Bill Clinton was ultimately dragged down—though not defeated—by the “character issues” brought into question even before his election. An investigation into some suspect real estate dealings in which Clinton was involved prior to his presidency failed to turn up any implicating evidence. However, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr managed to unravel a tangled web of alleged sexual advances and affairs in Clinton's past. The trail led to former White House intern Monica S. Lewinsky. After months of denials, including in a videotaped legal testimony, Clinton admitted in August of 1998 that he had had a sexual relationship with the young woman during the time of her internship.
The infamous “Starr Report” outlining the findings of the Independent Counsel's investigation was delivered to the House of Representatives on Sept. 9, 1998 and subsequently made available to the public. Many felt the report, filled with lurid details of Clinton's sexual encounters with Lewinsky, to be a political attack against the President rather than a legal justification for his impeachment. Of the 11 possible grounds for impeachment cited by Starr, four were eventually approved by the House Judiciary Committee: grand jury perjury, civil suit perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power.
On December 19, following much debate over the constitutionality of the proceedings and whether or not Clinton could be punished by censure rather than impeachment, the House of Representatives held its historic vote. Clinton was impeached on two counts, grand jury perjury (228–206) and obstruction of justice (221–212), with the votes split along party lines. The Senate Republicans, however, were unable to gather enough support to achieve the two-thirds majority required for his conviction. On Feb. 12, 1999, the Senate acquitted President Clinton on both counts. The perjury charge failed by a vote of 55–45, with 10 Republicans voting against impeachment along with all 45 Democrats. The obstruction of justice vote was 50–50, with 5 Republicans breaking ranks to vote against impeachment. (See also William Jefferson Clinton)
Clinton was tried, and found "not guilty".
Now remember, folks, this discussion about Clinton, impeachment and his "guilt" started when Luis chimed in, on a discussion I was having with William Tell, to claim that Clinton was properly investigated and prosecuted in the Monica and BJGate matter. So I guess he thinks the impeachment trial was "above board". Not a very conservative sounding notion, is it? And if it was above board then he must also agree with the "not guilty" verdict? Is that true Luis? Do you agree with the "not guilty" verdict of the Senate in the impeachment trial? Why that sure doesn't sound like something a conservative would believe, does it?
And I guess Luis thinks that trial was all that was all that was need, justified or ever possible where Clinton AND Clinton related crimes are concerned. He wants you to ignore the possibility that Clinton AND MANY OTHERS could have been tried in a REAL COURT after Clinton left office for the lies told DURING the impeachment investigation and for MANY, MANY other crimes that weren't even covered or investigated during the impeachment. Again, that sounds like something a liberal would want, doesn't it folks?
So just don't forget where and why this conversation started as Luis tries to distract you from the issue at hand. Instead, notice that Luis doesn't say one word about the lies under oath that both Sid Blumenthal and Vernon Jordan were caught making during the impeachment. Notice he has no response to the fact that Starr allowed the Whitehouse to keep the FBI files for YEARS after they were discovered to be illegally in the Whitehouse. Yet, he claims that those matters were properly investigated and prosecuted.
sarcasm alert on ... Right, Luis ... sarcasm alert off