We can go round and round on this for ever.
How about Clinton and the Chinese money scandal?
Taking money from a foreign government, major crime?
Al Gore going to a fundraiser at a Buddhist temple, major crime?
What crimes were Clinton or Gore ever convicted of for the things you mention? Do you have any proof to back up your claims? Do the purported scandals begin to compare to, say, the likes of Bush and his cronies' connections like Bush's #1 campaign donor Ken Lay, like Jack Abramoff who was very close to Bush officials, such as Karl Rove?
The right wing likes to make up 100 lies and see if some stick. While the lies are discounted over the truth, make up enough and they carry soe weight with some people.
Clinton was impeached for what he did wrong, the Democratically controlled congress did not even try to impeach Reagan, I think that is a big difference when comparing their behavior.
Next topic please.
Clinton wasn't impeached for what he did wrong. He was impeached for politics. In fact, Henry Hyde, a leading House 'impeacher', suggested after that he had been impeached as 'revenge for the democrats going after Nixon for Watergate and Reagan for Iran-Contra'.
Tip O'Neill probably made a mistake when he determined that there were grounds for impeaching Reagan - something the Reagan Administration feared - but said he would not do so because the nation was still suffering from the Nixon ordeal.
O'Neill's position may also have been influenced by a lack of public support for impeachment - but the republicans were also faced with a lack of public support for impeaching Clinton. They just went ahead and did it. That doesn'tmake what Clinton did worse, and of course what Reagan did was far, far worse.
Selling missiles to a terrorists nation illegally, in exchange for hostages when the stated policy that doing so would just encourage more hostage taking, and then diverting money from the sales to a US-formed terrorist organization designed to overthrow a legitimate, elected government of another nation after Congress banned aiding the terrorists -
That, compared to Clinton hiding his consensual sexual affair, which undermined the political lawsuit against him. No one with any rationality in their view, in my opinion, can say there's any equivalence. And of course, for all your claim of Clinton being impeached for 'what he did wrong', he was found not guilty in the Senate.
But republicans had their political point, tainting him by abusing their power; in fact, Gingrich was asked why the republicans were pursuing impeachment in the face of public opinion, and he said 'because we can'. This is the arrogance of the hyper-partisan republicans radicals drunk with their own power.
In exchange for illegal, corrupt acts by their own party's leaders being investigate properly, they did not show any remorse or refom but instead abused their power in an attack that was not justified. Criticism of Clinton, a censure of Clinton, a case could be made for; overturning the election and removing him from office, as legal scholars said, was just political.
And of course, they are utter hypocrits when it comes to applying the same standards to the illegal acts of George Bush. If Bush commits some of the most serious crimes a president can, such as ignoring the law to torture people outside the legals system, with dozens of them killed - when the Supreme Court says that those people were entitled to Geneva Convention protections, making the administration guilty of felonies under the War Crimes Act, the republicans in Congress respond by retroactively passing a law to say that the violations will not be punishable. It's utter contempt for miorality and the rule of law.