In the last two years of President William Clinton’s second term, he was riddled with many controversies and scandals. However, none were as important as the possible impeachment and removal from office he had to face before the entire country. The controversy centered on the idea that the President had committed perjury and obstructed justice in his dealings with Ms. Monica Lewinsky. However, the opposition argued differently on the basis of technicalities and that the allegations did not fulfill the standards necessary for such a serious action to be taken against the President of the United States.

In order to better understand the situation at the time, a history lesson must be provided. In August of 1998, the Independent Counsel charged our President of the United States, Bill Clinton, on eleven possible grounds for impeachment. This referral resulted in a hearing by the House Committee on the Judiciary to decide on whether or not these grounds where worthy enough of impeachment. On December 19, 1998, the United States House of Representatives voted yea on House Resolution 611 and agreed on Article I, perjury before the Grand Jury, and Article III, obstruc

Firstly, the Independent Counsel argued the position of the President being guilty of perjury, which is essentially lying under oath in court. This account of perjury consisted of the President lying three times in his testimony to the Grand Jury regarding his sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. The technical definition stated within the Jones case provided the basis that any intent to arouse the sexual desire or gratification, as previously defined would classify as sexual relations. However the President denied having such relations with Monica Lewinsky. Essentially by this denial, the President was stating that Ms. Lewinsky was lying about their relations, but her statements were later proven to be true (Starr: 13-14). Thus making the President guilty of perjury. This evidence accounted for Article I to be proven as grounds for the impeachment and removal of the President.

Secondly, Article II in the Senate trial consisted of the President and his dealings that would classify as obstruction of justice. Obstruction of justice occurs when a person intentionally acts to impede or obstruct the due administration of our judicial system, for example, by tampering with a witness, or concealing and destroying evidence. The witness tampering statute makes it a crime to attempt to influence the testimony of a person; it also makes it a crime to influence a person to withhold an object from an official proceeding; in order words, to tamper with evidence. The facts of this case showed the President to be corruptly engaged in, encouraged, or supported a scheme with Monica Lewinsky to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed. The evidence shows the President corruptly persuaded Ms. Lewinsky to withhold these objects from the proceedings in the Jones case and this constitutes as a criminal endeavor by the President (Starr: 33). In addition, there are quite

Some topics in this essay:
President Starr, II Senate, Secondly President, Monica Lewinsky, President Clinton, Article II, White House, Ms Lewinsky, Independent Counsel, William Clinton, obstruction justice, guilty perjury, president guilty, president guilty perjury, independent counsel, monica lewinsky, grand jury, white house, president william, president united, position president, president william clinton, grounds worthy impeachment, relations monica lewinsky, president committed perjury,