In spite of the claims of some on this forum, Bush has repeatedly, and by his own admission, conducted illegal electronic surveillance. He has probably violated quite a few other laws - in fact, he routinely states his intention to ignore parts of laws he disagrees with, leading to the likely conclusion that he has violated at least some.

There is really not the slightest doubt that legal grounds for the impeachment of Bush exist. Democrats have chosen not to do so.

Answer 6

Impeachment hearings were brought against Clinton because he lied under oath, also known as perjury. A felony.

The only reason he wasn't impeached is because Dems blocked the vote.

Bush has done nothing illegal, I ask for proof of his lying, under oath or otherwise.

Answer 7

Clinton did NOT deserve impeachment. Congress blamed it all on him, when it should have been equally blamed on Monica, if not more. It takes two to tango, sweetie.


And the reason Bush hasn't been impeached yet is because Congressional Republicans have it in their heads that Republicans can't be impeached.

Answer 8

WASHINGTON - The Senate subpoenaed the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney's office Wednesday, demanding documents and elevating the confrontation with President Bush over the administration's warrant-free eavesdropping on Americans.

For all of those who have answered "Bush has done nothing wrong."

Answer 9

Perjury was Clinton's offense.. he should have did time for it..
Bush has not commited a provable crime.

Answer 10

He lied under oath it's called perjury and the punishment for perjury is imprisonment. If you or I committed the same offense we would be in jail and the only punishment for Clinton was losing his license to practice law.