Gingrich: The Difference Between Trump And Clinton Impeachment Is Starr Report Said Clinton Was Guilty


"Daily Wire" founder Ben Shapiro interviews former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich about Congressional Democrats' attempt to impeach President Donald Trump and how it compares to his effort to impeach former President Bill Clinton in the 1990s.

BEN SHAPIRO: A lot of Democrats are pushing for impeachment, not Nancy Pelosi who knows better, but a lot of the other Democrats at this point are pushing impeachment. Obviously, you were involved in the impeachment effort against President Clinton. I wonder if you could distinguish the two. What were the grounds that you think were appropriate to impeach President Clinton as opposed to the attempts to impeach President Trump?

NEWT GINGRICH: I always tell people if you go back and look at Ken Starr's report, I went back and pulled it up because I had that exact question, it was a long time ago. Ken Starr issued a report that had 11 counts on which [Clinton] was guilty. Five of them are obstruction. This count, guilty, this count guilty.

If Mueller had issued a report that said Donald Trump was guilty on 11 counts, there would be an impeachment effort. it would probably fail because the Senate would not vote to [convict]. Just as the House impeached but the Senate refused to convict with Clinton, which might have been the correct constitutional solution.

But in Clinton's case, he was guilty enough that he lost his license to practice law in Arkansas, he had to pay a fine, he was clearly guilty. In Trump's case, Mueller came back and said there is nothing there you can take him to court on. There's a pretty big gap here.

BEN SHAPIRO: When you look at that impeachment effort in history, a lot of Republicans now say we shouldn't have done that. Do you have any regrets about the impeachment effort? Do you think it was the right move?

NEWT GINGRICH: I think I was too aggressive and I think both Pelosi and Tip O'Neill have handled impeachment better than I did. They deliberately took a half step back and made the Judiciary Chairman more important. I was such a large figure at the time in the Republican Party that it was hard to do. I think I would give myself bad marks.

I don't know how you get a report that says the president -- remember in Clinton's case they were felonies -- Clinton was committing the felony of perjury in a sexual harassment lawsuit. Alleging, this goes back to the current issue about harassment in workplaces. So he's being sued by an Arkansas state employee because as governor he had attempted to intimidate her.

You would think every feminist in the country would have been enraged, but instead, they were so defensive of liberalism and enraged that we would take seriously the degree to which Clinton was breaking the law. So when he commits perjury, lying under oath, not just lying to the country, which he did in a TV speech, but lying under oath. That is a felony and the reason it is a felony is because if people can get away with perjury the entire structure of the rule of law collapses.

And so if you come back to me again today with the same facts, I'd handle them in a more subtle and sophisticated way, but I would, in fact, say -- and I think Starr also made a mistake because his report is too much about sex and not enough about the law -- if he had indicated the risk to women of allowing an employer to commit perjury without consequence he would have had a much stronger case.

Watch Newt Gingrich's full interview on "The Ben Shapiro Show":

Show comments Hide Comments

Latest Political Videos

Video Archives