Nixon’s Vietnam Treachery

[GMDino]

(01-04-2017, 12:42 PM)michaelsean Wrote: So what was he disbarred for?

http://www.snopes.com/bill-clinton-fined-and-disbarred-over-the-monica-lewinsky-scandal/

Quote:While Clinton can no longer practice law in front of the highest court, it's not accurate to say that he was disbarred from either the Supreme Court or from practicing law in Arkansas. Clinton's license was suspended in Arkansas, but he was not disbarred, and while Clinton did face the possibility of being barred from arguing in front the U.S. Supreme Court, he resigned before the ruling was handed down. 

On his last day in office in 2001, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license in order to head off any criminal charges for lying under oath about his relationship with Lewinsky. Clinton has been eligible to seek reinstatement of his license since 2006, but as of 2013 he had not applied to do so.

Shortly after Clinton's license was suspended in Arkansas, the U.S. Supreme Court suspended Clinton from presenting cases in front of the highest court (which he had never done) and gave him 40 days to contest his disbarment (which Clinton did not do). Instead, he resigned from the Supreme Court bar

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/02/duncancampbell

Quote:The US supreme court yesterday issued an order disbarring former president Bill Clinton from practising law before the high court. The ruling is seen as marking the official end of the Monica Lewinsky scandal.


The ruling struck a jarring note in the current mood of national unity. Mr Clinton has been praised for the supportive role he has been playing and the way he has thrown his political weight behind President George Bush.



The court did not explain its reasons for the disbarment, although such a decision usually follows disbarment in a lower court. In April, Mr Clinton's Arkansas law licence was suspended for five years and he was given a $25,000 fine.


...


Mr Clinton has not practised law since 1983; his main income now is from speech-making and the advance for his proposed memoirs.

The original disbarment lawsuit was brought by a professional conduct committee of the Arkansas supreme court in the wake of the Lewinsky revelations and Mr Clinton's admission that he lied to the investigation. The committee had also sought to disbar the ex-president for giving misleading testimony in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/bill-feds-cut-dealsurrenders-law-license-escape-ind-article-1.904790

Quote:He admitted giving misleading answers to Paula Jones' lawyers when they tried to grill him about Lewinsky in a 1998 deposition.


Clinton denied he was having sexual relations with the White House intern, figuring that because the affair was long over, and because they did not engage in intercourse, he was not technically lying. The evasions ultimately led to his impeachment by the House on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.

"I tried to walk a fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish that goal and that certain of my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false," Clinton said.

But he went out parsing until the end, admitting to giving "false" answers - but not to lying.

He lied before, during the Paula Jones investigation.


Nonetheless, as I have said, he should have stepped down.