1998 impeachment of Clinton for obstructing justice & lying under oath about his sexual affair?

In 1998 impeachment of Bill Clinton for obstructing justice and lying under oath about his sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky, but the Senate early the following year found him not guilty on his impeachment charges.





How could they find him not guilty, when he did auctually did what he was impeached for?





Is there no justice?|||The united states senate didn't find him guilty by a majority but by all accounts the American people saw him for what he was as the perjury charge was defeated with 45 votes for conviction and 55 against. The obstruction of justice charge was defeated with 50 for conviction and 50 against





Then in January 2001, on the day before leaving office, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license as part of an agreement with the independent counsel to end the investigation. Based on this suspension, Clinton was automatically suspended from the United States Supreme Court bar, from which he then chose to resign. So in a way he was punished just not removed from office





Additional information:


Yes you are right about him lying and In April 1999, about two months after being acquitted by the Senate, Clinton was cited by Federal District Judge Susan Webber Wright for civil contempt of court for his "willful failure" to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. For this citation, Clinton was assessed a $90,000 fine, and the matter was referred to the Arkansas Supreme Court to see if disciplinary action would be appropriate|||Impeachment of Presidents has a procedure which must be followed, like any other trial. In Bill Clinton's case, the procedure was followed. The House of Representatives conducted the trial and the Senate acted as the jury. The Senate found him not guilty. The law was followed and justice, whether or not you agree with it, was done.





Your question, however, assumes that justice can only be served when you, personally, agree with the outcome, but that is not how the system works. The jury performed its function by hearing the evidence and reaching its own conclusion. Where the procedure is followed and the system does its job, there is justice.|||Clinton was never impeached. (In fact, NO U.S. President has ever been impeached.) Impeachment is the conviction and removal of the President. The vote to impeach Johnson fell short by one vote. Nixon resigned before it ever came to a vote. The vote for Clinton fell several short. And that's all it is, a VOTE to impeach. If there had ever been enough votes to impeach, then the impeachment process would have proceeded. ONLY upon completion of the impeachment process AND conviction, would the President then be impeached and removed.





Essentially, you might say that Clinton was arraigned before a Grand Jury and there was found to be insufficient evidence to proceed. The impeachment was NOT about a bl贸wj贸b, that's just improper behavior with minor legal repercussion. The political repercussions in getting cooperation from Congress and agencies not under Presidential control would be worse. So Clinton lied. Or allegedly lied. And that's what the impeachment vote was about. Lying to a Congressional investigation, obstruction of justice.





Now, did he lie? Or just not tell everything? In court, if they don't ask the right questions, they can't charge you with giving the wrong answers. And that's how Clinton got off. They tried to get him worse on the answers that he gave rather than the minor incident itself.|||Impeachment is a political decision with a legal framework. It is not a purely legal decision. Every senator can consider the evidence as they wish. BTW, perjury is very difficult to prove. The fact at issue must be "material" and the false testimony must be intentional. The materiality of the questioning about Lewinski was questionable at best. As to obstruction, the government must prove that an appropriate investigation was materially hampered in some specific way. That one wasn't even close. There was no delay because the investigators and prosecutors already had the evidence of sex and the answer from Clinton didn't change that.|||Do you now refuse to pledge allegiance to the flag? At a minimum, you must have a little more sympathy for those who do not. Schools should not require it, eh?








-=-=-=THREE thumbs down? let me modify my answer.





Republican, Democrat, White Supremists, Black Panter. There are three charges that should alway be scrutinized as likely political





Resisting Arrest


Conspiracy


Obstructing Justice.





Especially when there is not other crime charged simultaneously.|||It is called Jury Nullification, a quirk of our legal system that allows a jury, (Senate in this case) say the accused committed the crime, but we think in this case it shouldn't be a crime, so we find the person not guilty.|||He who has the power makes the rules. And breaks them.