Should Bush pardon Clinton?

[KelleyKramer]

I'm curious about this...

Bill Clinton committed perjury

It was not a breach of national security.. and no one died as a result...

Should president Bush issue a formal pardon to Clinton ???

[Nikki Stone1]

1. Silly, Kelley, Republicans don't pardon people for SEX!

:evilgrin:

[Erika]

2. Clinton did sex

W can't forgive sex!

[KelleyKramer]

9. Foley?

I havent even checked...

Has he been charged as a child sex predator yet?

[evlbstrd]

3. There's nothing to pardon.

He wasn't convicted and served out his term.

[Catherine Vincent]

4. I rather President Clinton be un-impeached!

If there is such a thing. :)

[JI7]

5. he was never convicted of anything

[lutherj]

6. Clinton was acquitted. n/t

[Trajan]

7. HE did ? ....

Pardon my lack of recollection, but please reinform me: Was the Honorable William Jefferson Clinton convicted in a court of law of a criminal count of Perjury ?

It is my recollection that he was at worst found in contempt of court .... He was aquitted of Perjury charges in Impeachment ....

IF he was not convicted, then why would he need to be pardoned ?

[ComerPerro]

8. that would be hi larious

[Hippo_Tron]

10. Bill Clinton did not commit perjury

He was impeached for perjury and not convicted. He was not indicted once out of office.

[jobycom]

11. No. But, he was never convicted or even indicted for perjury. He was cited for contempt of court.

He was tried in the Senate for perjury in the grand jury questioning and for obstruction of the investigation, but cleared. No criminal charges were raised over either issue. After the impeachment hearing, he was cited by the Paula Jones trial judge for contempt of court for refusing to follow her instructions completely in his answers of the questions, but he was not accused nor indicted of perjury in that case. The evidence didn't warrant it. He was fined $90K and had his law license revoked for five years.

The oddest part of the impeachment was that he was impeached for lying to the grand jury when he claimed he did not commit perjury during the Paula Jones deposition, but he was not impeached for perjury in the Paula Jones deposition because the House did not believe the evidence warranted it. Work that one out. They ruled he didn't commit perjury in the first case, but did commit perjury before the grand jury when he said that in his opinion he didn't commit perjury in the first case. No court in the world would have convicted him on that.

But as for your basic question, no, I don't believe Clinton should be or should have been pardoned for the contempt citation or for any other crimes. If he had committed them, he should serve the penalty.

Congress, though, at some future date, needs to formally remove or nullify the impeachment. The charges did not fit the Constitutional grounds for impeachment. For the sake of the Constitution (and not Clinton), those impeachment articles should be declared null, to prevent future Congresses from such crass political maneuvers.

[pnwmom]

12. He didn't actually commit perjury. And here's why.

He asked the judge for the definition of "sexual relations." The definition that the judge gave him was limited to vaginal sexual intercourse, so Clinton answered that he hadn't had "sexual relations" with her.

He wouldn't have been found guilty of perjury in a regular court, because -- using that narrow definition of sexual relations -- he didn't actually lie. But the Republicans had a majority in the House, so they were free to impeach him there. It was a political impeachment -- not based on any real crime.

They couldn't convict him in the Senate though, because they didn't have the votes.

[snowbear]

13. Right on..

And eeEEew this lady is nasty:

[donheld]

14. President Clinton would first have to commit a crime

He hasn't done so, so there's nothing to pardon him from.