>Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice, both of
>which he was guilty of.
Perjury? Maybe, although it was a civil trial, the questions were deemed by the judge irrelevant to the trial, and his answers were arguably true. If every time someone is dragged into court, they can be tried for perjury even for questions irrelevant to the trial, we now have a new weapon of really nasty assault. Remember, there is no 5th Amendment right to silence in a civil trial.
Imagine if J. Edgar Hoover could have gotten some woman to charge Martin Luther King falsely with assault, then had a lawyer ask him "have you had an extramarital affair with a white woman?" King could then have lied and been immediately prosecuted for perjury with the evidence Hoover had on tape, or he could tell the truth and had his moral credibility destroyed. All based on assault through civil suit.
Not the world I want to live in. Clinton's actions may have been sleazy, but his actions were not even in the same galaxy as an impeachable act.
-- Nathan Newman