: What makes Clinton's action impeachable is again he lied under oathe about his at the time alleged affair with Lewinsky, and caused Paula Jones' harrassment case against him to be thrown out. As I understand it, even Presidents don't have a special license to commit purgery. ISTR a President indicted for Murder going Unimpeached. 'High Crimes and misdemenours' basically means abuse of office, lying under oath isn't, bombing Iraq probably is.
The way I see it is that an executive presidency is a fundamentally undemocratic institution- and least here in Britain we can axe our Prime Ministers at a moments notice coz we have parliamentary democracy, there someone like Clinton can cling on, without any real mandate- I cannot see how one person can be meaningfully voted upon by 250 million people, they're a voting for the party, not the person.
I reckopn the whole spat relates more to the fact that presidents can't be removed, and the conflict of power between branches of the lgislature, rather than any real offence.
Probably best to sack the lot of them, and have real democracy, rather than a choice of rulers. Only being able to remove bad public servants by impeachment is bad for democracy, since removal, sacking, is its essence.
: It is goddam very much my business, because Clinton commited most of his self-gratifying acts on MY time, on OUR time.
Hate to break it to you, but he's not really there to serve you....
: It was the Senate that fucked up, during the statements, and when it came time to vote.
Actually, it was more like what would happen in a Parliamentary democracy, he held the support of his party, they felt he could whether the storm, it was a political, not legal battle.
None.
