Should Bill Clinton Have Been Impeached?

yes, the president practiced braking religious laws providing an education around diverse human existences related to belief manipulating the population of earth as an whole with language inventions extracting resources for trade forced

there is serious neglect for human population survival on earth from the white house since then

Technically he perjured himself before a grand jury, a criminal act in most jurisdictions that could have entailed jail time. He also ended up losing his law license over this, so it wasn't as if it was something small.

However, he lied about the nature of his relationship with a White House intern. He didn't commit treason nor did he personally engage in criminal behavior. The only thing he violated were his martial vows, which he did a lot according to most accounts. Nevertheless, I found it hard to justify removing him from office for that reason alone.

It was a complicated issue, with both sides having good arguments either way.

At the end of the day, the court of public opinion saved him. The economy was growing robustly in 1998 and people felt good about Clinton's performance otherwise. Nixon didn't have that benefit in 1973-74, in the midst of a major oil crisis in the Middle East. The economic situation was the nail that sealed Nixon's coffin, but it was the factor that saved Clinton's Presidency. The Congress would have otherwise evicted Clinton from office and his party would have abandoned him.

Clinton ? I don't like the rapscallion,but it was Bush who should have been impeached.When you slaughter your own troops to push your agenda,and lie about justifications for sending them into battle,that's worthy of not only impeachment,but a lifetime in prison.

I don't think Bill Clinton should have been impeached. A mistake made in his private life does not affect his ability to run a country. From here in the UK it looked like Bill Clinton did a very good job as President and it just doesn't seem that big a deal - he lied to protect his private life, and surely he should not have to disclose such information?

Yes, Clinton should've been impeached. The fucker lied under oath but the whole thing was bs anyway.

He was.

Just wanted to reiterate Eschew's review. Many people don't realize that impeachment is simply the process of removal, but says nothing of the guilt or innocence of the President. It should probably read "Should Bill Clinton have been convicted from his impeachment?" or something to that effect.

If high crimes and misdemeanors means a fib to Congress about a matter that took place in private, and that does not affect the destiny of the nation, we'd run out of politicians fairly quickly.

Yes, as he committed "high crimes and misdemeanors" that are described as the appropriate grounds for impeachment in the Federal Constitution. And he should have been disbarred in Arkansas as well, rather than simply suspended.

Not at all. Whatever actions he did while in office never warranted to any crimes or misdemeanors. Therefore, he should never have been impeached in the first place.

BULLETIN: He was impeached. He was one of only two presidents in history to suffer such an indignity, not that he cared. He was acquitted by the Senate and allowed to stay in office. UPDATE: Note of clarification: the other was not Richard Nixon. FURTHER UPDATE: Further, children, he was impeached by the House FOR perjury AND obstruction of justice, so I don't think it's quite as benign as lying about sex. They passed on the criminal charges of suborning perjury and conspiracy, although the evidence certainly would have justified their inclusion in the impeachment proceedings. One of the most rampant problems in our legal system today is how common perjury is, so it was nice of Bill to set a shining example for anyone hoping to two-step his way around telling the truth under oath. Look, even the President does it, and gets away with it.

Note to everyone: he didn't just lie, he lied under oath! With his hand on the bible while in office and under a constitution he swore to uphold. The scandal that lead up to his impeachment was fueled by HIS OWN stonewalling and lying. There were indictments of his closest associates and essential documents that conveniently disappeared off the planet. Clinton and his wife are grade A dirtballs and that's a fact. And all that being said the investigations were a total waste of time and money. Was the public better served by the investigations? I think not. And the republicans wasted valuable political capital along the way- in the end making him look as the victim of a witchhunt instead of the lying dirtball he was.UPDATE*****Canada, you have to be one of the most consistently clueless reviewers on this website. It is simply disingenuous to claim Bush lied unless you deconstruct the actually definition to suit your pathetic argument. His stonewalling wasn't just about sex but evasion from prosecution in a variety of shady scandals that he wormed his way out of. In the end, in my opinion the public wasn't served by the investigations whatsoever, but to dismiss them because you think these are lies you can tell is pure folly. I'm waiting for you to look up the word LIE in the dictionary instead of regurgitating this lame mantra that all you lost liberals keep repeating. Every- and that means EVERY intelligence agency, friend and foe, thought that Saddam had weapons. From Egypt to Jordan, from Israel to Russia, from the UK to France. Wrong they may have been- but lying in concert? I'm waiting for a substantive reason as to why freeing 25 million people from the tyranny and butchery of Saddam is worse than free elections and a chance at a free future. I'm waiting for that argument! I'm waiting for a liberal to give me a cohesive foreign policy strategy to combat and defeat terrorism other than I'm against everything Bush does. Instead liberals say stupid things like Bush has no exit strategy. What exactly was FDR's exit strategy in WWII? How about Truman? What was our exit strategy in the Korean War? WE'RE STILL THERE!!!! Vietnam? What, tuck and run while the rest of Indochino goes communist and millions are slaughtered? The reality is liberals are the most weak thinking bunch of nay-sayers on the planet with no strategy to defend our shores. I'm waiting for a strategy that isn't stick our heads in the sand, cut the military budget, and hope nobody attacks us.

That is like saying,Should O.J. have gotten the Death-Penalty?CanadaSucks, he committed pergury.The last time I checked that was a crime and a means for impeachment.Don't want to start a flamewar, but you are a moron!

For a blow$ob? (Don't give me the he lied crap - it was about sex period) Does anyone care that the rest of the world laughed for months about this? Does anyone want to live in a world that is a little less interested in the president's dick? Do you want a prez who gets laid and has international political respect or a prez who lies about war and can't get anyone in the world to believe in his war? I'm waiting. . .

YES

It is my understanding that Clinton was Impeached by the House of Representatives, he just wasn't kicked out of office by the Senate, they rejected the articles of Impeachment. But, nevertheless, he was still Impeached by the House.

no, but he also should have kept it in his pants.

Absolutely not. Bill Clinton's personal life is his business regardless of whether he is our leader or not. If you were the president, would you want the public looking in your bedroom during your intimate moments? Don't think so. And for those that feel President Clinton should be impeached for lying...then I guess almost all of them should get booted....not just him....

Regardless of how minor the offense was, Clinton was under oath and lied. Last time I checked, that was called purjery, which is against the law and an utter betrayal of the Constitution that Clinton swore to uphold. By all legal standards, Clinton probably should have been held accountable for his actions.

It's silly to even ask this question. He shook his finger at the cameras and proudly lied to the entire world. He enlisted others to lie and stonewall for him. He obstructed justice. He approved of the scorched earth policy of blackmailing those who tried to bring him to justice. If he should not have been impeached AND removed from office, then we've never had a president who should be impeached, and probably never will.

Of all the lies that all the presidents have told, lying about getting a little strange stuff seems a little mild to require impeachment.

Martha Stewart lied to the government and she's going to jail. Bill Clinton lied to the government and he stayed in office.

No, Clinton should not have been impeached. While he did indeed lie, it did not affect Americans, and it certainly did not affect the world. Clinton lied; no one died. Compare this to the dangerous lies or crimes of Ronald Reagan (Iran-Contra) and George W. Bush (lying about National Security and weapons in Iraq). Bush's lies could actually cause a world crisis, and they have already led to the deaths of many American soldiers. Is Bush getting impeached? Of course not! Congress is controlled by Republicans! The impeachment of Bill Clinton was just a Republican plot to get a Democrat out of office.

I never really had a lot of love for Clinton, but I think that he did far more good than harm in his terms of office, and I absolutely despise the GOP specifically because of Clinton's impeachment. It was disgusting and petty and really unhelpful. It cost millions of dollars and took up a lot of time and energy that could have been spent doing something productive or good for the country. And don't think that the Republicans went after him because of some noble pursuit of truth and the principles of justice and morality. They did not. They are entirely unconcerned about such things themselves, except when it is politically expedient. Bill Clinton was no saint, but his lying under oath about committing adultery was nothing compared to the crimes of Bush and Nixon. Whether he did or did not have sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky was never the issue. The issue was always that there was a man in office who the GOP and their corporate masters couldn't fully control, and they hated him for it. In impeaching Clinton, they taught a generation of American children that the worst thing thing a person can do is to have consensual sex with someone they are not married to. And do NOT tell me that the real issue is not the bj, but that he 'lied under oath.' That was never the main concern, it was just a handy, self-righteous way of not having to admit that one is uptight about sexual matters. Ambrose Bierce defined politics as a strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles, and more than 100 years of American history have only reinforced this. The GOP are filthy hypocrites and are well aware of this fact. They know that their politics are abhorrent to almost any thinking person, and the only way they can gain support is by making the other guy look even worse. Go ahead, read every statement and speech and article written by any Republican of the last twenty years - most of them emphasize their opponents' lack of virtue. If they make any political statements, they don't give any arguments but rather repeat short, simple, slogans that are easy for their ignorant supporters to remember. If they actually taught things like rhetorical criticism or analytical reasoning in American schools, the GOP would fade away into nothing because ordinary Americans would see them for the hypocritical knee-biters they really are. The impeachment was a sham and made the US the laughingstock of the entire world.

Yes because he did lie to the American people. I'm sorry, but I dislike dishonesty in a president. Clinton lied to me and the people in my country.

OK. I'll take the bait and say no. Purjuring oneself (legally, the charge of perjury in this case is hard to prove, which is why the impeachment wasn't passed) to hide the embarassment of a sexual affair is a lot different than, say, systematically subverting the electoral process by bugging and harassing your competitors and then destroying documents that were subpoenaed, while trying to have underlings take the fall. I never understood why Republicans were so obsessed with Bill Clinton and his penis...even comparing this to Watergate is ridiculous. Bill Clinton's indiscretion should have been kept between him, his family and Monica and not used for political purposes in the first place. Then again, if he had been found guilty, then Al Gore would have taken over the Presidency and distanced himself from Clinton, thus winning the 2000 election easily and you Republicans wouldn't have your boy in the White House.

Not that it makes much of a difference to me either way, but he did lie, very blatantly, and should have been held accountable for it, even if for a minor offense (though I'm sure it wasn't minor to Hillary--I'm surprised she didn't divorce him!)

No, he should have been hog-tied and horse-whipped.

The man should be in prison right now. Lied to the whole nation, and is being accused by several women of rape.

Bill Clinton perjured himself in a court of law. He deprived a citizen of her day in court. This is conduct unbecoming to the office of the President of the United States if I've ever heard it. He should have been out on his ear.