If you are wondering, I removed the post after counting to 1,000. BUT:
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source im·peach (ĭm-pēch') Pronunciation Key
tr.v. im·peached, im·peach·ing, im·peach·es
To make an accusation against.
To charge (a public official) with improper conduct in office before a proper tribunal.
I stand corrected on the definition of impeachment, but not on the ultimate conclusion:
President Bill Clinton was acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999 of the December 19, 1998, impeachment charge by the House of Representatives. The charges were perjury and obstruction of justice, arising from the Lewinsky scandal. After a 21-day trial, the Senate vote fell short of the two-thirds majority required for conviction and removal from office under the Constitution. The impeachment proceedings were largely party-line, with no Democratic Senators voting for conviction and only three Democratic Representatives voting for impeachment. In all, 55 senators voted "not guilty," and 45 voted "guilty" on the charge of perjury. The Senate also acquitted on the obstruction charge with 50 votes cast each way.
While the impeachment process dominated American politics for the better part of the year and took up much of the energy of the Clinton administration as it ran its course, it also failed to win the president's opponents much of the political advantage that they sought. Shortly before the 1998 midterm elections, Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, R-Georgia, predicted a 32-seat gain in the House for Republicans and according to CNN.com archives from November 1998, Gingrich made far-reaching efforts to link Democratic congressional candidates to President Clinton.[citation needed] This plan actually backfired in favor of the Democrats. Opinion polls throughout the trial illustrated that the public opposed impeaching the president by margins of 65–70% [1] and the President's public job-approval ratings remained extremely high throughout the entire year, even more popular than he had been prior to the scandal.[2] In fact, shortly after his December 1998 impeachment his popularity attained its highest level ever with a 73 percent approval rating, and public perceptions of the Republican majority in Congress diminished.[3] Such may have contributed to the surprise subsequent loss of five seats suffered by the Republican party in the United States House of Representatives in that year's congressional election.[4] The election was largely seen as public vindication for President Clinton and then-Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, proclaimed that the Democrats had achieved prominent victories in the elections.
However, I do not stand corrected on the "witch hunt" statement, supported by the statistics above. Total waste of time and taxpayers money which could have been better spent on matters of more importance than whether a man lied about getting a blow job in the oval office. As evidenced above, who gave a chit other than the Republicans? It clearly backfired on them, and we got a winner of a President as a result...or was he truely the winner?
History will support the fact of who was better for the country during each of the two terms in the Presidency.
This has gotten way off topic, which was originally about whether you discount a preponderance of evidence, proven by a vast majority of the worlds top scientist, sociologists, and enviornmental chemists, because a certain individual presented the information, who, in this case, is generally looked upon with at least some pre-judice by certain people. I do not shoot the messenger because he tells me something I don't want to hear.
Author
Topic: An Inconvenient Truth, Indeed! (Read 15844 times)