Talk:Impeachment of Bill Clinton

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Impeachment and acquittal of Bill Clinton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060408090020/http://www.cnn.com:80/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/04/12/clinton.contempt/ to http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/04/12/clinton.contempt/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")!  Paine  18:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Introduction - botched presentation
Hi. In the opening summarization of the article it is said that the impetus for the impeachment was related to the inquiry into Bill Clinton for having an extra marital affair with former White House Intern Monica Lewinsky.[1]. Since when is a BJ considered an affair? Please be serious with your replies. It is not a major issue - but it is a ridiculous statement that belies either someone's lack of life experience or their limited skills at word choice. Is it a political correctness issue that caused it be mislabeled? An extra marital affair implies an ongoing affair. Since when is a 5 minute event considered an extra marital affair? Is there something I have may have missed from the Clinton Presidency? Stevenmitchell (talk) 10:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Impeachment is for high crimes and misdemeanor. Extra marital affair, counts as, at most, inappropriate.  Definite violation of 4th Amendment Law (unreasonable search, also known as invasion of privacy).  They never had a case. 76.135.77.185 (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Impeachment and acquittal of Andrew Johnson which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 10 June 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved. I closed this early because when coupled with the earlier discussion from 13 May, this seems more like an uncontroversial technical move back to consistency and convention. OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")!  Paine  17:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

– Return to longstanding neutral and shorter titles. The Clinton page was by a now-banned sockpuppet account. Analog to "Trial of …" articles, any "Impeachment of …" article should just name the accused person, not include the outcome of the process, whether positive or negative. Examples: Trial of Michael Jackson, Trial of Saddam Hussein, Impeachment of Merceditas Gutierrez, Roe v. Wade, etc. Regarding Andrew Jackson, the article was in good faith to match the Bill Clinton case, so this should be reversed to the longstanding shorter title as well. — JFG talk 09:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Impeachment and acquittal of Bill Clinton → Impeachment of Bill Clinton
 * Impeachment and acquittal of Andrew Johnson → Impeachment of Andrew Johnson
 * Support: interesting about the Sock Puppets. That aside, that is a POV push. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Impeachment of Bill Clinton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930033343/http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2004/05/07/news/10533.shtml to http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2004/05/07/news/10533.shtml
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://sensenbrenner.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=133298

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Impeachment of Bill Clinton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080703015426/http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/clinton/lewinskydress.html to http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/clinton/lewinskydress.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Starr's investigation "substantiated" perjury and obstruction of justice??
From the article: "Starr was criticized by Democrats for spending $70 million on an investigation that substantiated only perjury and obstruction of justice."

That doesn't seem the best way to describe it. Starr provided evidence which supported those two charges. But the Senate considered those charges and upheld neither one. But the perjury charge was defeated 55-45, and the obstruction charge failed on a 50-50 vote.

So did the investigation "substantiate" those charges? The Senate didn't think so in the impeachment trial. TAnd even in the House, those two charges passed by slim majorities, with almost half the Congress members disagreeing. he wording should be changed to something like "an investigation that only provided sufficient evidence to support only charges on perjury and obstruction of justice." This wording is awkward, and I can't think of better wording, so I won't change it. But certainly "substantiated" is not supported by the facts. Omc (talk) 04:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I think so too. I removed the commentary at the end of the sentence. I also replaced the ref to an editorial with a cite from the Chicago Tribune to support the $70 million claim. If anyone has a good summary of the dems' complaints (with a source), please add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.244.68 (talk) 05:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Verdict incomprehensible
The count summary is incomprehensible. Please explicate column heading. Alo, please include a roll count for the House. GenacGenac (talk) 14:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have modified the table to show the articles 1 & 2 summary vote tallies separately. Drdpw (talk) 02:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

3rd impeachment, not second
Nixon was 2nd impeachment — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:6A40:5D00:A5BB:5D26:CA8A:80EF (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No he was not; he resigned before the House voted on the articles of impeachment. Drdpw (talk) 02:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That is correct! Richard Nixon was not, I repeat, he was not actually impeached for Watergate's scandal. 2600:1017:B83A:9C18:15FC:5C21:7734:3BE8 (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Multiple pens
Just wondering, did Republicans use multiple pens and hand them off as souvenirs when they signed the articles of impeachment like Pelosi did recently? 155.19.91.37 (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * . OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. 155.19.91.37 (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Section on the inquiry?
Why do we not have a section on the inquiry? SecretName101 (talk) 03:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

"Clinton impeachment trials" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Clinton impeachment trials. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 26 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)