Unless you buy the whole “unitary executive” theory, I don’t think there’s any doubt that Bush acted illegally when he authorized the NSA to wiretap phone calls to foreign countries without first obtaining FISA warrants. Whether it is an “impeachable offense” is more debatable – and, in any case, a political decision, not a legal one.
But do the American people really object? A new Rasmussen poll shows that “Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States.” http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/NSA.htm
So, even if the 2006 election returns a Democratic majority to both houses of Congress, is there any possibility of W being impeached over this?
Yes, there can be and there is doubt. And the “unitary executive” theory isn’t one coherent theory, but a range of theories. At its most basic, it simply means there is one and only one exective. IOW, “unitary”. One. Surely you don’t think there is more than one executive.
If it is determined to be illegal (and I think only the SCOTUS can determine that), then public opinon might turn and the Dems could procede. These polls can be very tricky, though, in that they depend so much on how you word the question. Protecting against terror attacks? OK. Erroding civil rights? Not OK. It’s a floor wax and a dessert topping.
Could he be impeached? Possibly. If the people of the US support his action? Not a chance in Hell. The Congresscritters involve want to keep their jobs, after all. Impeach a President for doing something the people support is political suicide, and Congress knows it. Let the winds of popular opinion change, and it’s a whole new ball game. But until then…no.
Can he be? Of course, Bush can be impeached for any or almost no reason at all. Andrew Johnson was impeached for what I believe were purely political reasons.
However, in the modern United States I think two things would be needed to get enough congressional support to both impeach and remove a sitting President. First, the action involved would have to be a clear-cut, serious crime. If the President jaywalked or something, not going to happen. Second, there would have to be sufficient outrage among the public.
With Clinton I think we definitely had a serious enough crime. And for the record Clinton wasn’t impeached for getting a blow job, he was impeached for lying under oath. There’s little debate about whether or not Clinton lied under oath, anyone who says otherwise is a fool. And perjury is actually a pretty “real” crime. The problem with the Clinton impeachment is the public wasn’t outraged enough, many of the public rightfully realized the only reason Clinton was even ASKED about Lewinsky was because of a special prosecutor who had basically run rampant and deviated so far from the Whitewater investigations they weren’t even in sight any longer.
With Nixon you had both. The public was plenty outraged enough and the crimes were certainly serious enough, Reagan would have been impeached and many Republicans would have helped in the process to remove him, he knew this and so he resigned.
As for the matter of wiretaps, I consider it legally unresolved. Congressional democrats actually have created a committee to investigate their legality, the fact that the people who write laws aren’t certain of the legality leaves me to question whether or not FISA is proper law and whether or not Bush was committing a crime or was he simply exercising his constitutional powers as executive.
Well… That poll in the OP was made last December, but notice the way the question was framed. It never asked for the illegal bit: namely that they did go ahead and the NSA snooped without warrants.
Heck, even I agree snooping is nessesary, but when the right question is asked we get this:
The contempt this administration has shown for the American people in their misleading defenses of their warrant less snooping is what it should be in the news, but so much for the liberal media…
Would that we could ever get through an impeachment thread without someone venturing an irrelevant opinion on whether lying about a blow job is an impeachable offense. Anyway, whether it should be or not, using false testimony as a shield only, especially when the questioner is a man run amuck without moral authority (and arguably without legal authority), is not in fact considered a “real” crime by society at large. We know that because it’s never prosecuted. Perjury as a sword is prosecuted. As a shield? Rarely, and in circumstances like these almost never.
It’s a popular myth that perjury = ‘lying under oath’, it doesn’t.
Materiality was not shown to be present in the Clinton case. Moreover, there is a serious question as to whether Clinton’s false statements occurred in 'Federal Proceedings." So no perjury.
Generally people will settle a matter rather than litigate it to the bitter end. IIRC, Surrendering his licence was in Clinton’s terms of settlement with the bar association. The investigation settled and no finding of ‘perjury’ was made. Moreover, a lesser standard of ethical breach may have prompted the bar association to request he surrender his licence, which I believe he has since recovered.
Clinton did not “surrender” his license to practice law; he was suspended. His five year suspension ended last week, but he must apply to recover his license. He has given no indication whether he will do so.
If the 2006 election sends 218 Democratic Representatives and 67 Democratic Senators to Washington in January next year, that’s certainly an indication that public support no longer exists for Bush. So, yeah, he could be impeached and convicted then. But that ain’t gonna happen.
Because the standards for practising lawyers are more stringent than just “don’t commit a criminal offence.”
It appears that his statement did not amount to perjury, because it was not material to the point in issue in the litigation. Even so, he does appear to have lied under oath in court proceedings. That’s professional misconduct, for which a lawyer can be sanctioned by the body which regulates the bar, even if it is not a criminal offence.
Morally do I think Clinton was right to have lied? Well, if there’s situations where lying can be justified (and I do think there is) that was one of them.
Legally it is still perjury and perjury carries with it a long enough prison sentence that to say it isn’t considered a serious crime is dishonest. Treason isn’t often prosecuted either, but it is arguably the most serious of crimes, in many countries that never execute anyone they still reserve the death penalty for treason.
As others in the past and as I have said in this very thread “impeachable offense” is a term without true meaning.
I sometimes use the word to weigh whether or not a given “impropriety” warrants impeachment from the standpoint of a rational neutral party.
But politics aren’t conducted by neutral parties nor are they necessarily conducted by rational ones. An impeachable offense is more or less anything the House of Representatives says it is.