Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
Are you arguing the law was not broken?
|
I'm arguing Clinton committed no "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" within the meaning of Article II, Section 4, which is the standard that applies.
Clinton lied and he should not have. I have not formed an opinion on the materiality of that lie, which I understand is an element of a perjury offense under the governing law. I know others have, and the view of the matter splits, unsurprisingly, on party lines. He lost his bar ticket as a result, presumably because the regulation of the profession requires that we not split hairs over materiality in licensure proceedings as we do under the criminal laws.
Even if a jury would have found materiality, I'm not sure that justified impeachment, or un-justifies the Senate acquittal. Johnson broke the law, too, in the sense that his firing of Stanton violated the law; he was also acquitted by the Senate.
