Was the bid to Impeach President Clinton successful?

Question

Was the bid to Impeach President Clinton successful? President Clinton was brought through the Impeachment process, but he was found not guilty of any crimes, he then was censured for lying under oath about a sexual liaison with an intern who was a willing participant in the affair. There was no evoked power to remove him from office, he served out his term and in fact would have been eligible for seeking re-election if it had not already been his second term. So why would Conservatives want to portray this Impeachment historically as successful? I would say that historical record should indicate clearly that the defendant was found not guilty and therefore the Impeachment by the prosecution was unsuccessful. In the arraignment process of felonious crimes a grand jury would be presented with evidence to determine if the defendant should be arraigned and tried for crimes, if the out come of that trial failed to produce a guilty conviction there would be no record.

Teekno: so why not put more weight on the fact that he was found "not guilty"?

Forjj: same goes for you as Teekno they could not further justify the impeacment on the evidence presented. A failed proccess of Impeacment....."not guilty"

Answer 1

You are correct, the impeachment bid was not succesful, otherwise, President Clinton could not have completed his second term in office. If the impeachment bid was successful he will be removed from his office as President and will be barred from getting any government job. The conservatives wants to portray that the impeachment bid was successful and place his administration in bad light in order to block the election of his wife Hillary in the Presidency. I do not see any other motive except this one. When Hillary was not running for President, this issue was never discussed. Unfortunately, not all American knows this.

Answer 2

He was successfully impeached. He was not removed from office. It's two very different things.

The House of Representatives votes to impeach -- that vote passed. The Senate then votes whether to remove from office -- that vote failed.

Your comparison to criminal justice is flawed: the impeachment is the equivalent of an indictment. Even if the defendant is acquitted at trial, it's still accurate to say that he was indicted.

EDIT:

Well, what someone emphasizes is completely dependent on what they WANT to emphasize. Someone who was critical of Clinton will emphasize the impeachment, while someone who was supportive of Clinton would emphasize the acquittal.

It's all a matter of the point you're trying to make. It just sounds like you're trying to make a different point that some others, that's all.

Answer 3

ok, enable's get one ingredient at as quickly as. Impeachment isn't removal. Impeachment is Bringing the charge. it extremely is like an Indictment in a criminal case. President Clinton replaced into IMPEACHED. It replaced into no longer "tried" The vote replaced into no longer sufficient for removal. And why?> we would have in basic terms gotten Algor. It takes a 2 Thirds majority to eliminate. He replaced into got here upon responsible of mendacity under oath, yet sanctioned, no longer bumped off. between the sanctions replaced right into a 5 300 and sixty 5 days revocation of his license to coach regulation. IF "history" Tells the story any incorrect way, this is been revised. so as that brings me to my different element, and that's the way "history" tells the story will in many situations matter on who writes the history. i'm looking now that the way history is portraying Ronald Reagan is under no circumstances like it replaced into. i replaced into an grownup for the period of Reagan's Presidency, and a member of the paintings tension, and have self belief me, they did no longer call it "the last decade of conspicuous intake" for no longer something. relatively, each physique who needed a activity had one. At this degree, 3 and slightly years in to his first term, we've been including 450,000 jobs a month, no longer this pathetic a hundred twenty five,000 that we at the instant are being advised is a "restoration" yet now, from what I see at right here, the revisionist history instructors are so interior the tank to sell socialism, that they've thoroughly twisted the story.

Answer 4

It makes no difference,what charges are brought, a not guilty verdict, nullifies the charge. If you are charged with murder,and found not guilty, were you successfully prosecuted for murder? The republican conservatives spent $41million dollars of taxpayers money on 'WITCH HUNTS' to try and get the Clintons. In the end We the People lost! Denny Hastard and Tom Delay, are the best examples of the worst of the republican hypocrites. AND, have enacted measures that have been proven to be some of the worst examples of partisan politics in our history..They sicken me!! The last seven years ,history will validate,has created the most division in our country's history, destroyed our world image, catered to the rich and big business,at the expense of the working people,created the most massive debt in America's history, Increased the divide between the rich and poor, while , deregulating big business, and allowing them to set the polices of our country. If the republican politicians in power had any sense of VALUES, they would just resign. That's not going to happen, so WE THE PEOPLE, will have to show them the door in 2007. Our Beloved America cant survive much more of their abuse of powers, and inapt performances.

Answer 5

impeach means:
To make an accusation against.
To charge (a public official) with improper conduct in office before a proper tribunal.
To challenge the validity of; try to discredit: impeach a witness's credibility.

So, yes, the impeachment was successful. clinton was impeached. impeachment does not mean "throw out of office" it is the process of charging a public official.

Answer 6

I guess Republicans would say the impeachment was successful, not because it removed Clinton from office (which it didn't), but because it achieved the only goal they ever had: it was a smear campaign designed to put Republicans in power. It accomplished that, although they had to steal the 2000 election to fully accomplish it. How the Pubes can say they are a voice of moral authority with a straight face is beyond me.

Answer 7

He brokered a deal that included censure and the loss of his law license in able to Slick Willie his way out of being the first President to be guilty and impeached and removed from office. What a guy!

Answer 8

He was impeached and that's what history can and should show. History should also show that the Senate FAILED to do it's job and find Clinton guilty.

Answer 9

A successful impeachment results in removal from office. This one was a purely partisan political effort that succeeded only in wasting time and money, and in distracting us from the looming threat of Al Qaeda. I point my finger at Tom DeLay and say, "YOU made 9/11 happen!"

Answer 10

Yes he was impeached just not convicted due to politics it surprises me how little people know about this countries Constitution.