Clinton

[Ericman]

Whenever I get in a political argument with my liberal relatives I get the same old:

"George Bush started a false war blah blah blah he lies and yet he wasnt impeached but "they" wanted to impeach Clinton for getting a blowjob,"

What actually happened with Clinton, wasnt it because he lied about it or some such? It was before I really started observing politics. What was the reason "they" really wanted to impeach him? I know he was not impeached but it was a big deal for some time.

 

[Garys]

The funny thing is that these self same liberals have demanded the resignation of Republicans for far less serious sexual activity. Were Clinton the CEO of a Fortune 500 company and engaged in similar activity, he would have been fired, fined, and the company would have been sued for sexual harassment.

I work in the public sector, were I to engage in activity as he did with someone under my supervision, I'd be fired and lose my pension, not mention the criminal charges.

The laws that legislate that were pushed by the self same liberals. Hypocrites, every damned one of them.

That aside, Clinton pled guilty to perjury, paid a fine and his law license was suspended for five years. So yes, that is what he was prosecuted for.

Gary

 

[Martlet]

Whenever I get in a political argument with my liberal relatives I get the same old:

"George Bush started a false war blah blah blah he lies and yet he wasnt impeached but "they" wanted to impeach Clinton for getting a blowjob,"

What actually happened with Clinton, wasnt it because he lied about it or some such? It was before I really started observing politics. What was the reason "they" really wanted to impeach him? I know he was not impeached but it was a big deal for some time.

Clinton was investigated for sexual improprieties. During the investigation, he committed perjury. As a result of the perjury, he was impeached. As a result of the impeachment, he was disbarred by the SC.

His sexual relations with an intern in the office should have been enough to get him canned. Lying before a grand jury should have gotten him jailed.

 

[Lynne]

Clinton was investigated for sexual improprieties. During the investigation, he committed perjury. As a result of the perjury, he was impeached. As a result of the impeachment, he was disbarred by the SC.

His sexual relations with an intern in the office should have been enough to get him canned. Lying before a grand jury should have gotten him jailed.

Yes, it should have, but sadly he slid across the ice.

Some people don't understand that a politician can be impeached but not thrown out of office. Clinton was (and is) the first sitting President to be impreached by the House. The Senate, however, did not vote him out of office. IIRC, that's one of them things that needs a larger majority of votes (is it 2/3's??) for the removal to take place. Back then they didn't have enough votes (from what I remember anywho).

 

[Pilgrim]

Clinton was (and is) the first sitting President to be impeached by the House. The Senate, however, did not vote him out of office.

I heard Jay Severin say the same thing several times, but that's not the way I learned it in school.

Re: Pres Andrew Johnson:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/aj17.html

"In March 1867, the Radicals effected their own plan of Reconstruction, again placing southern states under military rule. They passed laws placing restrictions upon the President. When Johnson allegedly violated one of these, the Tenure of Office Act, by dismissing Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, the House voted eleven articles of impeachment against him. He was tried by the Senate in the spring of 1868 and acquitted by one vote."


Sounds like exactly the same thing that happens to the Slickster.

 

[Lynne]

I heard Jay Severin say the same thing several times, but that's not the way I learned it in school.

Re: Pres Andrew Johnson:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/aj17.html

"In March 1867, the Radicals effected their own plan of Reconstruction, again placing southern states under military rule. They passed laws placing restrictions upon the President. When Johnson allegedly violated one of these, the Tenure of Office Act, by dismissing Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, the House voted eleven articles of impeachment against him. He was tried by the Senate in the spring of 1868 and acquitted by one vote."


Sounds like exactly the same thing that happens to the Slickster.

You're right hun. I had a brain cramp and forgot about Andrew. Okay - revised....the 2nd sitting president to be impeached in over a 130 years. (thanks Dennis )

 

[EddieCoyle]

I heard Jay Severin say the same thing several times, but that's not the way I learned it in school.

Dennis, you missed by one word. What Jay says is that Clinton was the first elected President to be impeached.

 

[number9]

Isn't there a dictionary difference between having an impeachment process started, and being found guilty -- i.e. the latter actually constitutes being impeached?

 

[Garys]

Yes, it should have, but sadly he slid across the ice.

Some people don't understand that a politician can be impeached but not thrown out of office. Clinton was (and is) the first sitting President to be impreached by the House.

The second. Andrew Johnson was the first. Like Clinton he too was not convicted and served out his term. He was the grandfather of LBJ, as a side note.

Impeachment equals an indictment, only it's not criminal. A trial is held by the Senate and they can vote to convict or not. If they convict, the person is removed from office. Alcee Hastings was impeached and convicted while a Federal judge and was removed from office. He then ran for Congress and won. That's where he is today.

Gary

 

[Lynne]

. Alcee Hastings was impeached and convicted while a Federal judge and was removed from office. He then ran for Congress and won. That's where he is today.

And that never ceases to amaze me.

 

[number9]

And that never ceases to amaze me.

"Vote for the crook - it's important"

 

[Garys]

And that never ceases to amaze me.

It seems that some communities don't care as long as their guy gets in. Dianne Wilkerson comes to mind, as does William Jefferson who was re elected in a run off in Louisiana. Most be a Democrat thing because a Republican would be expected to resign. Not only by the media, but by his constituents. See Duke Cunningham, Mark Foley, and Tom Delay. Two of whom haven't been convicted of anything.

Gary

 

[Martlet]

Isn't there a dictionary difference between having an impeachment process started, and being found guilty -- i.e. the latter actually constitutes being impeached?

No

 

[KMaurer]

Isn't there a dictionary difference between having an impeachment process started, and being found guilty -- i.e. the latter actually constitutes being impeached?

There's a distinct difference, but not the way you describe it. When the House votes in favor of articles of impeachment, the officeholder has been impeached. Think "Indicted". Then the Senate sits as a jury to try the charges.

Ken

 

[number9]

There's a distinct difference, but not the way you describe it. When the House votes in favor of articles of impeachment, the officeholder has been impeached. Think "Indicted". Then the Senate sits as a jury to try the charges.

Ken

Gotcha! Thanks for clearing it up.

 

[M1911]

Clinton was investigated for sexual improprieties. During the investigation, he committed perjury.

Actually, that's not quite correct.

It all started with Whitewater -- a failed real estate development that the Clinton's were peripherally involved in. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewater_scandal

The independent prosecutor, Kenneth Starr, was investigating Whitewater. The Clintons and their associates stonewalled and "lost" important records.

During this period, Clinton was being sued by Paul Jones for sexual harassment. Lewinsky testified in that case that she did not have sex with Clinton -- that is, she committed perjury. She spoke with Linda Tripp about it. Tripp tape-recorded the phone calls and forwarded them to Kenneth Starr. As wikipedia details "Starr broadened his investigation to include investigating Lewinsky, Clinton, and others for possible perjury and subornation of perjury in the Jones case." So he was not investigating Clinton for having a sexual-relationship -- he was investigating Pres. Clinton for trying to get Lewinsky to lie under oath.

When Starr deposed Clinton, Billy-boy lied about having sex with Lewinsky. Lying under oath is perjury. THAT is what Clinton was impeached for -- perjury.

In one sense, it is similar to Watergate -- both were mostly about the cover-up.