Originally posted by FMFNo, two separate things. He was impeached by the House, but the Senate failed to convict. That isn't an acquittal.
He was acquitted though, wasn't he, at the end of his impeachment trial?
The charges stemming from lying under oath, resulted in a conviction, a fine, suspended sentence, the loss of his law license in Arkansas.
In neither case was he acquitted.
Originally posted by normbenignYou may feel "the Senate failed to convict" but Clinton was acquitted by the Senate on 12th February 1999 with 55 senators, including both Democrats and Republicans, voting "not guilty". These details are to be found in the Congressional Record. I can appreciate that you felt these senators "failed" in some way, but Clinton was acquitted nevertheless.
No, two separate things. He was impeached by the House, but the Senate failed to convict. That isn't an acquittal.
Originally posted by FMFWhat is a U.S. Aircraft carrier saying?? Well not much...boats don't generally talk. HE HE HE (I crack myself up sometimes!!)😀😀😀😀
Nations "talk" to each other with their actions [can't find the quote from the Cuban Missile Crisis movie, but you know what I mean]. Surely the U.S. could not possibly wage war on Iran right now or even for years to come? So what is the second swing by of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln "saying"?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17027768
Originally posted by FMFThe process of impeachment is entirely different from a common trial for felonious acts in a regular court. Failure to convict in the impeachment process isn't acquittal.
You may feel "the Senate failed to convict" but Clinton was acquitted by the Senate on 12th February 1999 with 55 senators, including both Democrats and Republicans, voting "not guilty". These details are to be found in the Congressional Record. I can appreciate that you felt these senators "failed" in some way, but Clinton was acquitted nevertheless.
Clinton was later convicted of perjury and contempt of court in an actual court room and judge.
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignClinton was acquitted by the Senate regardless of whether you claim he wasn't. The fact that he was prosecuted at a later stage is not relevant to the fact that the impeachment process ended with his acquittal. The senators did not vote "Fail To Convict" or "Successfully Convict", they could vote "Guilty" but most of them voted "Not Guilty" so Clinton was acquitted.
Failure to convict in the impeachment process isn't acquittal.
Clinton lied under oath about getting head on the side. In contrast, Reagan bypass and trashed the Constitution in trading arms to Iran for money and hostages, and diverting the money to the Contras in Nicaragua in violation of the Boland Amendment.
I am not saying what Clinton did is right, but Reagan deserves to be impeached more than Clinton. By the way, Bill Clinton is the most popular politician in the country. I do miss those good old days of the two Clinton terms.
The Boland Amendment was the name given to three U.S. legislative amendments between 1982 and 1984, all aimed at limiting U.S. government assistance to the Contras in Nicaragua. The first Boland Amendment was to the House Appropriations Bill of 1982, which was attached as a rider to the Defense Appropriations Act of 1983, named for the Massachusetts Democrat, Representative Edward Patrick Boland, who authored it. The House of Representatives passed the Defense Appropriations Act 411-0 on December 8, 1982[1] and it was signed by President Ronald Reagan on December 21, 1982.[2] The amendment outlawed U.S. assistance to the Contras for the purpose of overthrowing the Nicaraguan government, while allowing assistance for other purposes.[3]
Beyond restricting overt U.S. support of the Contras, the most significant effect of the Boland Amendment was the Iran-Contra Affair, during which the Reagan Administration illegally circumvented the Amendment in order to continue supplying arms to the Contras, behind the back of Congress.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boland_Amendment