Impeach Clinton Lies

A majority of the public though, continued to side with the democrats, believing that although he most definitely lied about his oath, they felt as if the lies did not matter as much because the situation did not directly affect the Nation’s well being. But how can serious lies and meaningless lies exist? Shouldn’t a lie just be a lie? Those questions were the center of the Republican’s argument. Clinton had lied under oath plain and simple and that was an impeachable offense no matter what the lie was about. Not only that but he assumed that he could outsmart the American public, which is insulting in that of itself. But the other side of the argument was that the lies were petty and did not deserve the treatment they were receiving. They …show more content…
They knew Clinton would do everything possible to keep his presidency, and both sides agreed that because party-line voting was inevitable, the two-thirds vote to impeach Clinton would never happen, so why should there be a trial. When brought up in the Senate though, the other Republicans felt betrayed, the Republicans in the House had risked their political careers to pass it. Doing so would be an ultimate insult. So, instead of infuriating the Republicans even more they continued with preparations for the trial deciding if there should be witnesses or not. Witnesses would slow down the trial process, but they argued that in order for a fair trial the would be necessary. With that still undecided they opened the trial on January 7th 1999 and after a three hour meeting, with the exception of witnesses, the senate completely agreed on all rules and regulations made. They decided that because of the unique circumstances the senate would act as a combination between jury and judge. With almost all of the rules in place, the Senate still had not decided if witnesses would be allowed.
The trial begins with Asa Hutchinson, who explained the fine line between actually obstructing the truth and just being plain uncooperative. He then pin points seven separate acts when Clinton obstructed the truth. More House Managers, or the prosecutors in charge of the trial, elaborated on the seriousness of perjury. To finish the presentation, Henry Hyde summed it up by exclaiming, “This case is a test of whether what the founding fathers described as ‘sacred honor’ still has meaning.” By saying this we meant that the Senators had a duty to do what was best for the country, not follow their personal