dlowan wrote:Hmmm - say he lied about and had the intelligence fixed.
This seems odd to non-Americans:
Lie about having sex with a consenting adult = impeachment proceedings - massive public humiliation and exposure of sex life.
Fix and lie about the justification to invade another country = nothing to be airegated about. Not a "high crime or misdemeanour."
I was against the attempt to impeach Clinton, but, just to clarify, the idea was that he lied under oath, thus committing an actual crime - perjury.
You're quite correct, Brandon. The charge was perjury, not hanky-panky. And I'm glad to hear that you were opposed to the impeachment of Slick Willie Clinton (see, I have no partisan bias; I hate 'em all
) See, the thing he lied about was his liaison with laLawinski; and the Congressional committee had no business asking him about that, under oath or otherwise. That is not matter affecting the national interest or national security. In fact, the question was asked solely for the purpose of maneuvering Clinton into a lie. Assuming that the Committee had no hard evidence, he certainly wasn't going to admit to a shabby affair in front of the entire world, including his wife and family. But it was deemed to be fair play because, after all, the GOP had to pay back in some way for the near-impeachment of Tricky Dick Nixon.
Brandon9000 wrote:dlowan wrote:Hmmm - say he lied about and had the intelligence fixed.
This seems odd to non-Americans:
Lie about having sex with a consenting adult = impeachment proceedings - massive public humiliation and exposure of sex life.
Fix and lie about the justification to invade another country = nothing to be airegated about. Not a "high crime or misdemeanour."
I was against the attempt to impeach Clinton, but, just to clarify, the idea was that he lied under oath, thus committing an actual crime - perjury.
Excuuuuuuuuuuuuse me???????????????????????????????????
Clinton was ACCUSED of lying under oath. He was acquitted.
Merry Andrew wrote:You're quite correct, Brandon. The charge was perjury, not hanky-panky. And I'm glad to hear that you were opposed to the impeachment of Slick Willie Clinton (see, I have no partisan bias; I hate 'em all
) See, the thing he lied about was his liaison with laLawinski; and the Congressional committee had no business asking him about that, under oath or otherwise. That is not matter affecting the national interest or national security. In fact, the question was asked solely for the purpose of maneuvering Clinton into a lie. Assuming that the Committee had no hard evidence, he certainly wasn't going to admit to a shabby affair in front of the entire world, including his wife and family. But it was deemed to be fair play because, after all, the GOP had to pay back in some way for the near-impeachment of Tricky Dick Nixon.
Except for the last sentence, I agree with you totally. I believe that the motive was to continue the election by other means. I wrote Clinton two letters of support, one of which was answered. I thought that the attempt to impeach him solely for political gain bordered on treason.
Chrissee wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:dlowan wrote:Hmmm - say he lied about and had the intelligence fixed.
This seems odd to non-Americans:
Lie about having sex with a consenting adult = impeachment proceedings - massive public humiliation and exposure of sex life.
Fix and lie about the justification to invade another country = nothing to be airegated about. Not a "high crime or misdemeanour."
I was against the attempt to impeach Clinton, but, just to clarify, the idea was that he lied under oath, thus committing an actual crime - perjury.
Excuuuuuuuuuuuuse me???????????????????????????????????
Clinton was ACCUSED of lying under oath. He was acquitted.
He had said under oath that he didn't have sex with Monica Lewinsky. Later he admitted that he did. His impeachment resulted in acquital, but certainly not because he didn't lie under oath.
Brandon, you're kidding, right? Are you really trying to tell me you think Clinton was found guilty of committing perjury?
Chrissee wrote:Brandon, you're kidding, right? Are you really trying to tell me you think Clinton was found gulityof committing perjury?
No, I'm telling you that he admitted it.
No, Chrissee, I have to agree with Brandon on this one. There was never any question that Clinton had lied under oath. He was acquitted by the Senate because the Senate found that this perjury did not amount to "high crimes or misdemeanors." The Senate, basically, agreed with what I've been saying -- that the Congressional committee had no business prying into Clinton's private affairs in the first place and he was, thus, justified in fudging the truth.
Nice that we can agree on something for a change, Brandon.
Merry Andrew wrote:Nice that we can agree on something for a change, Brandon.
Yes. Believe it or not, I actually don't like arguing.
Brandon9000 wrote:Chrissee wrote:Brandon, you're kidding, right? Are you really trying to tell me you think Clinton was found gulityof committing perjury?
No, I'm telling you that he admitted it.
He never admitted to committing perjury.
Brandon9000 wrote:Chrissee wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:dlowan wrote:Hmmm - say he lied about and had the intelligence fixed.
This seems odd to non-Americans:
Lie about having sex with a consenting adult = impeachment proceedings - massive public humiliation and exposure of sex life.
Fix and lie about the justification to invade another country = nothing to be airegated about. Not a "high crime or misdemeanour."
I was against the attempt to impeach Clinton, but, just to clarify, the idea was that he lied under oath, thus committing an actual crime - perjury.
Excuuuuuuuuuuuuse me???????????????????????????????????
Clinton was ACCUSED of lying under oath. He was acquitted.
He had said under oath that he didn't have sex with Monica Lewinsky. Later he admitted that he did. His impeachment resulted in acquital, but certainly not because he didn't lie under oath.
Hmm - lying about something that has caused the deaths of up to a possible 100,000 Iraqis, and a large number of American lives, seems to me far more serious than lying about whom one has sex with.
I KNOW he committed perjury - sigh - and that ain't good.
By the same token, come on, he ought never have been asked, in my view - and this is a serious concern, not the result of some hate-inspired persecution for nookie.
We must look like complete fools to the rest of the world. We continue to debate whether getting your tin whistle blown on company time and answering is is to a question about it was an impeachable offense, meanwhile the current holder of the office was inserted by an activist Court, engaged in numerous liaisons with energy lobbyists and corporate officials, resolutely remained uninformed regarding the greatest threats to ourselves and the world until a major attack occurred and then reacted in an adolescent, recovering alcoholic, manner against a country which all agreed, even WITH weapons of mass destruction, was no threat to it's neighbors nor us.
Oh, but that's right. Sorry, none of this is criminal, some of it is sleazy, but not criminal, a lot of it is incompetency but the American people should have known better. They didn't.
At least, that's what we have been told.
So he gets to stay.
Sorry, Andrew, that's the way it is.
Joe(I am so proud of Brandon, sticking up for my pal Bill.)Nation
Whatever happened to the Whitewater case, or the tax files or any of that other nonsense that they tried to get Clinton on?
While Clinton was the most investiagted President ever, the Bush Crime family gets a pass.
Yup. Because there were lots of reporters who wanted to be the next giant killers, they ate up every right wing canard thrown their way. Ms. Ann (I have no morals when it comes to winning) Coulter and her elves were busy, there was plenty of Scaife money to go around and why not overthrow the US government if you can?
Joe(they got thisclose. and then they won the White House)Nation
it was a coup.
Chrissee wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Chrissee wrote:Brandon, you're kidding, right? Are you really trying to tell me you think Clinton was found gulityof committing perjury?
No, I'm telling you that he admitted it.
He never admitted to committing perjury.
Well, the only wiggle room would be in the definition of "having sex" that was applicable to the trial in which he testified.
dlowan wrote:
....I KNOW he committed perjury - sigh - and that ain't good.
By the same token, come on, he ought never have been asked, in my view - and this is a serious concern, not the result of some hate-inspired persecution for nookie.
I agree with MA that president Clinton was asked about ML solely for the purpose of inducing a lie.
I didn't agree with most of Clinton's policies, but he was the rightful president - period. The provisions for impeachment are in the Consitution for a reason, and there are conditions under which impeachment is appropriate. However, using impeachment to continue an election you lost is, in my view, very close to treason, at least by my definition. While it was going on, I argued bitterly against it with many of my friends who were for it.
Well, good on you Brandon. A principled stand given the hatreds that appear to be consuming politics in your country.
In the matter of Clinton's impeachment, The House voted two counts of impeachment, Perjury and Obstruction of Justice, sending the matter to The Senate. The Senate voted 55-45 to not uphold the Perjury charge, and split 50-50 on the Obstruction of Justice charge. Clinton was impeached, but was not voted from office. Clinton avoided further prosecution by admitting to perjury. He was disbarred from practice before The US Supreme Court, the Arkansas Bar imposed on him a 5 year suspension of license to pactice law, he paid $25,000 in fines, and gave up claim to claim of repayment of any legal fees in the matter.
Quote:Clinton admits misleading testimony, avoids charges in Lewinsky probe
President's law license suspended for 5 years
January 19, 2001
Web posted at: 5:06 p.m. EST (2206 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton will leave office free of the prospect of criminal charges after he admitted Friday that he knowingly gave misleading testimony about his affair with Monica Lewinsky in a 1998 lawsuit.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton will leave office free of the prospect of criminal charges after he admitted Friday that he knowingly gave misleading testimony about his affair with Monica Lewinsky in a 1998 lawsuit ...
Quote:Independent Counsel Robert Ray statement on Clinton investigation
January 19, 2001
Web posted at: 3:51 PM EST (2051 GMT)
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
Fifteen months ago, I promised the American people that I would complete this investigation promptly and responsibly. Today, I fulfill that promise.
President Clinton has acknowledged responsibility for his actions. He has admitted that he knowingly gave evasive and misleading answers to questions in the Jones deposition and that his conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice.
He has acknowledged that some of his answers were false. He has agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas bar license. And he has agreed not to seek attorney's fees in connection with this matter.
The nation's interests have been served, and therefore I decline prosecution. In doing so, I have tried to heed Justice Robert Jackson's wisdom: The citizens' safety lies in the prosecutor who tempers zeal with human kindness, who seeks truth and not victims, who serves the law and not factional purposes, and who approaches his task with humility.
I trust that the decision made today meets the expectations of the American people, who deserve a resolution that acknowledges the president's conduct, respects America's institutions, and demonstrates sensitivity to our constitutional system of government.
This matter is now concluded. May history and the American people judge that it has been concluded justly.
Thank you very much.
I a bit late to the gettin', but to answer your original question:
YES.
I don't believe Brandon is correct on th "high crimes" requirement.
Quote:Article 2, Section 4--". . .on impeachment for, and on conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors."
This implies that the impeachment process is not tightly linked to the criminal law. The test is not satisfied by all crimes. With only two named offenses to provide context for the inclusive phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors," the standard remains undefined. The language suggests, however, that criminal action may be required. It is worth noting that the term "misdemeanor" does not correspond to the modern definition of a less serious (sub-felony) statutory or common law criminal offense.
In the case of Andrew Johnson, the House accused the President, among other things, of speaking disrespectfully of Congress "in a loud voice."
Cornell Law
The information I have read is that this was left fairly vague on purpose.
