Should President Clinton have been impeached and convicted?.
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, obstruction of justice as grounds worthy of impeachment (United States Cong., Cong. Record: 1-4). Thus a trial in the Senate, headed by Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist, took place the following year in January through the middle of February. The Senate adjudged that William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, was not guilty on both counts. Therefore, President William Clinton was acquitted on these accounts, but did receive some punishments from other organizations that affected his career. (United States Cong., Independent Counsel Referral).
Now whether or not President William Clinton should have been convicted, which would have removed him from office, is a personal opinion based on solid, factual evidence presented by both sides.