2007-11-15 13:10:17 · 11 answers · asked by charbatch 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Because he perjured himself , about what he did,on the stand in court.
2007-11-15 13:13:51 · answer #1 · answered by ♥ Mel 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋
He lied under oath about a personal matter that should never have been asked in court. Nonetheless, he took an oath, and violated it.
The judge, herself, reversed her original ruling and declared that the testimony was inadmissible and irrelevant to the case, and never should have been allowed. But, again, that does not change the fact that he did not tell the truth under oath.
I only point out that it was a personal matter, between him, Lewinsky and his wife, because there are those who seem to equate what he did with some sort of abuse of the office of President. That's not the case. There are lies, then there are abuses of power. This falls under the former. The lies the Bush administration is accused of falls under the latter, and are actually serious.
The poster above is incorrect on a couple of counts: Clinton's perjury conviction and disbarring were ONLY a result of lying in the Paula Jones civil lawsuit.
He was never charged with nor convicted of lying to the Starr grand jury, except as a matter of impeachment, for which he was acquitted.
Also, he WAS impeached. Impeaching is like indicting - a formal accusation or charging of crimes. He was acquitted in the subsequent trial for the reasons I stated above - the perjury had nothing to do with his powers of office, except that it was the reason for the right-wing smear campaign and witch hunt against him.
While the charges for impeachment did call upon the Jones case as part of those charges, the disbarring had nothing to do with the impeachment charges.
2007-11-15 13:46:07 · answer #2 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Rather tricky question.
He was disbarred for conduct unbecoming an attorney--Perjury in the Paula Jones civil case, Perjury before Independent Counsel Ken Starr's grand jury, and Obstruction of Justice related to the Jones case.
He was not impeached, even thought there was impeachment proceedings and a impeachment trial .
In the impeachment trial he was found not guilty because a 2/3 vote necessary for impeachment was not reached.
2007-11-15 13:34:55 · answer #3 · answered by oldcorps1947 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Truth seeker is not correct
Perjury is lying under oath during sworn testimony it does NOT have to be relevant...even though it was relevant here
Nice try but Clinton did the crime.....
Had you or I done it...we would be in jail....
He was impeached ..just not removed
2007-11-15 13:29:18 · answer #4 · answered by consrgreat 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
invoice Clinton is embarrassing himself and his spouse along with his absurd low priced pictures at Barack Obama. i could not have faith Hillary's honesty on the communicate the different day while she pronounced on the communicate the different day that the clarification she will beat McCain is by way of the fact she's a sell out to the Republican conflict schedule.
2016-09-29 08:08:24 · answer #5 · answered by edgmon 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Perjury and obstruction of justice
2007-11-15 13:42:50 · answer #6 · answered by madd texan 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Result of a Republican witch hunt.............
by the way, to all those who said it was perjury. It really wasn't in the eyes of the law. In order for it to be perjury, the lie has to be pertinent to the case at hand. Monica L. was NOT pertinent to the Whitewater Investigation.
2007-11-15 13:15:43 · answer #7 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Perjury. How come you ask this again after getting the direct answer on your last question?
2007-11-15 13:12:58 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 2⤋
Because he lied under oath.
2007-11-15 13:14:35 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Ethics violations and obstruction of justice
2007-11-15 13:12:45 · answer #10 · answered by sammael_coh 4 · 5⤊ 3⤋