Talk:Impeachment of Bill Clinton/Archive 1

message: This article is a spin-off of the main Clinton biography.  At present, it is identical to the section there.  I copied it here to give it room to grow into a full article in its own right.  Wolfman 20:37, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spin off 

message: In Paula Jones: The lawsuit was eventually dismissed without proceeding to trial, since Jones was unable to demonstrate any damages; the possibility of an appeal was disposed of by Clinton's paying Jones an out-of-court settlement of $850,000. He was also fined $91,000 for a contempt of court citation for evasive and misleading answers;
here, it's an "over $900,000 fine"... which is true? Jules.LT 16:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paula Jones payment 

message: A recent edit said that Clinton was "politically weakened" by the impeachment ordeal.  While he was certainly distracted by the scandal for much of 1998, can he really be said to have been weakened by it?  As I recall, going into his trial his approval numbers were hovering around 70 percent.  Moreover, Republicans suffered significant losses in the 1998 midterm elections at the height of the impeachment scandal, which impelled Newt Gingrich, who had been Clinton's nemesis for most of his presidency, to resign.  The scandal also somewhat paradoxically made a more sympathetic figure out of Hillary Clinton, which helped her start her own Senate career two years later.
I'm not saying Clinton was pleased about the scandal or the impeachment; I'm just saying that he wasn't exactly politically crippled by it all either, and that it actually helped him shore up support in his base. --Jfruh 22:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Politically weakend"? 

message: This anon User:68.209.2.94 is getting people bogged down in arguments about semantics and distracting attention from attempts to put actively incorrect information into articles on this topic.  The Senate votes were 50-50 on the perjury charge and 55-45 to acquit on the obstruction charge, as this very article says later on in the body.  See here, for instance, for the correct account. I've fixed this article and the Bill Clinton article. --Jfruh 05:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anon is spreading misinformation 

message: Start new topics below
I believe that the  wording should be changed.  I may be wrong, but I thought that the House of Reps. were responsible for the Impeachment section of a presidental trial; however, the Senate is reponsable for the Removal from Office portion.  Therefore, Clinton was impeached, but he was not removed from office.  Either I am comfused, or the information is misleading.  Either way it is a bit confusing.
I would appreciate any feedback, because I do not want to edit the page as I am not absolutely sure.  If someone out there does know I would like to either know that I am wrong or edit the page so that it reflects the correct information.
Thanks!
"Impeachment is to bring federal charges against someone in office. "  "Impeachment is to bring federal charges against someone in office. "  Removed because Impeachment is the process of removing from office, "to bring charges" is vauge and implies a criminal act, which may not be necessary for impeachment
:The House impeaches, much like a grand jury indictment.  The Senate then conducts a trial on the charges.  Separate things.  There is no "impeachment section" of a trial.  Your statement is correct that he was impeached, but not removed from office.  Much as a defendant may be indicted but not convicted.  What paragraph in the article is misleading? Derex 02:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:Impeachment of Bill Clinton/Archive 1|Archive]]

message: There were 13 managers who acted like the prosecution, was there any defense as such? Nil Einne 19:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Defense

message: is there any public document containing or estimating the cost of the trial? -ncm3@njit.edu 18:42, 18 Sept 2006 (EST)
:I found this in the Wahington Post.    
Independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr spent $6.2 million during the six months last year when he was deposing former White House intern Monica S. Lewinsky and concluding his impeachment case against President Clinton, according to the General Accounting Office.
Total cost of the entire Whitewater / Paula Jones / Lewinsky investigations:
Starr commenced his investigation of Whitewater and related matters in August 1994. Since then, he has spent $39.2 million probing Whitewater and President Clinton's affair with Lewinsky. Before Starr's appointment, a special counsel appointed by Attorney General Janet Reno had spent $6 million on a probe of Whitewater.
I also have a citation for $7.2 million.  But all things being equal I go with the Washington Post over the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (no offense to any one that works for the ArDeGaz.
Proposed wording for the article:  According to the Washington Post, the six month period of investigations and depositions that concluded with the impeachment proceedings cost the government at least $6.2 million dollars.
None of the articles I found tell me who got billed for that?  The OIC has an "unlimited budget" so does that mean they have a budget at all or does it just come out of the DOJ? Mykll42 12:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cost

message: It would be nice to have some dates in here. When did the Starr investigation begin? When was its report released? This article is really thin on basic facts. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 22:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dates?

message: OK guys, this article is pretty damn POV.  I'm gonna quote a few excerpts here that are obvious, but the much more sinister bias is the one that comes from selectively stating facts. 
Number 1:
Originally dealing with the failed land deal years earlier known as Whitewater, Starr, with the approval of Attorney General Janet Reno, expanded his investigation into Clinton's conduct during the sexual harassment lawsuit filed by a former Arkansas government employee, Paula Jones.
The "failed land dealings" is not on relevent.  It is clearly included to cast doubt on Starr. Number 2:
The Republican leadership feared that they could not get enough votes to impeach Clinton in the incoming 106th Congress. So they hastily initiated impeachment proceedings during the post-election, lame duck session of the outgoing 105th Congress.
"Hastily"?  Jeez.  Number 3:
The presumptive Speaker-Elect, Bob Livingston, ironically resigned his job as an indirect result of Clinton's impeachment debate. Livingston chose to resign for his dishonor after his own marital infidelity came to light and encouraged Bill Clinton to show the same honor and resign for his infidelities and subsequent perjury.
"Ironically"? This has very little factual relevence. "For his dishonor"?  I don't it's wikipedia's job to judge honor.  I mean, come on.   Number 4:
The key "lie" which Clinton was allegedly pressuring Currie (and Blumenthal) to make was that it was Lewinsky who initially pursued Clinton, not vice versa; unfortunately for the prosecution, Lewinsky herself stated that she was the one who instigated the relationship.
"Lie" need not be in quotation marks.
Seriously, this article is embarrasing for Wikipedia. Njerseyguy 06:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed most of those and removed a lot of the editorializing.  I left the fact that the investigation started with Whitewater as that is relevant.  People need to know why he was being investigated in the first place to know when / how he perjured himself. I also removed all references to the impeachment bills and trial failing to obtain bipartisan support.  I maintain that people can count on their own, especially as we have listed how each senator voted.  I feel more comfortable removing things with a pro-clinton POV as... well... as I have a pro-Clinton POV.  I welcome people checking on me for fairness.  I didn't touch the introduction.  I don't even know where to begin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mykll42 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: The last section merits a POV tag (if not an earlier section or two) - a section on "political ramifications" should also include the effects on Congress in the 1998 elections, and in addition, there should be more discussion of the political environment affecting not only Clinton but Congress as well. In addition, the first section reads like a newspaper article written minutes after the announcement of the "verdict" - hardly NPOV. There should be more explanation of the impeachment process and background, preferably starting with the person who preceded Kenneth Starr as independent prosecutor (Robert Fiske) and the role of Senators Helms and Faircloth in the replacement of Fiske. The impeachment did not occur in a vacuum; the article should not imply it to be as such.147.70.242.40 18:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put it back, as it was well-referenced. If there is consensus in here to remove it, then we can do that. Kukini  hablame aqui 21:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the consensus to remove it and will do so shortly unless otherwise directed by consensus. The entire section is POV, references issues unrelated to President Clinton's actual impeachment - the subject of the article - and, while having many citations, is hardly "well-referenced." (I discount the hypothesis of Stanford and the student newspaper at Princeton...great schools though they are they do not yet rise to the level of notable source on an issue such as this.) Even the title of the section is problematic...it is not for wikipedia to determine the "political ramifications" of the impeachment and the random studies cited do not constitute reliable sources on how the American people interpreted the impeachment and its how that interpretation affected their political judgment in 2000. The entire section is conjecture and improper. JasonCNJ 04:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: except Al Gore himself blamed the Lewinsky scandal and subsequent impeachment for his defeat, even confronting Clinton on the matter.  the references cite exit poll numbers and the analysis' of each of the studies cited are valid.  anyone who follows politics closely can remember that Bush jumped out to a huge early lead in the polls in the fall of 1999, with "character" being the number 1 issue on voters minds.  rather than removing the entire section, add to it and balance it out as you see fit, but i don't see a POV issue with it as it is. i also don't see a "consensus" to remove the section.Anthonymendoza 19:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The consensus appears overwhelmingly in favor of removing the "political ramifications" section, as it is clearly one-sided and full of weasel language.  Only conservative and neutral sources were cited, and the neutral ones (such as the AP article) don't seem to contain any specific information that supports the POV arguments made in this section.  The rest appears to be based on heresay that isn't covered anywhere in the citations.  Anthonymendoza commented on "exit poll numbers" that don't seem to be readily available in the citations.  Most data suggests in fact that name recognition played more of a factor for Bush than anything else.  He did use the impeachment scandal as a basis for campaigning on "character," as Anthonymendoza puts it, but there is simply no evidence cited here to support the assertion that voters gave decisive support as a direct result of this scandal.  Given the fact that nobody in the political science community can agree on what (if any) political ramifications resulted from this scandal, it is inappropriate to be citing a single point of view (POV) as fact in an encyclopedia.
Since there appears to be sufficient consensus on this, along with the fact that this argument has been disengaged for nearly a month, I am removing the POV tag along with the section on political ramifications.  If someone would like to re-write it from a more neutral perspective, accurately citing sources, then that would be a good idea.  However, I think there's enough agreement here now not to simply restore this weasel POV section without a drastic overhaul. 71.197.156.89 11:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: i disagree there is "sufficient consensus on this" to remove it.  the person who added the tag has "disengaged for nearly a month."  the section is well referenced and legitimate.  others can add to it or rewrite it, but to just remove it based on a complaint from a handful of anonymous editors is foolish.  we could start a WP:RFC.  Anthonymendoza 13:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sorry  but why does anyone think THIS is legitimate:  "According to The Daily Princetonian, after the 2000 presidential election, "post-election polls found that, in the wake of Clinton-era scandals, the single most significant reason people voted for Bush was for his moral character" 
Unless someone can explain otherwise, seems to me this is merely attempting to cast aspersion on the legitimacy of Bush's election, as if there was no reasion anyone voted for him other than he wasn't an adulterer. According to the Daily Princetonian? Forgive my own POV displayed in pointing this out, but the section is silly. Batvette (talk) 07:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The POV tags return

message: "Starr obtained further evidence of inappropriate behaviour by seizing the computer hard drive and email records of Monica Lewinsky."
Does the use of the word "inappropriate" here seem hopelessly parochial to anyone else?  At the least it is a POV and/or passing judgement on a action which, in a country like France, is almost considered a positive sign in a leader.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.247.73.130 (talk) 12:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Inappropriate?

message: I would like to see a more thorough analysis of the whole "what the meaning of the word 'is' is" statement. It's been thrown around for  nearly a decade now, but I just realized that I don't have any clue about the original context. Googling doesn't seem to help - there are a lot of snickers and pop cultural references, but little in the way of analysis. Almost all of the time people quote just that line - hardly anyone gives the question which prompted it. Even then, it's hard to work through the layers, as the question refers to previous statements made by Clinton, and no one seems to ever quote these.
I think that Wikipedia would be much improved by a more complete discussion of the statement - the question and answers where the original 'is' was given, the question and context leading to Clinton's "what 'is' is" response, and linguistical analysis of the validity of the statement. Most of what I've seen has been just a knee-jerk "what a moron - everyone knows what 'is' means" dismissal. I would hope that we'd be able to find professional linguists views on the subject, when they treat the statement seriously. -- 18:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Is"

message: I removed this material because it is original research,  not supported by any citations.  To include this or anything like it we need to cite reliable sources who have done such analysis and drawn those conclusions.  Tvoz |talk 06:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced OR

message: Under the section "The January 1998 press conference" it says "Clinton engaged in oral sex with Ms. Lewinsky on several occasions.[6][7]" I checked the sources of the two footnotes, and I don't see anything suggesting that it happened more than once. Perhaps the person who wrote this was confused by the reference in the source article to several private meetings at the White House, but those were Hillary Clinton's meetings, not Bill's.
91.87.163.24 (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: On several occasions?

message: So, why does it say on this CNN video  December 18  ??? What is correct ? 
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a2e_1229624865
79.210.90.190 (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: impeached on '''December 19 ''' ?? 

message: This page was written more like a Republican campaign ad than a neutral non-partisan page.  You keep your political views to yourself and don't hide details about how others judged Gore's loss.  You need to include every logical detail, and not hide any scenario, like how this page did.  You need to include what Clinton and other commentators argued, and not just what Gore argued.  The same Stanford page that was used to trash Clinton as a liability to Gore included different hypothesis' of the election, and not just Clinton's personal record being a liability.204.169.161.1 (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia Is Not A Place To Hype Any Political Party

message: The last two sections in the current article, "Ensuing events for 13 House managers" and "Other affairs", seem kind of coatracky to me.  Other than the one of the 13 House managers who lost his bid for re-election in 2000, all of them left the House under circumstances that seem to have very little to do with the Clinton impeachment, so why spend so much time chronicling that?  Also, the fact that Republican officials have also had affairs is of limited relevance, as Clinton was not impeached for adultery.  Certainly there is a place to mention politicians whose affairs were revealed in connection with the impeachment (e.g., the Flynt episode), but a general list of adulterous Republicans seems out of line.  Thoughts?  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the republicans presented impeachment as a moral argument, and did everything they could to keep the sexual aspects prominent in the media.  So their own lack of morality is completely relevant.  Clinton was impeached for lying about adultery - the republicans were never asked to testify about their own adultery, and we can only guess how many of them would have lied had they thought they could have gotten away with it. Algr (talk) 22:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Last two sections

message: That poll that showed half of Americans supported the decision to impeach Clinton was conducted by in part by CNN and USA Today- two media outlets that were accused of putting an effort to help Bush win the 2000 Presidential election- in December of 1999, when Bush and Gore were campaigning, and it may have very well been just conducted to garner support for Bush.  It very well may have not been a random survey and they could've knowingly surveyed the bulk of the respondents from pro-Republican areas.  Bush raised more money than Gore when he campaigned and the media has had a history of siding with the candidate who raises the most money.  My resources are quite neutral and are not biased.  They even sourced various news articles that made false claims about Al Gore.75.72.35.253 (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: It Is Worth Noting That Media Outlets Gave The Impression That They Were In Favor of Bush During The 2000 Presidential Election And Could've Exaggerated Things In An Effort To Help Him Win

message: My sources were CNN, Infoplease and the University of Missouri Kansas City.  Drmies, I suggest you accept the consensus policy and keep your views to yourself.75.72.35.253 (talk) 03:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: My Edits Were Not Poorly Sourced And Were Quite Neutral

message: Those of us who know the Constitution well know that it takes a 2/3rds vote in the US House to impeach (indict) the President or a Supreme Court justice and, after a trial presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (for the President), a 2/3rds vote in the US Senate for removal. Did one of the Amendments of the Constitution change the rules to require a simply majority vote in the House for impeachment?
:While a two-thirds majority is required for conviction, a simple majority is the default in the House of Representatives. The relevant clauses in Article I are: Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5: "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." and Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7: "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." NW (Talk) 16:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was the impeachment illegal? 

message: "Although the impeachment and trial was broadly unpopular with the public, Clinton's personal image suffered and Vice President Al Gore distanced himself from Clinton, which assisted George W. Bush in his successful presidential campaign against Gore in 2000."
That seems like a lot of opinion with no source references to back it up:
"the trial was broadly unpopular with the public" - says who?
"Clinton's personal image suffered" - according to what measures?
"Gore distanced himself from Clinton" - proof? 
"which assisted Bush in his successful campaign against Gore" - implying cause and effect between the prior statement, and cause and effect on the subsequent campaign.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.18.235 (talk) 04:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias / Unsupported claims? 

message: Except for the article title, the lede of this article is extremely unclear on the fact that Bush was eventually aquitted. Maybe another editor loking over the article can revamp the text to make it more representative and clear?
Cheers,
Soni (talk)  00:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear lede