What was the final vote on article 1 & 2 in the Senate for Clinton's Impeachment Trial  ?
344920
The Senate vote was:\nFriday - February 12, 1999\nThe United States Senate voted to acquit President Clinton on both Articles of Impeachment as follows:\n\nArticle I - Perjury\n55 Not Guilty - 45 Guilty\n\nArticle II - Obstruction of Justice\n50 Guilty - 50 Not Guilty\n\nThe House vote was:\n\nArticle I - Passed\nCharge: Perjury before a Federal Grand Jury\nYeas: 228 - 223 Republicans, 5 Democrats\nNays: 206 - 5 Republicans, 200 Democrats, 1 Independent*\nNot Voting: 1 - 1 Democrat \n\nArticle II - Failed \nCharge: Perjury in depositions before a Federal judge\nYeas: 205 - 200 Republicans, 5 Democrats\nNays: 229 - 28 Republicans, 200 Democrats, 1 Independent*\nNot Voting: 1 - 1 Democrat
135242
Impeachment is for President and Federal Judges.\n\nHowever Impeached does not mean Removed folks.\n\n2 Presidents were Impeached but not removed.\n\nThe House of Representatives Impeaches the President or a Federal Judge and once that happens the case goes before the U.S. Senate which acts as the Jury while the House of Representatives is the Prosecution.\n\nThe Chief Justice of the Supreme Court acts as Judge in the Impeachment Trial.\n\nMost of the time a person who is facing Impeachment will resign from their office rather than being Impeached.\n\nRichard Nixon is a good example of this because the House Judiciary Committee had approved of Articles of Impeachment to send before the entire House of Representatives and it appeared they were going to Impeach him which would have meant a Trial before the U.S. Senate.\n\nSo thus Richard Nixon decided to resign from the Presidency before the House of Representatives would have had the Oppurtunity to Impeach him.\n\nIt is estimated that The Senate would have aquitted Nixon for sure because of how many Senators have to vote Guilty on Articles of Impeachment.\n\nFor example when Clinton was Impeached by the House 50 Senators voted Guilty on 1 Article of Impeachment and 55 voted Guilty on another (so while a majority did vote Guilty on one article, the number of votes was not enough to remove Clinton from office).\n\nArlen Spector instead of voting Guilty or Not Guilty on one Article he voted Not Proven which I think is counted as a Not Guilty vote.\n\nI honestly do not think Bush will get impeached and if he did I don't think there would be enough votes to remove him even if more than 50 Senators voted Guilty on charges.\n\nNow as far as Senators and Congressman they can be removed in Recall Elections but I think the U.S. Senate can vote to expel a Senator and the U.S. House can voted to expel someone from the House.\n\nI do know that in some States the State Legislative Houses can expel one of it's own members by a vote and such a thing did happen in my State Michigan back in 1999 when 1 guy was expelled from the State Senator, the State Senator and another person were the only State Senators to vote against the Expulsion but 36 of the 38 Senators voted for it (my State Senator who I know personally was among the 36 who voted Yes).\n\nThat was the 1st time it had happened in the History of Michigan.
1055037
Andrew Johnson was impeached on several articles, notably of violating the Tenure of Office Act, which stated that Senate confirmation was required to remove an appointee as well as to install one.  The person in question was Secretary of War Stanton, who however was appointed by Lincoln; the law should not have applied in his case as this would have violated the Constitutional prohibition against ex-post-facto legislation.  (Years later the entire law was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court).  Johnson was acquitted of this charge when the Senate failed to obtain the necessary two-thirds majority for conviction.  The key vote came from Senator Edmund G. Ross of Kansas, one of the Radical Republicans who despised Johnson but who decided that the case had to be judged on its merits.  A second article was voted on a few days later, with the same result.\n\nBIll Clinton was impeached for lying to a grand jury about a minor matter (the Monica Lewinsky affair), and thus forswearing his oath of office to uphold the law and the Constitution.  He could have been legitimately convicted on this charge, but the vote went along party lines and the Senate clearly could not achieve a two-thirds majority for conviction.\n\nRichard Nixon was not impeached because he resigned before the House could vote on the four articles of impeachment passed by the House Judiciary Committee.  [One principal reason he did so was because conviction in the Senate was certain.  A delegation of Republican senators led by Barry Goldwater of Arizona and Jacob Javits of New York - thus covering the entire political spectrum - called on Nixon at the White House the night before Nixon resigned to tell him this.]  The articles mentioned violations of law and abuse of both presidential powers and government agencies such as the CIA.\n\nAlthough articles of impeachment have been filed against other presidents, these did not make it out of committee.  Articles of impeachment have not been filed against George W. Bush - yet.
326400
Traditionally, the impeachment process begins with the House Judiciary Committee holding hearings. If the committee then passes an impeachment resolution and accompanying articles of impeachment, those go to the full House. And if the resolution and articles are approved (by a simple majority), the president is impeached, the equivalent of being formally charged. \n\nThat is the first step of a two-step process. There is then a trial in the Senate, with members of the House serving as prosecutor and the chief justice serving as judge. If the Senate finds the president guilty of any of the articles of impeachment – by a two-thirds vote – he is removed from office and the vice president immediately assumes the presidency.
823446
Only the House of Representatives can impeach a federal official.  They only need a simple majority to issue articles of impeachment (similar to an grand jury indictment in normal cases). The Senate then tries the impeachment to determine if he's guilty and if he should be removed from office.  That requires a 2/3 vote.
73769
Here's a list:\nhttp://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2005-635&sort=vote
53692
Actually, the whole thing happens in congress -- the justice department is not involved.\n\nThe house votes for articles of impeachment, then the senate tries.\n\nIf you feel strongly enough about it, contact your house member and let them know.\n\nFrankly, your best bet is to wait it out.
517176
This is about a step in the removal of a public official; for challenging a witness in a legal proceeding, see witness impeachment. \n Depiction of the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson, then President of the United States, in 1868.In the constitutions of several countries, impeachment is the first of two stages in a specific process for a legislative body to remove a government official without that official's agreement.\n\nImpeachment occurs rarely enough for many in a country to misunderstand its nature. A typical misconception is to confuse it with involuntary removal from office; in fact it is only the legal statement of charges, parallelling an indictment in criminal law. An official who is impeached faces a second legislative vote (whether by the same body or another), which determines conviction, or failure to convict, on the charges embodied by the impeachment. Most constitutions require a supermajority to convict.\n\nOne tradition of impeachment has its origins in the law of England and Wales, where the procedure last took place in 1806. Impeachment exists under constitutional law in many nations around the world, including the United States, Brazil, Russia, the Philippines and the Republic of Ireland.\n\nEtymologically, the word "impeachment" derives from Latin roots expressing the idea of becoming caught or entrapped, and has analogues in the modern French verb empêcher (to prevent) and the modern English impede. Medieval popular etymology also associated it (wrongly) with derivations from the Latin impetere (to attack). (In its more frequent and more technical usage, impeachment of a person in the role of a witness is the act challenging the honesty or credibility of that person.)\n\nTRY THIS LINK http://www.impeachbush.org/site/PageServer
252042
Impeachment and controversies\n\n    Main article: Impeachment of Bill Clinton\n\nIn 1999, Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice by the U.S. House of Representatives. He was acquitted by the Senate. The perjury charge arose from Clinton's testimony about his relationship to Monica Lewinsky during a sexual harassment lawsuit brought by former Arkansas-state employee Paula Jones. The obstruction charge was based on his actions during the subsequent investigation of that testimony. On February 12, the Senate concluded a 21-day trial with the vote on both counts falling short of the Constitutional requirement of a two-thirds majority to convict and remove an office holder. The final vote was generally along party lines, with all of the votes to convict being cast by Republicans. On the perjury charge 55 senators voted to acquit, including 10 Republicans, and 45 voted to convict; on the obstruction charge the Senate voted 50-50. [18] Clinton, like the only other president to be impeached, Andrew Johnson, served the remainder of his term.\n\nThe day before leaving office, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license as part of an agreement with the independent counsel to end the investigation. Based on this suspension, Clinton was also automatically suspended from the United States Supreme Court bar, from which he chose to resign. [17][18] Clinton's resignation was mostly symbolic, as he had never practiced before the Supreme Court and was not expected to in the future. Clinton also was assessed a $90,000 fine by federal judge Susan Webber Wright for contempt of court. The Paula Jones lawsuit was settled out of court for $850,000.\n\nIn addition to impeachment and the Whitewater scandal, the Clinton White House was the subject of many other controversies.\n\nThe White House travel office controversy involved allegations of impropriety in the firing of civil service staffers. The White House personnel file controversy involved improper access by security officials to FBI files on White House personnel, without first asking for the individuals' permission. The Bill Clinton pardons controversy involved a grant of clemency to FALN bombers in 1999 and pardons to his brother Roger, tax-evading billionaire Marc Rich and others in 2001 \n\nThe "Chinagate" controversy involved allegations of improper campaign contributions to President Clinton's legal defense fund and the Democratic National Committee, by individuals such as John Huang, James Riady, and Maria Hsia, et al. Allegedly, the ultimate source of this money was the Chinese government. Seventeen donors and fund-raisers were convicted of felonies due to the affair.\n\nEarly in his first-term, a largely discredited documentary, the Clinton Chronicles, implicated Bill Clinton in a large number of deaths of his acquaintences. This also became known as the "Clinton Body Count" and was the subject of a request for Congressional hearings in 1994. As many as 60 people were on this list of "suspicious deaths" including Jim McDougal, Vince Foster and Ron Brown.\n\nIn March, 1998 Kathleen Willey, a White House aide, alleged that Clinton had sexually assaulted her. Also in 1998, Juanita Broaddrick alleged that Clinton had raped her in 1978. No charges were filed in either case.\n\nSecretary of Agriculture Mike Espy was acquitted on each of 30 charges of illegally accepting gifts such as sports tickets, lodging, and transportation from companies regulated by his department in exchange for favors. [19] HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros was indicted on 18 counts of conspiracy, giving false statements and obstruction of Justice. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor of lying to the FBI about the amount of money he gave his mistress, political fundraiser Linda Medlar. Medlar plead guilty to 28 counts related to the investigation. Both Medlar and Cisneros were pardoned by Clinton.\n\nOn Clinton's last day in offic
510858
Article 1 Section 6 of the US Constitution.\n\n"They [Senators and Representatives] shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same"
403121
Actually, that is not correct. Impeachment is an act by Congress by which the House of Representatives formally requests the Senate to hold a trial of the President for high crimes or misdemeanors. In the case of President Nixon the crime was Obstruction of Justice for destroying evidence after it had been subpoenaed; in the case of President Clinton the crime was perjury for lying under oath during his sexual harrassment trial, not for lies he may have uttered in a press conference.\n\nAfter the House Judiciary Committee had voted to send the request for impeach to the full House for a vote, President Nixon resigned before the House could actually vote on it. Therefor, he was technically not impeached  1973. In the case of President Clinton, the House passed the resolution requesting the trial by the Senate, the Senate held the trial, and the Senate voted to acquit the President. Therefor President Clinton, just like President Andrew Johnson, was impeached but not convicted.\n\nSorry to rain on your parade!
887297
There are 2 houses, the House of Representatives & the Senate.
5125
Then the House of Representatives votes to move forward with the impeachment. The Senate does most of the work to try to impeach the president.\n\nTechnically, since the president hasn't done anything wrong illegally, he cannot be impeached.
578637
Start with Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution:\n"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."\n\nIf Congress feels the need under that Section, the the House first brings the charges.  There are various things like an independent counsel and so forth.  The general gist is that they eventually vote.  If there's a majority for, then the impeachment happens.  This is what happened with Clinton.  He got impeached, but that isn't enough.  It's similar to a grand jury deciding if there is enough evidence.\n\nIf there is, the case moves to the Senate.  There, it's like a typical trial with witnesses, cross examinations, etc.  If the Senate has a 2/3rd vote for, then it's a conviction and the person is removed from office.
747616
I am going to assume you mean the complete removal from office process.\n\nI make that note because impeachment is only the first of two stages in a specific process for the legislative body to remove a president from office.\n\nHere is how it works:\nThe impeachment procedure is in two steps.\n\n1. The House first passes what is called "articles of impeachment" by a simple majority. This document contains the formal charges.\nNOTE: At this point, the president has technically been impeached.\n\n2. The Senate conducts a trial evaluating the charges where the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. A two-thirds Senate majority vote is required to convict at this point where a conviction automatically removes the president from office.\n\nAdditionally, the Senate has the authority to bar a president from holding any future federal office.\n\nIf a two-thirds Senate majority does not vote 'Guilty', the president is acquitted and remains in office. Note: not voting Guilty doesn't mean 2/3 must vote 'Not Guilty'. The burden lies on guilt whereas some senators may choose not to be present for the vote or can pass on the vote in order to not be on record one way or the other.
15508
Andrew Johnson was impeached, but not removed. He relieved a member of his Cabinet, Edwin Stanton, and was immediatly impeached by the fiercly Republican Congress. Remember this was very suspicious to a North that had just won the Civil War and seen Abraham Lincoln assasinated by a Confederate nutcase.\n\nRichard M. Nixon was not impeached but he would have been for the Watergate scandal, in which he spied on political enemies. He resigned.\n\nWilliam Clinton was impeached, but not removed for his actions with Monica Lewinsky.\n\nThe Senate did not vote to impeach Clinton.
1138811
3 since 1977\n\nHarry E. Claiborne, U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.  Impeached in 1986, on charges of income tax evasion and of remaining on the bench following criminal conviction and removed from office.\n\nAlcee L. Hastings, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  Impeached in 1988, on charges of perjury and conspiring to solicit a bribe and removed from office.\n\nWalter L. Nixon, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.  Impeached in 1989, on charges of perjury before a federal grand jury and removed from office.