Clinton Impeachment Trial - perjury and obstruction of justice

Sex, scandal, and questions of privacy – that is what comes to mind when someone mentions the Clinton impeachment trial. While the embarrassing details of the situation made for great television, the trial itself was monumental for several reasons. For one, it was only the second presidential impeachment trial of its kind in American history. Before him there was the impeachment against President Andrew Johnson in 1868 for his removal of Secretary of War Edwin Stanton in violation of the Tenure of Office Act. Secondly, and most importantly, it set a precedent that an American president can blatantly lie under oath repeatedly and suffer no legal damages or be removed from office. We all remember Clinton’s infamous denial of the affair: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” We also all know now that this statement along with many others he gave under oath in a court of law were lies. The Constitution makes the requirements for a presidential impeachment quite clear: “"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Clinton’s affair was shameful, but it was not a high crime. What was worthy of impeachment, however, was the fact that he as the leader and representative of our nation lied to everyone under oath. He was officially tried with perjury and obstruction of justice, and was acquitted on both charges.

Perhaps even more disturbing than the president lying to the entire nation in order to cover up his poor and shameful behavior, was that Congress chose not to set politics aside even while under oath. In the case of impeachment the Constitution defines the Senate’s role: "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present." Thus, just like any other common jury member the senate gave an oath that they would analyze the evidence with an unbiased eye and do their best to honest asses if guilt lied with defendant. Every single one of the senate democrats voted that Clinton was not guilty. The evidence told a different story. However, the trial became an issue of politics and political alliances rather than a matter of finding truth.

I have included a congressional transcript of statements made by the former California Congressman James E. Rogan during the trial. He explains in greater detail why the President should be found guilty. The transcript is very long, but you can get the general idea by skimming it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/rogantext011499.htm