Is Bill Clinton On A "Sex Offender" Registry?

Here in MA, the atty. general has just announced that paroled/released sex offenders must now register with their local police departments…presumably so that the local cops can keep an eye on them. Most disturbing is the fact that some 11,000 such people have been released, but their whereabouts are unknown.
Anyway, I don’t know about New York-but would Westchester County (where Bill and Hillary have their new digs) require Bill to register? He has that Gennifer Flowers thing, and of course the incident with Monica…so, would ex-pres Clinton appear in the Westchester County list of sex offenders?:confused:

He’s never been charged nor prosecuted nor foundy guilty of any sex crime whatsoever. He was impeached for lying. So, no is the answer you’re looking for.

This is a super important distinction. I hear people all the time whining about poor Bill Clinton being in so much trouble over a little sex. That’s not the case. The whole point was lying under oath and/or affirmation. That’s illegal, and our justice system depends on accurate testimony.

I’m not sure that you know what “impeached” means.

He was, indeed, impeached for lying. That’s the same as saying he was accused of lying, or that he was charged with lying.

You should note that an accusation or charge is not the same thing as a conviction. And Clinton was not convicted.

I feel that he was an embarrassment because of his actions, not because he was teased by Hollywood, but why would the Monica thing be cause for a sex crime - he did not force Monica into it.

My intro comments are not for debate in GQ, just to show I am not a friend of Bill, but recognize the difference between a crime and a bad decision - if you can call getting a hummer a bad decision. He probably has used his position to force and or cover up sexual assault, but it has not been proven. Reason why I only spoke of ML.

I’m not sure I do or for that matter you either Desmostylus He was indeed impeached, and IIRC found guilty and censered. So B C was a little more then just accused.

I’m not sure if the impeachment just means accused or the actual finding guilty. I though the impeachment procedings were to see if impeachment was justified. (therefore impeachment is caused by conviction)

Let’s try a dictionary first, shall we?

Now it’s your turn for a cite. Produce one of the thousands of headlines from around the world saying “Congress Convicts Clinton” that would have resulted if Clinton had in fact been convicted.

Clinton pled out right at the end. He admitted to giving misleading testimony, and got a slap on the wrist.

If Clinton had been convicted by the Senate, Al Gore would have become President. The only sanction Congress can impose upon conviction in an impeachment proceeding is removal from office.

Clinton on a SO list? If I ever heard of a wet dream for conservative slopebrows, that’s the one.

(There’s still time for Schwarzenegger though.)

Desmostylus, I know absolutely what “impeached” means – it’s what happened to Clinton. Where in the world did you get the idea from my post that I misused the word? I’m always constantly having to explain what the heck “impeachment” is because there are a lot of bozos that just don’t believe he was impeached because he was never thrown out of office!

The fact is, he was impeached. Plain and simple. Despite the dictionary definition above, this is how an impeachment of a President works in the United States, in summary: (1) an investigation is formed. If there’s evidence, then (2) the House votes to impeach. Think of this as the grand jury, the formal charge, without which you don’t go to trial. (3) The Senate tries the impeachment. Think of this as your jury trial.

In the case of Clinton, he was “indicted” by the grand jury (the House) but the court (the Senate) decided not to do a trial.

The Senate did try him. They had no choice. The Chief Justice of the United States presided, just as the Constitution requires. And, just as it happened the other time a President was impeached, the Senate failed to convict, and the President retained his office.

As to the OP - accepting as a given that Mr. Clinton committed all the acts alleged by Ms. Lewinsky, and by Ms. Flowers, that still wouldn’t be any reason to place him on a sex offenders registry. There is no question that each of them consented to the acts at the time.

There was some unsubstantiated allegation of assault by Willey and Broaderick, and I suppose that, had those allegations had any substance, and had Mr. Clinton been tried and convicted for those, it’s barely possible. But those are a ridiculous string of “if’s”. As could as well say that the OP could be on a sex offenders registry, if someone accused him of sexual assault and he was tried and convicted. It’s true but meaningless.

  • Rick

Slight hijack…wouldn’t this violate the ban on ex post facto laws?

“Megan’s Laws,” as they’re typically called, are probably not unconstitutional on ex post facto grounds. Close monitoring of sex offenders is not meant as a punishment, nor does it greatly impact on the target’s liberty. It is simply a statement (and in most cases, probably a reasonable one) that this is someone worth watching. However, there are those which disagree with me on this point.


Reminds me of the Bob Barker sexual harassment case. She said I gave him BJ’s every day. Bob’s defense: I thought she liked me.

Not trying to trivialize the issue, just sometimes gets funny

Cliffy: the Supreme Court agrees with you. Just this year, in fact, in Connecticut Department Of Public Safety, et al., v. John Doe, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated.

  • Rick

And also Otte v. Doe, 01-729, right? I am guessing this second case is the Alaska case? From here.

How does having a couple of affairs with grown women make someone a sex offender? One might (MIGHT) stretch it to say he’s guilty of sexual harasment but that doesn’t make someone a sex offender either.

Are you seriously saying that because he committed adultery that he’d be likely to sexually assault someone? That’s quite a leap of logic.

It’s not been proven or even credibly alleged - so I’m at a loss to understand why you’d say “probably” here.

To be even more clear – a person cannot be “guilty” of sexual harassment – it isn’t a crime.


Of course you have answered your own question. A “thing” or an “incident” is not a guilty sentence. Leaving aside the fact that neither of these women even accused WJC of sexual assault, do you think that people who are accused but not convicted of that crime must register as sex offenders?