True.... But shouldn't the prez hold himself to a higher standard than the rest of us...perhaps as an example? If not legally, then morally? But that statement is in itself...utterly ridiculous, because as we all know...most politicians are moral garbage anyway.
I agree with that MoonDogg. I also agree that he should've just come clean from the very beginning. That's just not what I'm arguing.
Clinton was impeached due to perjury and obstruction of justice. There were two Articles to vote on after the "trial" to determine whether or not he was "guilty". Article one was based on perjury: "On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before a Federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following: (1) the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee; (2) prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a Federal civil rights action brought against him; (3) prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil rights action; and (4) his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action." Article two was based on obstruction of justice: "(1) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to execute a sworn affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false and misleading. (2) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to give perjurious, false and misleading testimony if and when called to testify personally in that proceeding. (3) On or about December 28, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly engaged in, encouraged, or supported a scheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in a Federal civil rights action brought against him. (4) Beginning on or about December 7, 1997, and continuing through and including January 14, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton intensified and succeeded in an effort to secure job assistance to a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him in order to corruptly prevent the truthful testimony of that witness in that proceeding at a time when the truthful testimony of that witness would have been harmful to him. (5) On January 17, 1998, at his deposition in a Federal civil rights action brought against him, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly allowed his attorney to make false and misleading statements to a Federal judge characterizing an affidavit, in order to prevent questioning deemed relevant by the judge. Such false and misleading statements were subsequently acknowledged by his attorney in a communication to that judge. (6) On or about January 18 and January 20-21, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton related a false and misleading account of events relevant to a Federal civil rights action brought against him to a potential witness in that proceeding, in order to corruptly influence the testimony of that witness. (7) On or about January 21, 23 and 26, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton made false and misleading statements to potential witnesses in a Federal grand jury proceeding in order to corruptly influence the testimony of those witnesses. The false and misleading statements made by William Jefferson Clinton were repeated by the witnesses to the grand jury, causing the grand jury to receive false and misleading information. In all of this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States. " Clinton was acquitted by 55-45 on article one. Article 2 ended up 50-50. If a deciding vote was needed (I don't remember) then it would have been cast by Gore and obviously been to vote for acquittal. Hmmmm, if that was the case, then perhaps Gore should have voted for conviction. He could have gotten himself entrenched in the White House.
RM95: "No, it shouldn't matter if he was the president or not. The president is not above the law...nor is he below it." Well, he lied on videotape in front of a grand jury so it is pretty difficult to dodge the "blind" eyes of Lady Justice. The video has sound, too! If one is the President, one should hold him/herself to a higher standard for 2 reasons: 1) there is a moral imperative because you are the chief legal office of the friggin' nation, and 2) all eyes are on you all the time. The question, then, is this: was Clinton too A. arrogant or B. stupid to realize these factors? I have to go with "A" because I can't find anyone to describe him as stupid.