Right up front let me state I understand the ‘If’ in the thread title is a big ‘If’ just now. For the sake of this thread let’s posit that it has been proven that Bush severly overstated, to the point of lying, what the US knew of Iraq possessing WMDs so as to draw the US into war with that country. I mean for this thread to explore what it actually takes to get a President of the US impeached rather than debate whether he actually did lie or whether the current republican congress would actually attempt to impeach him.
However, over in this thread the question has come up both by myself and others. Most recently (at the time I am writing this) TVAA posted, “In all seriousness – is lying about the justification for bringing the country into war sufficient reason for a charge of treason? I’m not completely certain of what the relevant legal standards are.” That nicely sums up my thoughts on this as well.
In the linked thread Bricker took Frostillicus to task for suggesting that we tried to impeach Clinton for getting a blowjob but there is no talk of impeaching Bush for lying about Iraq possessing WMDs to take us to war with that country. Bricker pointed out that Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, a federal crime, rather than getting hummers from interns and that even if Bush did lie he did not do so under oath. (I think that sums it up…read the other thread for the actual words if you like.)
So, on the one hand we have President Clinton lying under oath and on the other we have President Bush just lying (again understanding this is just hypothetical at this point). However, it would seem that what President Bush hypothetically lied about is far worse than anything President Clinton lied about. President Bush’s lie drew the country into war that cost thousands of lives from both sides and an $80 billion bill to the taxpayers. Still…lying isn’t actually illegal.
So, could President Bush be impeached for this? Does an actual crime have to be committed for Congress to try and impeach a President or can Congress impeach if it just feels like it? As an aside, if what I posit here turns out to be the case would you want to see him impeached or just wait till elections roll around and let the American public decide at the ballot box?
Since an impeachment is unreviewable, the answer is that an impeachable offense is whatever Congress declares it to be. If the House voted to impeach President Jones for wearing a tie that clashed with his suit, and the Senate voted to convict, there is no authority to override it.
As a practical matter, however, I am convinced that Congress would need to point to an actual crime.
If Congress had passed a no-war resolution, and Bush had defied it and ordered troops into combat, that might qualify.
But since Congress gave their assent to the actions Bush took, and since at least the House and Senate Select committees on Intelligence were apprised of everything the White House had… as a practical matter, impeachment seems a rather remote possibility, even if he did out and out lie.
Impeached? What for? It’ll take more than a year to set up an investigation and go thru all the committees and get a recommendation for the Congress to vote on.
Just air out all your grievances and evidence of wrong doing and campaign against him. You’ll stand a much better chance of getting rid of him that way than if you tried to impeach someone who clearly removed the yoke of oppression from a people.
Besides, if you impeach Bush then you’ll have Dick Chaney as president. Which would you rather have? a bush or a Dick?
Good point. Do the committees on Intelligence get their info laundered through the White House or do they get their info direct from the sources (NSA, CIA, etc.)? I really don’t know myself so I’m curious if the possibility exists for the White House to bend the truth to Congress itself and if it did if that in and of itself would constitute a crime (it seems like one but there may not be an actual law about it AFAIK).
It gets even more interesting to me if the Select Committee did know and were in collusion with the White House to force a war. Are the committees bipartisan (even if weighted in favor of the majority party) or can they be stacked with those more willing to ‘work’ with the President?
Given the power of the people involved I agree it is highly unlikely anything could be done unless dramatic smoking gun evidence was found.
However noble removing yoke of oppression is it is not the stated reason, at least nowhere near the primary reason, for going to war with Iraq that the admistration gave. There are many people around the world suffering under horrendous regimes and in horrendous conditions. Many worse even than Iraqis had it. You don’t see the US riding off to their rescue. Bush could not sell a war to free people from oppression to the American people.
elucidator said it succinctly and with more flair than I can in the other thread I linked to so I think I’ll just quote it here:
How so? Impeachment doesn’t mean you kick out the president, X~Slayer(ALE). If that were the case, Al Gore would’ve taken over during Clinton’s second term.
What a lucid, compelling and well thought out response! It has the merit of being succinct as well! :dubious:
X~Slayer(ALE)'s post brought another question to mind. I am under the impression the the President of the United States is protected from civil and criminal legal action while he is president and, I presume, after he leaves office as well. If you want to throw a President in jail for something you need to remove him from office first.
Assuming that is true (and I don’t know that it is or at least how far the Presidency protects him) does impeachment serve a purpose beyond just removing a President from office? That is, does it make any sense to impeach a President after he has left office?
Go with X~Slayer(ALE)'s notion that you couldn’t get an impeachment through before the next election and assume Bush was voted out and Democrats regain control of Congress and they want to go after Bush. Can Congress in any way remove the mantle of protection that a President enjoys once he is gone (if it exists)?
Impeachment can be both the process and the result. President Clinton went through the process but till it is done he is still President. If Congress successfully impeaches the President then he is removed from office. At that point Al Gore would have become President.
I should have added that obviously the impeachment of Clinton was not successful so Clinton remained president. Nevertheless Congress did impeach President Clinton…just unsuccessfully.
Yes, but no. Yes, because he would deserve it. No, because we don’t. The shitstorm impeaching him would raise would be devastating, it would make the Clinton mess look like Romper Room.
Let the truth be known. They can probably dig up something, or someone who will fall on his sword for the neo-con movement. It ain’t worth it. Let the people see him for what he is.
Congress never impeaches the President, or any other public official.
The House of Representatives does the impeaching – and an impeachment is the equivalent of an arrest warrant or an indictment – a judicial decision to bring a suspected wrongdoer to trial. The House has successfully impeached two Presidents, and was preparing to do so to another when he resigned.
The Senate, sitting as the “Court for the Trial of Impeachments,” serves as the court which tries public officers impeached by the House. It has acquitted both Presidents, and all but a couple of other public officers, who were brought before it. Only when convicted by the Senate does an impeached official get removed from office.
And I want to caution against using the Radical Republicans of 1867 and 1998 as any sort of precedent. Removal of the President by the impeachment process, IMHO, should be done only when he is demonstrably subverting the core governmental processes by which we maintain the Republic – as Nixon clearly did. Neither Johnson nor Clinton did so – it was a bit of partisan politics gone wild, for which I believe the Republican Party will pay dearly in the long run, as they did in the decades after 1867.
I see Webster’s definition of “impeach” as including “to remove from office,” but that usage is purely colloquial, and generally slipshod. The Constitution explicitly distinguishes between impeachment and conviction, which are distinct processes:
The constitutional term impeachment clearly does not refer to the subsequent trial, or to conviction, or to removal from office. President Clinton was impeached as “successfully” as possible under the Constitution. But he was tried and acquitted.
I disagree about Johnson. He was pardoning Confederate officers left and right for their ‘friendship’ (basically he was bribed by being let into the social club in exchange for a pardon). He also stood in the way of Civil Rights Acts because of pressures from his Confederate ‘friends’. Bribery is an impeachable offense, and Johnson was much more dangerous than the history textbooks make out.
Maybe so, but he was not impeached for those acts. The articles of impeachment all related to President Johnson ousting Secretary of War Stanton and thereby violating the Tenure of Office act. The articles do not even mention bribery.
IMO if proof is found that Bush lied about any war justification, or knew the Niger Uranium proof was bogus while still touting it as justification (or had a hand in its creation), I think he should not only be removed from office but go to jail. I admit I have no idea if legally even impeachment could be supported.
I do know that the Republicans have been so successful in making criticism of Bush equal to treason that he’s basically immune to impeachment.
“I think he should not only be removed from office but go to jail. I admit I have no idea if legally even impeachment could be supported.”
So, what you are saying is that you support putting someone in jail even though you are unsure if any laws were broken. Yikes. And people on this board are scared of Rumsfeld.
