GENIERE said:
That deserves a double duh! Apparently you have no knowledge of the impeachment process re: the executive branch. If you take the trouble to enlighten yourself, you will find it is similar to a criminal indictment and that Clinton was most definitely IMPEACHED.
Personally I took great pleasure in his impeachment, but I would have preferred that he was simply condemmed as per N. Pelosi. After his presidency ended he would have been tried before his peers and found guilty and served a few months in jail. As it was he was later stripped of his law license for "serious miscounduct" purjury and obstruction of justice by a judge he appointed.
DUH!
As much as it would be nice to stay OT regarding a
Bush/Cheney impeachment, let's at least try to stay germane to the matter of Clinton and impeachment – or should we say a
trial for impeachment, which concluded in:
a. Impeachment
b. Acquittal
While you consider your answer, I'll be out getting enlightened…
From The Kansas City (Mo.) Star:
"It has been a long, humiliating and deeply flawed process. But the Senate finally arrived at the right place Friday when it decided against removing President Clinton from office. …the bar for removing a sitting president is and should remain extremely high. While there is room for reasonable people to disagree on whether Clinton's misdeeds were sufficient to trigger impeachment and removal from office, we believe that the House managers failed to make their case."
From Sunday's Chicago Sun-Times:
"The impeachment trial is over and the vote to acquit was the proper verdict. As we said from the start, President Clinton's campaign of lies to cover up his sexual exploitation of Monica Lewinsky constituted small, tawdry, pathetic, personal crimes
that did not threaten our democracy." [underline added]
From the Corpus Christi (Texas) Caller-Times:
"There was no surprise to the end of the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton. The Senate voted against conviction, as expected,
and against turning Clinton out of office."[underline added]
From the Chicago Tribune:
"It has been widely predicted that Republicans will pay dearly in the 2000 elections for overzealously pursuing the removal of a popular Democratic president for
offenses that most Americans considered essentially private and definitely not substantial. [
][underline added]
And pay they may, especially if independent counsel Kenneth Starr and his prosecutorial posse persist in their
holy war, reminding people of just how relentlessly obnoxious
and scary a Republican with subpoena power can be." [underline added]
From the Detroit Free Press:
"And now it's Kenneth Starr's turn. Between the philandering president and the obsessed prosecutor,
it is the prosecutor who has been the greater threat to the values of the republic. [underline added]
Now it's time to shut down the inquisition, write finis to the tawdry drama, and send Starr himself back into the private sector, where he can console himself with million-dollar fees from the clients and associates who have long hoped he could bring down Bill Clinton."
From The Dallas Morning News:
"The U.S. Senate's gathering at noon Friday lacked the dramatic suspense that surrounded
Andrew Johnson's narrow escape from impeachment in 1868. There were clear signs all week that the Senate would not remove President William Jefferson Clinton from office on grounds of perjury and obstruction of justice. Perhaps the only surprise was that
neither charge gained a majority of guilty votes." [underlines added]
From The Times-Picayune of New Orleans:
"After his acquittal, President Clinton committed himself to the ''work of serving our nation and building our future together.""
And that he has (for those whose hatred goes back to the draft and not inhaling, er, um, I think Dubya out-stripped him on this
).
