Can W be impeached for something that is illegal but has public support?

[Evil_Captor]

@BrainGlutton

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?

Jeebus, BrainGlutton, you’re normally a LOT better than this! Apples and oranges, right off the boat. Sure, I believe that the the government should be able to eavesdrop on terror suspects’ phone conversations. I just think they need a warrant to do it, a point left out of your OP. The warrantlessness is the crux of the matter here, and it doesn’t appear to be mentioned in the Rasmussen pooll question you cite.

Throws your entire argument right out the window. Not a well thought out OP at all, I’m afraid.

[Evil_Captor]

@Martin Hyde

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.

No, Martin, it was about the blowjob, the blowjob, the blowjob. If Monica Lewinsky hadn’t publicly been known to suck Clinton’s cock, there never would have been an questions asked about it. Why were there questions asked about it, Martin, what weighty affairs of state were involved.

The perjury was just a convenient legal hook to hang public outrage about the blowjob on, from the Pubbie POV. They thought the American public would follow then down the rabbit hole if they just yelled “blowjob!” loud enough as they descended.

There’s little debate about whether or not Clinton lied under oath, anyone who says otherwise is a fool.

If it’s so obvious, you’d think there would have been a perjury trial at some point. Maybe you should look elsewhere for fools.

The problem with the Clinton impeachment is the public wasn’t outraged enough

Well, at last you’ve said something true. The public wasn’t outraged enough because they understood, as you do not wish to, that the whole thing was about a blowjob, a private affair between the Clintons and Monical Lewinsky, and unworthy of the deliberations of much of anyone other than them.

As for the matter of wiretaps, I consider it legally unresolved.

Is Bush king or not? That’s the legal issue! President for life dictator or not? It’s quite a puzzler, if you’re a Republican partisan. Otherwise, not so much.

[BrainGlutton]

@Evil Captor

Jeebus, BrainGlutton, you’re normally a LOT better than this! Apples and oranges, right off the boat. Sure, I believe that the the government should be able to eavesdrop on terror suspects’ phone conversations. I just think they need a warrant to do it, a point left out of your OP. The warrantlessness is the crux of the matter here, and it doesn’t appear to be mentioned in the Rasmussen pooll question you cite.

I know, I know. But the American people don’t think like lawyers, and most have probably never heard of FISA before this story broke. So I think this poll is indicative of something. Of course, so is the AP poll cited by GIGObuster, showing 56% of respondents think a warrant should be required. The point is, the people are not really up in arms over this issue, and a Dem push to impeach W over it might or might not resonate.

[BrainGlutton]

No, really, Martin, why are you questioning whether FISA is “proper law”? Are you arguing that regulating such matters is outside the authority of Congress? Only a wholesale acceptance of John Yoo’s version of the “unitary executive” theory could support that.

[alaricthegoth]

@dalej42

There are many people who also believe Reagan should have been impeached for Iran Contra.

If undertaking a foreign policy adventure in direct violation of an explicitlaw directly forbidding exactly the policy in question doesn’t rate impeachment, what does?

[alaricthegoth]

Even JohnYooconcedes that congress can cut off the bucks to control the executive, which is exactly the law reagan broke in iran contra.

[Martin_Hyde]

@Evil Captor

No, Martin, it was about the blowjob, the blowjob, the blowjob. If Monica Lewinsky hadn’t publicly been known to suck Clinton’s cock, there never would have been an questions asked about it. Why were there questions asked about it, Martin, what weighty affairs of state were involved.

The perjury was just a convenient legal hook to hang public outrage about the blowjob on, from the Pubbie POV. They thought the American public would follow then down the rabbit hole if they just yelled “blowjob!” loud enough as they descended.

The only reason Clinton could be asked about the blowjob is because he was involved in legal matters involving two other scandals (Paula Jones and Whitewater.)

If it was only Monica, he never would have been asked about it under oath because Monica never brought legal action against Clinton. In fact, she tried her best to deny the affair even happened, she just made the bad choice of being friends with Linda Tripp. And of course perjury isn’t all Clinton was charged with, since Monica initially stonewalled about the affair he was also charged with obstruction of justice for telling Monica to lie about the affair.

And there actually were weighty affairs when it came to the Paula Jones and Whitewater legal matters, real-estate crimes and sexual harassment are pretty serious offenses, too.

People seem to think Clinton innocently got a BJ and was persecuted because of it, he never would have been in that position if he hadn’t been under constant litigation because of how corrupt and immoral he was.

George H.W. Bush also is reported to have had extra marital affairs. But he was never asked about it under oath because he wasn’t being investigated by a special prosecutor like Clinton was.

If it’s so obvious, you’d think there would have been a perjury trial at some point. Maybe you should look elsewhere for fools.

You’ll have to take that up with the U.S. Attorneys who chose not to prosecute the matter. Probably wasn’t seen as wise use of taxpayer dollars at the time because they wouldn’t have been able to indict him until after he left office, and that was years after the impeachment affair ended.

Well, at last you’ve said something true. The public wasn’t outraged enough because they understood, as you do not wish to, that the whole thing was about a blowjob, a private affair between the Clintons and Monical Lewinsky, and unworthy of the deliberations of much of anyone other than them.

The scandal was about a blow job, the legal matter was about the crime of perjury. The media reported on the blow job because the ignorant public will always take a sex scandal over the President breaking the law.

Is Bush king or not? That’s the legal issue! President for life dictator or not? It’s quite a puzzler, if you’re a Republican partisan. Otherwise, not so much.

Nothing to do with term limits involved, something seems to have left you confused.

[Martin_Hyde]

@BrainGlutton

No, really, Martin, why are you questioning whether FISA is “proper law”? Are you arguing that regulating such matters is outside the authority of Congress? Only a wholesale acceptance of John Yoo’s version of the “unitary executive” theory could support that.

Um, no it wouldn’t.

The unitary executive theory isn’t necessarily incorrect, at least constitutionally I see nothing wrong with the theory that the President is suzerain over the entire executive branch. The constitution is fairly clear on that matter.

But Congress also constitutionally has the power to regulate certain aspects of the executive branch, it has the authority to approve or disapprove the creation of government agencies and such. Congress has this sort of power over the judicial branch as well, where only the SCOTUS is mandated by law, the rest of the courts are up to Congress to define and delineate.

However, I do question if Congress has the authority to clearly abridge parts of clearly stated executive power. Where a matter between Congress and the Executive is not clearly resolved, Congress can always win via the passing of legislation, they may choose to restrain themselves though.

[alaricthegoth]

• Congress can always win via the passing of legislation,*

apparently not.

they can only win by impeaching and convicting a scofflaw president (which in fact, more or less describes every president since Hoover…)

[ElvisL1ves]

@Martin Hyde

The only reason Clinton could be asked about the blowjob is because he was involved in legal matters involving two other scandals (Paula Jones and Whitewater.)

Neither of which added up to jack shit, if you’ll recall. Which I’m sure you’d rather not, given the rest of your post. Moving on:

And of course perjury isn’t all Clinton was charged with

He was never charged with a damn thing.

And there actually were weighty affairs when it came to the Paula Jones and Whitewater legal matters, real-estate crimes and sexual harassment are pretty serious offenses, too.

And guess what? None of those things were found to have any real substance, despite some other Arkies’ deals in Whitewater.

People seem to think Clinton innocently got a BJ and was persecuted because of it, he never would have been in that position if he hadn’t been under constant litigation because of how corrupt and immoral he was.

Unless you can specify what he did that was corrupt, and you haven’t, then you do have to concede that point. Unless you can say that immorality is illegal, you have no basis even to make that charge - as it is, you’re conceding that he was indeed under litigation because of somebody else’s definition of morality and a desire to use the legal system to achieve justice for it.

It is, of course, quite common for reflexive partisans to make portentous-sounding claims like you have here. It would actually be effective if they were grounded in fact.

George H.W. Bush also is reported to have had extra marital affairs. But he was never asked about it under oath because he wasn’t being investigated by a special prosecutor like Clinton was.

Also because his legal, private behavior was likewise none of our damn business.

You’ll have to take that up with the U.S. Attorneys who chose not to prosecute the matter.

No weaseling now. You’ve made the accusation, you tell us why.

Probably wasn’t seen as wise use of taxpayer dollars at the time because they wouldn’t have been able to indict him until after he left office

Sure they could have. Where the hell did you get that idea?

and that was years after the impeachment affair ended.

Impeachment has jack shit to do with the legal system. Or are you also telling us that the whole point was to get Clinton for something, regardless of method?

The scandal was about a blow job, the legal matter was about the crime of perjury.

Odd, isn’t it, that that was never charged. But to the partisans it’s an article of faith, not susceptible to factual analysis. Or perhaps it’s a way to pretend to themselves that their actions were actually the result of a moral and/or legal standard, not flouting it.

[BrainGlutton]

@Martin Hyde

However, I do question if Congress has the authority to clearly abridge parts of clearly stated executive power.

And how does FISA do that?

[ElvisL1ves]

By inconveniencing the President in his ability to interpret a Congressional authorization of use of military force against Iraq in case the UN’s efforts fail to mean he can do whatever the hell he wants as long as he claims it’s fighting terrorism.

[Martin_Hyde]

@ElvisL1ves

Neither of which added up to jack shit, if you’ll recall. Which I’m sure you’d rather not, given the rest of your post. Moving on:

Both were legitimate enough to warrant them going to court, and the appointment of a special prosecutor.

He was never charged with a damn thing.And guess what? None of those things were found to have any real substance, despite some other Arkies’ deals in Whitewater.

Yes, he was. In impeachment proceedings specific charges are levied against you.

Unless you can specify what he did that was corrupt, and you haven’t, then you do have to concede that point. Unless you can say that immorality is illegal, you have no basis even to make that charge - as it is, you’re conceding that he was indeed under litigation because of somebody else’s definition of morality and a desire to use the legal system to achieve justice for it.

Whitewater scandal, use of executive power to try and protect himself from sexual harassment allegations.

Anyways, to ignore the rest of your overparsed reply, the fact is Clinton committed the crime of perjury, it’s a simple factual matter. I make no judgments as to how much “bullshit” may have been involved in the entire affair. Do I think it was right for Clinton to be impeached? No, I don’t think it was an impeachable offense. However lying under oath does warrant his losing his license to practice law.

I’m not saying Clinton wasn’t the victim of partisanship, but the FACTUAL matter still remains, he lied under oath, that is purjury. I’m not sure why you seem confused about this, and want to water the issue down with the related but not relevant facts in the case (ie that it was more a partisan witch hunt.) Witch hunt or not, he still didt he crime.

[Martin_Hyde]

@BrainGlutton

And how does FISA do that?

Like I said, I’m unsure. We’ve seen the arguments from both sides (I’m going to assume everyone has, anyways.)

Personally I probably lean to what Bush did as being wrong, but the idea that FISA may violate proper executive authority that can’t be regulated by congressional litigation isn’t one I dismiss immediately.

[Sevastopol]

To re-iterate ‘Lying under oath’ is *not * perjury. See my cite above.

Accordingly the argument which relies on this proposition collapses.

[alaricthegoth]

I am having difficulty understanding the question as posed vs. the recent posts which seem to implicate the sufficiency of some violation of a criminal statute or other to be the predicate for articles of impeachment.

It is NOT necessary that ANY criminal statute, whether state or federal, be violated for impeachment proceedings to be commenced. It is fundamentally a political decision. (note that impeachment has roots in the British parliamentary system–it is not a concept that appeared in the constitution, full blown, with no antecedents.

[marshmallow]

I believe that the Democrats, if by some sort of miracle, were to win a majority in the House that, at the very least, an exploratory investigation into considerign articles of impeachment of Bush and Cheney would become a reality. There’s been many interesting discussions and events on C-SPAN about this, including references to positive public polls.

@Wikipedia

A Zogby poll released in January 2006 shows that a majority of Americans (52 percent to 43 percent) believe Congress should consider impeaching the president if it is shown that he wiretapped US citizens without approval from the courts.[16]&language=EN)

[ElvisL1ves]

@Martin Hyde

Both were legitimate enough to warrant them going to court, and the appointment of a special prosecutor.

Right, the existence of an investigation means there must have been a crime.

In impeachment proceedings specific charges are levied against you.

But you were referring to legal proceedings. Are you confused about their nonrelatedness?

\Whitewater scandal, use of executive power to try and protect himself from sexual harassment allegations.

No, I asked you to *specify * what Clinto did that was corrupt and immoral. Can you?

Anyways, to ignore the rest of your overparsed reply, the fact is Clinton committed the crime of perjury, it’s a simple factual matter.

Being the result of your careful consideration, it shouldn’t be too hard for you to support that assertion, right? But you can’t do that either, obviously.l

I make no judgments as to how much “bullshit” may have been involved in the entire affair.

Come on now. Making judgments is what responsible citizens do. You haven’t been chary about making them elsewhere about the same person in the same damn post, have you?

I’m not saying Clinton wasn’t the victim of partisanship, but the FACTUAL matter still remains, he lied under oath, that is purjury.

Repeat it as often as you like, but if you won’t back it up, the obvious inference is that you cannot.

[quotr]I’m not sure why you seem confused about this
[/quote]
I’m hardly confused about it. If it’s crystal clear to you, stand and deliver. If it’s simply the expression of faith it appears to be, then you need to compare that to the world of fact the rest of us live in.

Witch hunt or not, he still didt he crime.

When come back, bring argument.

[BrainGlutton]

@Martin Hyde

Like I said, I’m unsure. We’ve seen the arguments from both sides (I’m going to assume everyone has, anyways.)

No, Martin. I, for one, have yet to see or hear a coherent argument that FISA is unconstitutional – on this board or anywhere else. And not for lack of searching, either. Perhaps you would care to present one?

[BrainGlutton]

BTW, the thread topic was, “Can W be impeached for something that is illegal but has public support?” So why does Clinton keep getting dragged into it? There was public support for him, but not for the actions that led to his impeachment. The whole story is irrelevant to the current story.