That's not what I recall. He 100% committed perjury, he claimed he had not engaged in sexual relations with Lewinsky under oath. Then that dress with his DNA on it showed up. Oops. The house voted to impeach him on charge of perjury and obstruction of justice but he was not convicted by the Senate and it never resulted in charges in any other venue.
Prior to the impeachment Clinton was trying to work some deal where he was censured by the congress but not impeached. My feeling was that such a move was not permitted in the constitution, congress has no authority to censure, only impeach. So impeach him. However, I didn't think that lying about having sex was something that should result in removal from office. Unpopular here, I know, but it didn't feel to me that was what impeachment was for. So I was in favor of impeaching him but not removing him. I couldn't stand Bill Clinton but didn't want to twist the constitution and the precedents just to spite him in his final two years in office.
Of course now the gloves off, no holds barred, frame him if ya gotta politics of the dems is on display in the case of Trump so in retrospect maybe we should have tossed Clinton out after all.
Clinton was NOT convicted of perjury (as I thought I remembered.) He was found in contempt of court by a federal judge for lying under oath, fined $90,000.
Judge Wright wrote: “Sanctions are being imposed, not only to deter others who might consider emulating the president’s misconduct, but to compensate the plaintiff by requiring that the president pay her any reasonable fees and expenses caused by his willful failure to obey this court’s discovery orders.”
Clinton was being sued for using his office to reward those who accepted his sexual overtures (using government funds and positions to bribe), and to punish those who declined. He lied in his deposition, to cover for his repeated pattern of abuse of office. He and his also engaged in witness tampering, witness intimidation, and a variety of other crimes in just this case alone.