Recently, in this thread, Whack-a-Mole provided me with this link, showing the most compelling arguements for impeaching Bush (thanks Whack-a-Mole :)). Though I realize that this subject has been done numerous times, but I wanted to present the arguements given on the web site for review. Hopefully someone with an actual understanding of the various laws in play will be able to give an analysis of them to see how valid (or not) they are.
Assuming that Bush in fact did lie, does this constitute grounds for impeachment?
As Bush had Congressional approval, does this still constitute grounds for impeachment. What takes precendence here.
This seems pretty cut and dried. If indeed it was illegal, why wouldn’t Bush be impeached for it? So, I guess the question is…WAS it illegal?
Thoughts? I’m not familiar with this one at all.
This one seems kind of out there. Afaik there is nothing here, but feel free to give your thoughts on this one.
I’m looking for facts here. I will admit I’m no lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, so I’m not sure exactly the issues here. I don’t want to see partisan BS, hand waving, wishful thinking, etc…but I’d like to see an actual debate about the pro’s and con’s of each charge…and exactly why or why not they would constitute grounds for impeachment against Bush.
As for the illegal wiretapping I know the case is being made that it is legal but to my mind this is legal contortionism at its finest. Why do we even bother having laws at all if the president is free to do as he pleases? The FISA court was made specifically to address covert wiretapping and procedures are in place for the need to do a wiretap instantly rather than wait for a court.
If that is deemed insufficient then modify the law/court to something that is more responsive. Thing is, the Bush administration tried this and was rejected:
So, we have a law passed by Congress that provides for foreign wiretapping. Bush says it is not enough but is ruled against. Bush goes ahead and does it anyway.
Is there no one else who isn’t apalled by this? Separation of powers anyone? Is it the president’s case that in a time of war congress gave him the right to do whatever the hell he pleases and laws be damned?
Quite simply I think it is obvious Bush broke the law. His only defense is that Congress granted him the power to do whatever he wants to protect the United States. Personally I do not think Congress intended anything so broad.
Yes…they can impeach for whatever they like. If they dislike the president’s new haircut they can impeach him for it.
In practice though Congress is likely to demand something a bit more substantial to impeach. A republican controlled congress asked to impeach a republican president will take something so exceptional that there is no dodging it.
**Definition of Impeachment from Webster’s Dictionary.com
To make an accusation against.
To charge (a public official) with improper conduct in office before a proper tribunal.
im·peachment n.
Usage Note: When an irate citizen demands that a disfavored public official be impeached, the citizen clearly intends for the official to be removed from office. This popular use of impeach as a synonym of “throw out” (even if by due process) does not accord with the legal meaning of the word. As recent history has shown, when a public official is impeached, that is, formally accused of wrongdoing, this is only the start of what can be a lengthy process that may or may not lead to the official's removal from office. In strict usage, an official is impeached (accused), tried, and then convicted or acquitted. The vaguer use of impeach reflects disgruntled citizens' indifference to whether the official is forced from office by legal means or chooses to resign to avoid further disgrace.
**
Impeachment is basically when a public official is charged with a federal crime or a misdemeanor while in office. That was the high-school definition that I learned.
I’m not sure that if the President got a ticket for jaywalking if impeachment would be involved to “bring him to justice”.
During the Grant Administration, President Uylsses S Grant was driving his horse & buggy at a reckless speed down a Washington street. A traffic officer pulled him over, & he had to pay a speeding fine.
Impeachment is required before any legal action that can lead to prison time can be undertaken, but a fine may be levied without it, as the above precedent shows.
I am not so sure that is true. In Clinton v. Jones the SCOTUS ruled that a sitting president is not immune from civil litigation.
I cannot see how they would think a criminal action would be different. I always thought impeachment was merely to remove a president (or whoever) from office. That said I hope a legal eagle will show up and clear this up.
Impeachment is a political process, not really a “legal” one. What is impeachable is decided by Congress and only by Congress. The president can be impeached even if he hasn’t done anything illegal and he doesn’t have to be impeached even if he does do something illegal. It’s completely up to Congress. There isn’t any technical legal answer to the OP’s question. When the President’s own party controls Congress, the Prez is going to be pretty much immune to impeachment unless he does something so patently felonious that it can’t be ignored (like murdering someone).
Conversely, if Congress is controlled by the President’s poiltical enemies, and those enemies have support from their own constituencies, the Prez is vulnerable to impeachment for even a trivial offense (like getting a blow job).
He was impeached for a blow job and everybody knows it. The weaselling about “perjury” didn’t fly then and it doesn’t fly now.
Actually, if you want to really get down to it, he was impeached because he was Bill Clinton. The perjury trap was set specifically as a tactic to create an excuse for impeachment.
A) “He was impeached for a blowjob. . .”
B) “. . .everyone knows it.”
C) “. . .he was impeached because he was Bill Clinton.”
D) “The perjury trap was set specifically as a tactic to create an excuse for impeachment.”
Take your pick. One, all, none: whatever you can manage.
Thats another debate IMHO. What I’m asking for is something solid that the President could actually, realistically, be impeached on. For the sake of arguement lets say that if you had something real that despite Republican control, Bush WOULD be impeached. So…show me something real. So far only Whack-a-Mole has actually taken a shot at answering the actual OP…which really isn’t about Clinton at all. Its about something solid enough and real enough to impeach Bush.
I…see. And what do you base that on? Is it your personal opinion or do you have something to back that up with? I was under the impression that our system did not work that way. You are saying I’m wrong. Ok, fair enough. Won’t be the first time. SHOW me why Bush could not be impeached short of rape or murder.
Assume for a moment that the Dems take back both houses this year. Now, the Dems control both houses. So…what could you realistically impeach Bush on at that point? Not bullshit and wet dreams but hard evidence and real legalistic arguments.
As per the OP the unlawful wiretapping looks straight up and down impeachable.
The entire Guantanamo Bay scandal.
Lastly, an opposition party having control over both houses would have a much expanded scope to discover evidence. Lots of what is shady now could be resolved. For example the ‘Leak Valerie Plame’s ID’ issue and the ‘Did he/didn’t he directly authorise Abu Grahib style torture’ issue.
Remembering that an impeachment does not have to rise to the level of a legal argument.