Fema Employment - Clinton Impeachment, did you forget?

Clinton Impeachment, did you forget?

Clinton Impeachment 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. Image source: CNN.com 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

Public Comments

never forget. Slick Willie Lied, Liberals Cried, Thousands Died
Bill Clinton has been out of office for going on 7 years. It's time to stop complaining about him.
and how did thousands die because Clinton lied about a BJ?? Bill has been out of office for how long???!! maybe if you people focused on the people who are in office, as much as you do the people who aren't, maybe you might notice the wool Bush is trying to pull over our eyes.
wow, what a waste of time ! we all remember when Clinton was impeached.
A bit long, wouldn't you say? The only ones who forget all the nasty things Clinton did are liberals who happen to have deified him since he did all these things. We Republicans don't need reminding.
AND CLEARED IN THE SENATE!! JUSTICE DID PREVAIL!!
Clinton was found “Not Guilty” by the Senate. Fast forward several years to 2007. We currently have a president in office who is much more deserving of impeachment than Clinton ever was. The Democrats should use their majority in the House to impeach.
Well since we're gonna bring up things from the past century.... RICHARD NIXON! Who remembers watergate!!!??? (notice the excessive exclamations since I don't have a big article to copy and paste, etc etc, which causes me not to be a complete tool like you)
Don't you think this is more propaganda than question? Let's just look at the whole attempted impeachment thing. A young woman from a prominent REPUBLICAN family gets a job at the White House in those long ago bipartisan days, and starts hitting on the Man. She is young and attractive, and he is a guy. Eventually the intern gets the Man alone, and goes down on him. I personally find that disappointing in a married man, and reprehensible on the part of the woman, who knew he was married. He comes, and she gets it on her expensive dress. Does she get it cleaned, so she can wear it again? No! She saves it, Presidential sperm and all, as though she knew she would want it for evidence. Then she tells a notorious gossip about the whole thing. Once it comes out, of course the married man denies it to protect his marriage and family. Tell me that 90% of us would not. Somehow this sordid little liason becomes relevant to the conduct of government, and the Senate investigates. Having lied to protect his family, the President still hedges when the Senate and House make it their business. Because there is nothing else these political enemies can get him for, they impeach him for the evasions. There are, however, enough senators with the sense to see this is all politically driven by people like Tom DeLay and Newt Gingrich, whose righteousness knows no bounds and whose infidelities are legion. The impeachment rightly fails. NOT GUILTY. No crime was committed. Now, let us consider that Clinton was set up. Why else would Ms. Lewinsky not clean the dress, but keep it in a plastic evidence bag? She KNEW it would be the clincher, and was probably acting on advice. Then consider, what relevance is there in any person's personal life when their conduct does not affect affairs of state. Both Franklin Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower were evidently unfaithful husbands. The Republicans insist that JFK was doing Marilyn Monroe in the Oval Office, but his aides (JK Galbraith and Ted Sorenson) both insisted that they did not believe it, and they were on the other side of the door. Still, until Clinton the President's personal privacy was respected. This breach of protocol was most likely part of a deep laid plan to disrupt the Administration of the United States of America for the political gain of the republican Party. Who else stood to gain? So what we have here is a redredging of the sewer created by a conspiracy of neoMcCarthyite pimps, who violated protocol so that they could impeach the President for doing the very thing they themselves were doing! Now ask yourself why they are bringing this up? They are doing this to attack the wronged wife! What absolute cheek! For partisan purposes they attempt a coup d'etat, and in the process humiliate the wife and family of their victim. Do they feel remorse? Not a chance. They spend the next ten years beating Mrs. Clinton up for staying with the father of her child and making her marriage work. If they are correct, and there is an Almighty God who will punish those who knowingly do evil, they should burn in Hell for that one. Remember when the Clinton haters trot this one out that it was a set up, and that the actors had no care or concern for either the pain they caused the families or the disruption they created in the conduct of our national business. If there are villains in this business anywhere, they are Republicans. Then ask yourself this: how can her conduct throughout be construed in any way to discredit Mrs. Clinton? What conceivable relevance does this issue have? It is cheap shots like this that have turned me against the Bush League, and many others as well. We are sick to death of the character assassination and slander that have replaced reasoned debate and compromise in public life. That's why we turfed enough Republicans to cost them the majority: to tell them we wanted them to amend their behaviour. Obviously they have not listened. This neabs we must speak louder. NOW HEAR THIS: PRESIDENT HILLARY CLINTON! That should let them know we were not listening, and will not listen to their cheap shots and innuendo. Any Democrat would win, but I predict she will win the primaries because of the sympathy vote kindly generated by Rush Limbaugh and his fellow lickspittles at Fox. Maybe the President after her can be elected because they were the right person for the job, but right now we just want to send old Rush a message.