Well, for a nonpolitical cat, you certainly are toeing the Republican line pretty good on this one. Maybe you are more political than you think you are. Here’s the deal. The whole “perjury” thing is what’s known as a “perjury trap,” a trick used by DAs everywhere to obtain perjury conviction on someone whom they could not otherwise convict. The real juice behind it … the reason so many Republican Congressmen thought they could impeach Clinton on such an obvious, flimsy pretext, was that the SUBSTANCE of the complaint against Clinton was that he had received a blowjob, albeit a very CONSENSUAL blowjob that was known to have been consensual from Day One. When the polls started showing that the American people quite properly thought a blowjob was a silly thing to impeach a President over, that they weren’t grabbing torches and pitchforks as the Republicans hoped they would, support for the impeachment dried up fast. The American people understood that the impeachment was all about a blowjob, a blowjob, a blowjob, no matter what kind of legal technical mumbo-jumbo the Republicans tried to hide behind. Now you know, too.
Maybe we need a sticky that says “war is peace” but we ain’t gonna get one anytime soon.
Do you want to turn this thread into a debate about the Clinton impeachment? There are plenty of folks who will happily oblige you.
Isn’t “Canuck” a perjorative?
The government spent many millions of bucks invesigating the Clintons. It wqas an ongoing thing with one intent. to find something to cripple his presidency. White Water,Travelgate and sex were all used .They were irrelevant or lies, When Starr stumbled onto the sex thing he ran with it, But the media went along. Now the media is owned and operated by the Repubs. Nothing can be done until mid term elections.Then hopefully we can do something. However they control the election process too.There is no mandate pushed by the press to take down Bush.
OK, so it was like the Feds taking down Al Capone for tax evasion. They couldn’t find anything else that would stick (in Clinton’s case, I believe 'cause there wasn’t anything, in Capone’s case 'cause he hid it so well), so they brought what charges they could get to stick against him. OK, I get that.
Does the fact that they wanted to get Capone for something else mean that they didn’t charge him with tax evasion? Of course not. Just like the fact that they wanted to get Clinton for something bigger doesn’t mean they didn’t get him for perjury. They did, and legitimately, “get” Clinton for perjury the same way they legitimately “got” Capone for tax evasion.
Saying they “got” him for a blowjob is silly. It’s not about politics, it’s about reading the charges against him. Perjury, Not fellatio.
My apolgies for the hijack. I’m not sure why I feel like tilting at this particular windmill today. It’s more interesting than the packing I’m supposed to be doing right now.
“perjury” = “legal technical mumbo-jumbo”?
Dude, I’m a Canadian and it’s no mystery to me. The U.S. has thing this called a “Constitution” that defines who gets to be President. You can find it online.
To impeach a President, you need Congress to decide that he’s actually committed an offense for which he can be impeached. Since Congress has not decided that, he hasn’t been impeached. The President has really good lawyers.
“Expensive gasoline” is not an impeachable offense.
Saying that Starr went after Clinton over perjury is like saying the Feds went after Al Capone because he was a tax evader. It’s obvious bullshit. I wish you guys wouldn’t keep embarrassing yourselves like this, but I understand why you do it – you bought into it at some point and now you’re stuck with it – so I am forgiving about it. 
In terms of the politics of the impeachment process, yes.
What is this thread about? I’m not quite sure.
*
Are we supposed to suggest and defend or rebut possible impeachable actions?*
Here are actions for which I believe Bush is culpable and impeachable:
-
Getting us into a war under false pretenses. I don’t care if he thought there were WMD’s or not; he knew the intelligence was bad. He knew that the only real ‘witness’ he had had failed lie detector tests. Colin Powell called the evidence he was told to present to the UN ‘bullshit.’ The Downing Street Memos show that Bush had presupposed going to war and was manipulating any evidence and situation to that end.
-
Warrantless wiretapping of phone calls.
-
torture of prisoners of war, and unending imprisonment of ‘enemy combatants’ without timetable for release, nor scrutiny by the international community.
-
transferring money for the war in Afghanistan for the (erstwhile secret) coming war in Iraq without congressional approval.
Is it why he hasn’t been impeached?
That’s because impeachment is a political machine, and a government is only as virtuous as its citizenry. Basically, we haven’t demanded it of them as well as we should.
*
Is the OP looking for an apology to the world?*
As an American, I’m sorry. We are currently an embarrassment on the world stage. We are embarrassing future Americans as well, and this administration will always be a blight on our history.
Do you have any evidence that might indicate that if he hadn’t lied under oath that he still would have been impeached? If so, what would the charges have been?
For the record, Clinton was not impeached for anything he said in the Paul Jones deposition but for alleging lying to the subsequent Grand Jury about whether or not he had sucked Monica Lewinsky’s nipples. (He was also accused of Obstruction of Justice for allegedly helping Lewinsky write the so-called “Talking-points memo.” However, no shred of evidence was ever produced that he had anything to do with the memo, Monica denied that BC had any involvement with it and the argument was made solely on the basis that a 20 year old woman couldn’t have possibly written it herself).
The Lewinsky affair had no relevance to a sexual harrassment suit anyway because there was never any allegation of harrassment and Lewinsky claimed to have been the aggressor in the relationship.
No.
How does receiving a consensual blow job have anything to do with sexual harrassment?
“Perjury” about whether he lied about sucking a girl’s nipples. How very grave and somber. :rolleyes:
Clinton’s impeachment was about getting Bill Clinton…by any means necessary. Don’t kid yourself that it was anything else.
- It was never proven that Bill Clinton lied under oath.
- If they hadn’t been sucessful with the perjury trap they would have come up with something else and it probably would have been equally sleazy. Exactly what, I have no idea. My mind is not malicious or devious enough to guess what the Republicans would have been willing to try.
Some think? Talk about understatement.
The House Judiciary Committee passed three articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon:
Article 1: Obstruction of Justice - Approved by a vote of 27-11 by the House Judiciary Committee on Saturday, July 27, 1974.
Article 2: Abuse of Power - Approved 28-10 by the House Judiciary Committee on Monday, July 29, 1974.
Article 3: Contempt of Congress - Approved 21-17 by the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, July 30, 1974.
Source: http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/nixon.htm
As for Bush, many will not rest until he is impeached.
For those who aren’t in America or don’t understand the nuances of the political process, please note the following:
“Impeachment” is not the act of removing a President from office, it’s a formal accusation brought against the President by the House of Representatives. The President isn’t actually removed from office unless the Senate investigates and finds the President guilty of these charges. Bill Clinton was impeached, but the Senate found him not guilty, so he remained in office.
That said, lots of Americans use “Impeach” colloquially to mean removing a President from office, which has never actually been done. It was intended (probably) by the Framers as a means to get real traitors out of office, not as a “vote of no confidence” as Canada or Britain has. A vote of no confidence probably wouldn’t work very well here, since with a two-party system the President would be voted out every time he was in the minority party.
How come you Americans haven’t impeached Bush?
Because Republicans hate America.
There is nothing to stop the Republican politicians on Capitol Hill from collectively growing a conscience, declare that enough is enough, and nail Bush and Cheney’s ass on whatever charges they can scrape together (insert obligatory “It worked on Clinton” bit here).
The fact that they don’t – and often offer protection for the Administrations’ illegal doings – is all the evidence we need that today’s GOP leaders value the party more than the nation, which makes them no different from traitors in that regard.
Asides from the reasons already given, IMHO Bush shouldn’t be impeached unless it’s incontravertably proven that he bathed in the blood of a hundred virgins or the booze makes him go bonkers and he knocks over a liquor store. As much as I think Bush deserves impeachment, and as much as I think the Clinton impeachment was bullshit, we can’t have two impeachments in a row. Because if we do, there’s not a president from now 'till doomsday who faces an adversary Congress that isn’t going to be in the dock. The Republicans will say “Oh, you’re only getting back at us for Clinton! So next time, we’ll get back at you for Bush!” And so on, escalating ad infinitum. The fact that it wouldn’t be true, that Bush deserves to be hung out to dry, isn’t going to convince anyone that thinks it’s political hooey that the impeachment is legitimate, and clearly nothing in the last seven years has made the people who thought the Clinton impeachment was legitimate change their mind even though it was just political hooey.
–Cliffy
The investigations on Clinton were started before he committed perjury, that is before he actually did anything impeachable. So there’s nothing stopping congress from investigating the president without evidence of a specific crime in front of them. And in Bush’s case there are multiple tantalizing areas that could justify investigation if there were any will in congress to actually impeach him. But it is a Republican congress so I think that answers the question why formal proceedings have not started and are not even being explored.
But why no pressure from the public? Why no headlines about half the country demanding Bush’s ouster? Why are none of the many White House travesties not playing out like Watergate? Partially I think it’s because the media is driven by the government these days, and if there are no officials putting out press releases about impeachment then there are not going to be stories about it in the media. And if there are no stories in the media, then most people believe that there is no will to impeach the president. So there’s no momentum to get the ball rollling.
Also, Watergate was covered for months without generating much coverage in the rest of the mainstream media or getting much public or governmental response. That would never happen these days. These days scandals are covered for a day or two - maybe a week tops, before they’re replaced with the new story of the day. In the case of the Bush administration, last week’s scandal is replaced with this week’s scandal. So it seems no single scandal can get enough traction to start generating calls for impeachment. Honestly I’m not sure what this president would have to do to get impeached. It would probably have to be some kind of horrific personal sin - like beating his wife, or stripping in public on a drunken binge.
Sigh. They didn’t. They went after him for committing perjury, which is a felony.