slugshooter Posted February 11, 2005 Report Share Posted February 11, 2005 This one's for the guy on here (he knows who he is) who feels I know nothing of history. The following is a brief synopsis of the Clinton Impeachment in which there is no mention of Clinton being found guilty or pleading guilty in any of the issues. And yes, Clinton was impeached but was found not guilty on 2 of the charges out of the 4 that were proposed. The impeachment of President Bill Clinton arose from a series of events following the filing of a lawsuit on May 6, 1994, by Paula Corbin Jones in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. In her complaint initiating the suit, Ms. Jones alleged violations of her federal civil rights in 1991 by President Clinton when he was governor of Arkansas and she was an Arkansas state employee. According to the allegations, Governor Clinton invited Ms. Jones to his hotel room where he made a crude sexual advance that she rejected. After Ms. Jones filed the lawsuit, the attorneys for President Clinton moved to delay any proceedings, contending that the Constitution required that any legal action be deferred until his term ended, an issue ultimately decided against the President by the Supreme Court of the United States in its decision of Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997). Following the Supreme Court decision allowing the Jones lawsuit to proceed, pre-trial discovery commenced in which various potential witnesses were subpoenaed for information related to the Jones incident and, over objections of the President's attorneys, Mr. Clinton's alleged sexual approaches to other women. On April 1, 1998, Judge Susan Webber Wright granted summary judgment in favor of President Clinton, dismissing the Jones suit in its entirety, finding that Ms. Jones had not offered any evidence to support a viable claim of sexual harassment or intentional infliction of emotion distress. Ms. Jones appealed Judge Wright's decision to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, but before a decision on the appeal was rendered, Ms. Jones and the President settled the case on November 13, 1998. The name of Monica Lewinsky, who had worked in the White House in 1995 as an intern, was first included on a list of potential witnesses prepared by the attorneys for Ms. Jones that was submitted to the President's legal team. Ms. Lewinsky's name had been provided to the attorneys for Ms. Jones by Linda Tripp, a former White House employee who had become a confidante of Ms. Lewinsky and had secretly tape recorded various conversations she had with Lewinsky relating to her contacts with the President. On January 12, 1998, Ms. Tripp also provided the tapes of her conversations with Ms. Lewinsky to Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr, who had been appointed to investigate charges relating to the Whitewater real estate venture in Arkansas of the President and Mrs. Clinton. On the same day, Ms. Lewinsky's sworn affidavit was sent by her lawyers to the Jones attorneys in which she asserted in part: I have never had a sexual relationship with the President, he did not propose that we have a sexual relationship, he did not offer me employment or other benefits in exchange for a sexual relationship, he did not deny me employment or other benefits for rejecting a sexual relationship. On January 15, Starr obtained approval from Attorney General Janet Reno, who in turn sought and received an order from the United States Court of Appeals, to expand the scope of the Whitewater probe into the new allegations. On the following day, a meeting between Ms. Lewinsky and Ms. Tripp at a hotel was secretly recorded pursuant to a court order, with federal agents then confronting Ms. Lewinsky at the end of the meeting with charges of her perjury and demanding that she cooperate in providing evidence against the President. Ms. Lewinsky initially declined to cooperate, and told the FBI and other investigators that much of what she had told Ms. Tripp was not true. On January 17, President Clinton was deposed in the Jones lawsuit. He denied having "sexual relations" with Ms. Lewinsky under a definition provided to him in writing by her lawyers, and also said that he could not recall whether he was ever alone with her. On January 21, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and ABC News reported that Starr had expanded his investigation of the President to include the allegations related to Lewinsky. After repeated media inquiries, on January 26 President Clinton asserted in an appearance before the White House press corps: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky," and denied urging her to lie about an affair. The President's attorneys failed in efforts to block Starr's expansion of his investigation, which also included whether the President himself had lied under oath in his own deposition taken in the Paula Jones litigation. In July 1998, after being granted sweeping immunity from prosecution by Special Prosecutor Starr, Ms. Lewinsky admitted that she in fact had had a sexual relationship with the President that did not include intercourse, but denied that she had ever been asked to lie about the relationship by the President or by those close to him. On August 17, the President testified for over four hours before Starr's grand jury on closed-circuit television from the White House. In his testimony, he admitted the Lewinsky relationship, but denied that he perjured himself in the Paula Jones deposition because he did not interpret the conduct with Ms. Lewinsky as constituting sexual relations. On the same evening, he appeared on national television and admitted that he had an "inappropriate relationship" with Lewinsky and had misled the American people about it. On September 9, Independent Counsel Starr submitted a detailed report to the Congress in which he contended that there was "substantial and credible information that President William Jefferson Clinton committed acts that may constitute grounds for an impeachment" by lying under oath in the Jones litigation and obstructing justice by urging Ms. Lewinsky "... to to file an affidavit that the President knew would be false". On September 11, the House of Representatives approved House Resolution 525 by a vote of 363 to 63 authorizing a review by the Committee on the Judiciary of the report of the Independent Counsel to determine whether sufficient grounds existed to recommend to the House that an impeachment inquiry be commenced and also approved the public release of the Starr report. On September 21, the Judiciary Committee released nearly 3,200 pages of material from the grand jury proceedings and the Starr investigation, including transcripts of the tesimony of President Clinton and Ms. Lewinsky. On October 8, House Resolution 581 introduced by Congressman Henry J. Hyde, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, was approved by the House in a 258 to 163 vote to authorize and direct the Judiciary Committee to investigate whether sufficient grounds existed for the impeachment of the President. After its staff interviewed various witnesses in private, the Judiciary Committee's public hearings commenced on November 19 with an opening statement by Congressman Hyde followed by additional hearings in which the Committee reviewed the issues and allegations of the Starr report and additional testimony provided by witnesses to its staff. The Committee also heard contrasting views from constitutional experts on the legal basis for impeachment as applied to the factual allegations pertaining to the Lewinsky matter. A motion sponsored by Democrats to adopt a censure resolution as an alternative to the proposed impeachment was defeated on December 8. On December 11 and 12, the Committee approved four articles of impeachment for presentation to the full House, and on December 16 released its full Report supporting its recommendation. After debate, the House approved two of the Articles alleging that the President had provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury regarding the Paula Jones case and his relationship with Monica Lewinsky and that he had obstructed justice through an effort to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence related to the Jones case. After the House vote, President Clinton appeared before the media at the White House, saying in part: I have accepted responsibility for what I did wrong in my personal life. And I have invited members of Congress to work with us to find a reasonable, bipartisan and proportionate response. That approach was rejected today by Republicans in the House. But I hope it will be embraced by the Senate. I hope there will be a constitutional and fair means of resolving this matter in a prompt manner. The Impeachment Trial in the Senate commenced on January 7, 1999, with the announcement by the Sergeant-at-Arms of the presence of the managers on the part of the House of Representatives to conduct proceedings on behalf of the House concerning the impeachment of the President of the United States. After Congressman Hyde read the Articles of Impeachment approved by the House, the Senate then adjourned, reconvening later that day with Chief Justice Rehnquist present, who was sworn in as presiding officer for the trial and who in turn swore in the 100 senators as jurors for the proceedings. The President's case was outlined in the White House Trial Memorandum submitted on January 13, which was countered by the House Rebuttal to White House Trial Memorandum. In subsequent sessions, the Senate voted to adopt a series of motions to limit evidence primarily to the previously video-taped depositions, affidavits and other documents previously introduced, and also voted to close its final deliberations to the public. The Senate voted on the Articles of Impeachment on February 12, with a two-thirds majority, or 67 Senators, required to convict. On Article I, that charged that the President "...willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury" and made "...corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence" in the Paula Jones lawsuit, the President was found not guilty with 45 Senators voting for the President's removal from office and 55 against. Ten Republicans split with their colleagues to vote for acquittal; all 45 Democrats voted to acquit. On Article II, charging that the President "...has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice"..., the vote was 50-50, with all Democrats and five Republicans voting to acquit. Following the vote, President Clinton, in televised remarks from the White House, said: Now that the Senate has fulfilled its constitutional responsibility bringing this process to a conclusion, I want to say again to the American people how profoundly sorry I am for what I said and did to trigger these events and the great burden they have imposed on the Congress and on the American people. I also am humbled and very grateful for the support and the prayers I have received from millions of Americans over this past year. Now I ask all Americans, and I hope all Americans here in Washington and throughout our land, will rededicate ourselves to the work of serving our nation and building our future together. This can be and this must be a time of reconciliation and renewal for America. Resources Research Guide on Impeachment >> Library of Congress The Impeachment Trial >> PBS.org Special Report: Clinton Accused >> Washington Post.com Impeachment of President William Jefferson Clinton, Documents Center >> University of Michigan Library Guide to Impeachment Materials Online >> JURIST: The Legal Education Network™, University of Pittsburgh School of Law Investigating the President >> CNN.com The Starr Report >> CNN.com Impeachment: An Overview of Constitutional Provisions, Procedure, and Practice >> Congressional Research Service. Report of the Committee on the Judiciary December 16, 1998 Articles of Impeachment >> Library of Congress Senate Vote on Impeachment Articles February 12, 1999 Statement of Congressman Henry Hyde following February 12, 1999 Senate vote not to impeach Statement of President Clinton following February 12, 1999 Senate vote not to impeach Links to Legal Proceedings against Bill Clinton >> Robert B. Standler (Copyright 2004, posted by permission) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TreeStandBowHunter Posted February 11, 2005 Report Share Posted February 11, 2005 Re: Clinton Impeachment DUDE...that is too long man. Tell you what man, you promise to read my long funny story in the lounge that everybody is too lazy to read and I'll read this...DEAL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slugshooter Posted February 11, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2005 Re: Clinton Impeachment Deal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wtnhunt Posted February 11, 2005 Report Share Posted February 11, 2005 Re: Clinton Impeachment [ QUOTE ] President was found not guilty with 45 Senators voting for the President's removal from office and 55 against. [/ QUOTE ] If that is true, I just learned something. Which refernce did that come from sluggo? I thought for some reason it was the other way around and he was found guilty . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Sauceman Posted February 11, 2005 Report Share Posted February 11, 2005 Re: Clinton Impeachment If he was impeached, he was found guilty...I wonder if any of them voted he was NOT guilty of having some kind of sexual relations in the White House or cutting the military budgets affecting the CIA and the Special Ops which would have (possibly) just kept us from 9/11 or if he would have REALLY went after the terrorists whoi tried to blow up the World Trade Center the first time or the U.S.S. Cole or the U.S. Embassy in Africa or...or...or...or..or...Fill in the blanks...But hey.. he DID balance the budget..That makes him a great man...In someones book anyway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wtnhunt Posted February 11, 2005 Report Share Posted February 11, 2005 Re: Clinton Impeachment Yep, agree with Norm here for him to have been impeached you would think he would have had to been found guilty. That vote was just to keep him in office for the reaminder of his term if am not mistaken. Think maybe someone somewhere is misinterpretting what they are reading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texan_Til_I_Die Posted February 11, 2005 Report Share Posted February 11, 2005 Re: Clinton Impeachment I'm curious how that reconciles with the fact that before leaving the White House, former President William Clinton had admitted to the accusations of perjuring himself under oath concerning Monica Lewinsky. As a result of the perjury, the former president surrendered his license to practice law and paid a $25,000 fine in a plea bargain deal with the prosecuting attorneys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnf Posted February 11, 2005 Report Share Posted February 11, 2005 Re: Clinton Impeachment [ QUOTE ] If he was impeached, he was found guilty...I wonder if any of them voted he was NOT guilty of having some kind of sexual relations in the White House or cutting the military budgets affecting the CIA and the Special Ops which would have (possibly) just kept us from 9/11 or if he would have REALLY went after the terrorists whoi tried to blow up the World Trade Center the first time or the U.S.S. Cole or the U.S. Embassy in Africa or...or...or...or..or...Fill in the blanks...But hey.. he DID balance the budget..That makes him a great man...In someones book anyway [/ QUOTE ] The act of impeechement is not a guilty verdict, meerly a court preceeding for the removal of a public official. Saying he was impeeched is like saying OJ was prosicuted. (which he was) However during the impeechement proceedings, he was found to be "not guilty". Just like OJ. Jim Guy Tucker (the governer after Clinton) was impeeched and found guilty for crimes he commited while in office. He was then removed from office and spent time in state prison. Your confusing the predeedings with the verdict. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckee Posted February 11, 2005 Report Share Posted February 11, 2005 Re: Clinton Impeachment "However during the impeechement proceedings, he was found to be "not guilty". Just like OJ" "he admitted the Lewinsky relationship, but denied that he perjured himself in the Paula Jones deposition because he did not interpret the conduct with Ms. Lewinsky as constituting sexual relations." OH he was guilty alright ...just like OJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slugshooter Posted February 11, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2005 Re: Clinton Impeachment [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] If he was impeached, he was found guilty...I wonder if any of them voted he was NOT guilty of having some kind of sexual relations in the White House or cutting the military budgets affecting the CIA and the Special Ops which would have (possibly) just kept us from 9/11 or if he would have REALLY went after the terrorists whoi tried to blow up the World Trade Center the first time or the U.S.S. Cole or the U.S. Embassy in Africa or...or...or...or..or...Fill in the blanks...But hey.. he DID balance the budget..That makes him a great man...In someones book anyway [/ QUOTE ] The act of impeechement is not a guilty verdict, meerly a court preceeding for the removal of a public official. Saying he was impeeched is like saying OJ was prosicuted. (which he was) However during the impeechement proceedings, he was found to be "not guilty". Just like OJ. Jim Guy Tucker (the governer after Clinton) was impeeched and found guilty for crimes he commited while in office. He was then removed from office and spent time in state prison. Your confusing the predeedings with the verdict. [/ QUOTE ] Thank you johnf, someone gets it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wtnhunt Posted February 11, 2005 Report Share Posted February 11, 2005 Re: Clinton Impeachment Sluggo, I asked which reference that came from. you never did say which one. I am still thinking he was found guilty. I think the way I read what you posted there that it could be easily misinterpretted as reading that he was not found guilty by a vote of 55 to 45, but the way I read that, that was a vote as to whether or not to keep him in office. Maybe I am somehow misreading it, but dont think so. Another thing, if you admit to the guilt as Clinton did, how can you not be found guilty? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParrotHead Posted February 11, 2005 Report Share Posted February 11, 2005 Re: Clinton Impeachment I'm just impressed that some on here remember how to copy and paste...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carbonhunter Posted February 11, 2005 Report Share Posted February 11, 2005 Re: Clinton Impeachment [ QUOTE ] I'm just impressed that some on here remember how to copy and paste...... [/ QUOTE ] You mean kinda like this California and the Big Cats - Three Decades of Folly By: Dan Johnson In 1971, California passed legislation that ended the sport hunting of mountain lions. Environmentalists celebrated and the majority of Californians, sheltered in their city apartments and suburban homes, could now watch the big cats on the nature channel secure in the knowledge the slaughter had ended. Everyone was happy, except for the hunters, ranchers, and wildlife management experts who warned of problems to come. Five year old, Laura Small was no doubt happy too as she was playing on a spring day in 1986 in Caspers Regional Park in Orange County, until she became the first person in California to be attacked by a healthy mountain lion in nearly 100 years. Adults came to her rescue, but not in time to prevent the lion from inflicting enough damage to leave her partially paralyzed and blind in one eye. Environmentalist and the media declared it was an isolated attack and predicted no further problems from the naturally shy and elusive animals. But just seven months later, another child was attacked in the same park and all agreed some action must be taken. It seemed clear now that lions will occasionally attack small children and stricter adult supervision was called for. So, in a typical display of modern day logic, children were banned from the park. But the attacks had just begun. In 1994, just four years after the voters approved Proposition 117, guaranteeing the lion’s permanent protection, two women were killed in separate attacks. The lion’s defenders were forced to modify their advice. Their stance now was; mountain lions will occasionally attack not only children but also lone women. A person of larger statue and anyone in a group was deemed safe. Most of the literature on lion country safety still states the best defense is to make oneself appear larger. The more effective solution of carrying a firearm is never mentioned. A liberal press continues to downplay the facts and even misstated one victim’s physical statistics. They widely reported that Barbara Schoener was 5' 8" and 120 pounds when in fact, at 5’ 11" and 140-150 pounds, she was as large as a majority men. She was also a long distance runner in excellent physical condition yet was killed by an eighty pound lion. While their advocates sought to minimize the danger, the mountain lions quickly dispelled any claims of discrimination and expanded their attacks to include all manner of people from men on bicycles to women on horseback and even people in groups, including a determined charge on three armed wildlife officers at Cuyamaca Rancho State Park. These politically correct felines even expanded their base of operations and moved into urban areas. In 1995, a seventeen-year-old girl was charged by a mountain lion in her driveway as she was getting her schoolbooks out of her car. As the controversy over the attacks escalated, the lion advocate’s most potent defense was the fact that attacks were also on the increase in states where hunting was allowed. This argument, more than any other, was instrumental in defeating a move to repeal Proposition 117 in 1996, since pro-lion groups could by now point to two deaths and numerous attacks in other western states. But, as with most statistics, a closer look often reveals the real story. In assessing the occurrence of unprovoked attacks, it is logical to discount incidents where the lion had some provocation or was perhaps unaware his prey was human. There have been several accounts, for example, of lions responding to turkey calls resulting in an unintentional conflict with the hunter. But if one focuses solely on unprovoked attacks in the U.S. occurring in the 20th Century, they will find that at least 80% of these took place in National and State Parks and other areas where hunting is not allowed, and where, it may be noted, the possession of firearms is routinely prohibited. While hunting in any given area causes the lions to be more timid, the main cause of the increasing attacks is an expanding population of the species. Even the mountain lion’s staunchest supporters have been forced to admit this, though they prefer to state it as humans encroaching on the lion’s territory. Terry Mansfield, Chief of Wildlife Management at California Fish and Game, had a different perspective however when he testified before the State Senate in 1995 concerning a “substantial increase in the number of lions in areas which were long ago urbanized”. Undeniably, most attacks are perpetrated by young animals displaced by the increasing lion populations and forced to find new territories and new prey. These lions find themselves alone for the first time in their lives and with limited hunting skills are often desperate enough to try for whatever prey presents itself, even humans. In addition to the concern for public safety, other problems were revealed in the Senate hearings in 1995. As a result of their booming populations, lion predations on livestock and pets increased from an average of ten confirmed incidents per year prior to 1970 to 322 in 1994. A drastic decline in bighorn sheep populations during the same period was also noted and much of this decline was attributed to lion depredation. Still, the voters decided not to return management of mountain lions back over to the experts and are now reaping the consequences. Just last year, the federal government had to step in and try to save the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep. Since Proposition 117 prevents state agencies from killing mountain lions in defense of wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife was forced to declare the sheep an Endangered Species so that federal officers could kill lions on big horn ranges. A majority of Californians seem willing to ignore the consequences of continued protection in order minimize the killing of mountain lions. Ironic considering an average of only 59 lions per year were harvested by hunters prior to the ban, with an additional one to five problem lions killed each year by Fish and Game. While in 1994 alone, California Fish and Game killed 131 lions under a public safety and livestock depredation clause in Proposition 117. An amazing footnote to this 30-year-old controversy, especially set against the backdrop of a nationwide concern for school safety, is the widely accepted policy in California that the presence of a mountain lion on school grounds is not just cause for the animal’s removal. Official procedure is to simply notify the public of the lion’s presence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slugshooter Posted February 11, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2005 Re: Clinton Impeachment [ QUOTE ] Sluggo, I asked which reference that came from. you never did say which one. I am still thinking he was found guilty. I think the way I read what you posted there that it could be easily misinterpretted as reading that he was not found guilty by a vote of 55 to 45, but the way I read that, that was a vote as to whether or not to keep him in office. Maybe I am somehow misreading it, but dont think so. Another thing, if you admit to the guilt as Clinton did, how can you not be found guilty? [/ QUOTE ] There's a whole list of resources under the post where the info was culled, I'll try and find the website. As far as the results, I took it that 45 Senators voted for removal and 55 voted against removal, thus, he stayed in office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slugshooter Posted February 11, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2005 Re: Clinton Impeachment http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-Clintonimpeach.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnf Posted February 11, 2005 Report Share Posted February 11, 2005 Re: Clinton Impeachment [ QUOTE ] Sluggo, I asked which reference that came from. you never did say which one. I am still thinking he was found guilty. I think the way I read what you posted there that it could be easily misinterpretted as reading that he was not found guilty by a vote of 55 to 45, but the way I read that, that was a vote as to whether or not to keep him in office. Maybe I am somehow misreading it, but dont think so. Another thing, if you admit to the guilt as Clinton did, how can you not be found guilty? [/ QUOTE ] He was found not guilty because the demcrats didn't want him out of office. The law says that if he commits a serious crime while in office he will be removed from office. Therefore, by finding him "not guilty" he stays in office. BTW I didn't say I thought he wasn't guilty. I said he was found not guilty. Personally I disagree with the verdict. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slugshooter Posted February 11, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2005 Re: Clinton Impeachment [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Sluggo, I asked which reference that came from. you never did say which one. I am still thinking he was found guilty. I think the way I read what you posted there that it could be easily misinterpretted as reading that he was not found guilty by a vote of 55 to 45, but the way I read that, that was a vote as to whether or not to keep him in office. Maybe I am somehow misreading it, but dont think so. Another thing, if you admit to the guilt as Clinton did, how can you not be found guilty? [/ QUOTE ] He was found not guilty because the demcrats didn't want him out of office. The law says that if he commits a serious crime while in office he will be removed from office. Therefore, by finding him "not guilty" he stays in office. BTW I didn't say I thought he wasn't guilty. I said he was found not guilty. Personally I disagree with the verdict. [/ QUOTE ] I was pretty sure you didn't agree with the verdict johnf, I was merely commenting on the fact that there is one other person on here that knows what impeachment means. As far as a serious offense, perjury isn't serious, not compared to some other things, like selling a war based on WMD's, Yellow Cake Uranium, Aluminum tubes that weren't centrifuge graded, mushroom clouds, eminent threats. If George Bush had made the case for going to war solely to depose Saddam Hussein and instill Democracy in Iraq, we wouldn't be there right now, but they had to come up with something juicy in order to be able to send troops over there and fulfill their true agenda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravin R10 man Posted February 12, 2005 Report Share Posted February 12, 2005 Re: Clinton Impeachment Jim Guy Tucker (the governer after Clinton) was impeeched and found guilty for crimes he commited while in office. He was then removed from office and spent time in state prison. Im my opionion, he should have had company..Bill Clinton, the guy makes me ILL!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Sauceman Posted February 12, 2005 Report Share Posted February 12, 2005 Re: Clinton Impeachment Clinton was a good...GOOD President.. I voted for him both times... However, he disgraced the White House and the office he held.. If he would have done that in his rented appartment or something, that is one thing..but it was the Whitehouse... Say, WELL President this did it there too...then I want proof...not heresay.. I will say this as I have said elsewhere.. I blame the Clinton Administration for 9/11 because of ALL the military, CIA, Special Forces , etc... HE CUT THEM... Like I said...but he did balance the budget though..didn't he...but at what cost? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnf Posted February 12, 2005 Report Share Posted February 12, 2005 Re: Clinton Impeachment My Wife informs me that Jim Guy did not spend any jail time. He had liver transplant and they suspended his sentence because of that. I will agree that Clinton was a Very effective president. (meaning) He did what he set out to do. I don't necessarly think he was a "good" president though. Sluggo, when you have facts, they can't be disputed. I can agree with anyone when I know they are right. In this case.............................. you are. Ouch, that hurt. Fair and Balanced, that's me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wtnhunt Posted February 12, 2005 Report Share Posted February 12, 2005 Re: Clinton Impeachment Please correct me if I am wrong, but is impeachment not the act or process of accusing, while being impeached is being found guilty of that act? You can play on words all day. Fact is he was guilty, he admitted it, still no one has answered how if he admitted guilt that he could have been found not guilty . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnf Posted February 12, 2005 Report Share Posted February 12, 2005 Re: Clinton Impeachment [ QUOTE ] Please correct me if I am wrong, but is impeachment not the act or process of accusing, while being impeached is being found guilty of that act? You can play on words all day. Fact is he was guilty, he admitted it, still no one has answered how if he admitted guilt that he could have been found not guilty . [/ QUOTE ] As I said befor, the impeechment is like a trial for the removal of an elected official. It's not the verdict, nor the punishment. Clinton was impeeched. Meaning he went through the formal proces that it takes to remove him from office. But the result of the proceedings was a "not guilty" verdict, which means he could not be removed from office. Jim Guy Tucker, Arkansas Governer after Clinton, was impeeched over the White Water Scandal. He was found guilty and removed from office. I think he was guilty.(Clinton) As do probibly most conservitives, but the fact of the matter is that he was aquited by a vote of 55-45 or whatever it was. The reason he was found not guilty is very simple. If he were found guilty he would have been removed from the office of president. The democratically controled house did not want him to be removed, so they voted to aquit him. In short-It was a political decision to keep thier guy in and to save face of their party rather than doing what was right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Sauceman Posted February 12, 2005 Report Share Posted February 12, 2005 Re: Clinton Impeachment Here, I will post this link.. It is a bit of a long read but has some interesting things about the Impeachment. http://www.somacon.com/blog/page20.php I will point out the second paragraph though.. Impeachment at the federal level is basically like a courtroom conviction in the sense that when a person is impeached, that person has been convicted of wrongdoing. The criminal charges are generally stated in the articles of impeachment. The House decides on impeachment while the Senate tries the impeachment. The Congressional Quarterly issue, "Impeachment and the U.S. Congress," describes the power well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnf Posted February 12, 2005 Report Share Posted February 12, 2005 Re: Clinton Impeachment I hate to be a spoil sport here, but who really cares. I mean this was a long time ago and it's all over. Frankly, I'm suprised that this post is seeing this much action. I knew about Clinton's wiley ways befor he was ever elected president. It's all old news. Much like the presidential elections of 2000 and 2004, it's over nothing can be done by either side except whine or gloat. I refuse to do either. I thought he was guilty, he got off. I did have the oppertunity to speek with him when he was governer. He seemed very personable and nice. I didn't really care for his morals or policies. I just don't have enough energy to get into this post any more. I just don't care that much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carbonhunter Posted February 12, 2005 Report Share Posted February 12, 2005 Re: Clinton Impeachment [ QUOTE ] I hate to be a spoil sport here, but who really cares. I mean this was a long time ago and it's all over. Frankly, I'm suprised that this post is seeing this much action. I knew about Clinton's wiley ways befor he was ever elected president. It's all old news. Much like the presidential elections of 2000 and 2004, it's over nothing can be done by either side except whine or gloat. I refuse to do either. I thought he was guilty, he got off. I did have the oppertunity to speek with him when he was governer. He seemed very personable and nice. I didn't really care for his morals or policies. I just don't have enough energy to get into this post any more. I just don't care that much. [/ QUOTE ] Now that was the best thing said in this post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.