Fish said the same should hold true for Bill Clinton, who was acquitted by the Senate in his impeachment trial resulting from lying under oath about his affair with Monica Lewinsky.
Nixon purjured himself. But Clinton "lied under oath".
Even this republican can't see the two actions as the same.
And did Nixon actually lie under oath? I didn't think he ever gave sworn testimony.
BTW, Clinton can never be considered a Great President but this distinction has nothing to do with his admitted Perjury and lying. There are plenty of other reasons to keep him off the list of Great Presidents and his lying only reinforces that conclusion.
Nixon was the 2nd greatest president of the 20th century, right behind Ronaldus Magnus.
Furthermore, Nixon was covering for his staff. He refused to throw them to the wolves.
Clinton was covering for his own transgressions. Remember that before the "blue dress" came into evidence he was already fabricating a story to the effect that Lewinski was a stalker!
We're talking about two different animals in the zoo, here!