# Impeach Bush! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 26, 2006, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-bush/346224 "2006-02-26T21:37:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2006, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-bush/346224/1 "2006-02-26T21:37:24Z")
Recently, in [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=360228) thread, Whack-a-Mole provided me with [this](http://www.impeachbush.tv/impeach/grounds.html) 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. > [@](#): > > Lying about the Rationale for the Iraq War > Bush and his team consistently lied to Congress and the American Public about the rationale for invading Iraq. Bush convinced a majority of Americans that Iraq was involved with Al-Qaeda and responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Yet the evidence says that the only relationship is that Al-Qaeda asked Iraq for support and they were rebuffed. Bush said in his State of the Union Address that “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa” to build nuclear weapons despite having already been told by the CIA that the evidence was forged. Bush claimed to have hard evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But the UN investigators could not verify any of these claims and searches of Iraq revealed no such weapons. The real reason may have more to do with the fact that Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world, and sits strategically in the center of the Middle East. Read More… Assuming that Bush in fact did lie, does this constitute grounds for impeachment? > [@](#): > > Violation of International Law > From a legal standpoint, the most compelling reason for impeaching Bush is for violating international law by invading Iraq. It is the most easily proven, and the most serious given the loss of life involved. > > According to our Constitution, International Treaties are part of the “supreme Law of the Land”. Bush’s violations of the UN Charter and the Nuremberg Charter are, therefore, impeachable offenses. As Bush had Congressional approval, does this still constitute grounds for impeachment. What takes precendence here. > [@](#): > > Illegal Wiretapping of American Citizens > George Bush authorized the NSA to conduct illegal wiretaps on American citizens. Bush claimed that these were justified on the basis of national security. But there is a legal mechanism for conducting emergency wiretaps followed by court approval within 72 hours. Bush ignored that mechanism and exceeded his executive authority. 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? > [@](#): > > Energy Industry Involvement > The depth of Bushes involvement in the energy industry scandal is yet to be revealed. Dick Cheney is in violation of a court order by refusing to divulge what went on in meetings with Enron and other energy companies. It is known that these energy companies were huge contributors to the Bush campaign. Bush has returned the favor by refusing to regulate them while they illegally gouged California for electricity, and by relaxing numerous environmental regulations that the industry did not like. One way to find out the nature of these talks is to impeach Bush, which will lead to further investigation. Thoughts? I’m not familiar with this one at all. > [@](#): > > Election Fraud > Before the election in 2000, George Bush, his brother Jeb Bush, and his Florida campaign manager Secretary of State Katherine Harris, illegally purged over 57,000 mostly Democratic Florida voters from the rolls. This was more than enough votes to account for Bush’s 537 vote margin over Al Gore. If this crime had not been committed then Al Gore would have been president. 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. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2006, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-bush/346224/2 "2006-02-26T21:59:53Z")
Can’t Congress basically impeach a President for any reason it feels like, or am I misremembering ? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2006, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-bush/346224/3 "2006-02-26T22:06:35Z")
You missed the one on torture: > [@](#): > > **Bush Violated the Geneva Convention by Torturing Prisoners** > > The evidence below shows that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Gonzales are guilty of violating [Title 18, Chapter 113C](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/113c/toc.html) that says it is a crime to conspire to commit torture. > > SOURCE: [http://www.impeachbush.tv/args/torture.html](http://www.impeachbush.tv/args/torture.html) (follow link for their evidence) 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: > [@](#): > > This court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court, refused to approve of certain procedures proposed by Attorney General Ashcroft. In an unprecedented move, it also publicly released its ruling this August. The dispute, however, had been going on since May, when the Court announced its dissatisfaction with the procedures and its belief that they were contrary to existing federal law. > > The procedures would have allowed criminal prosecutors routine access to information obtained through counterintelligence searches and wiretaps - without a probable cause showing that a crime had been or was about to be committed. (“Counterintelligence” is defined within the FISA as information gathered, and activities conducted, to protect against espionage; other intelligence activities; sabotage; or assassinations conducted by or on behalf of foreign governments or elements thereof, foreign organizations, or foreign persons, or international terrorist activities.) > > When the FISA court rejected the procedures, it ruled that they would give prosecutors too much control over counterintelligence investigations, and would allow the government potentially to misuse intelligence information for criminal cases. > > SOURCE: [http://writ.news.findlaw.com/ramasastry/20020904.html](http://writ.news.findlaw.com/ramasastry/20020904.html) 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. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2006, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-bush/346224/4 "2006-02-26T22:08:53Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Can’t Congress basically impeach a President for any reason it feels like, or am I misremembering ? 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. ---
**Author:** ![jasonh300](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/46a35a/32.png) [@jasonh300](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jasonh300)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2006, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-bush/346224/5 "2006-02-26T22:14:24Z")
\*\*Definition of Impeachment from Webster’s [Dictionary.com](http://Dictionary.com) 1. To make an accusation against. 2. 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”. ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2006, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-bush/346224/6 "2006-02-26T22:24:49Z")
> [@jasonh300](#): > > \*\*Definition of Impeachment from Webster’s [Dictionary.com](http://Dictionary.com) > > 1. To make an accusation against. > 2. 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”. No. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2006, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-bush/346224/7 "2006-02-26T22:42:21Z")
> [@Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor](#): > > 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](http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1853.ZS.html) 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. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2006, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-bush/346224/8 "2006-02-26T23:12:38Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Illegal Wiretapping of American Citizens > > George Bush authorized the NSA to conduct illegal wiretaps on American citizens. Bush claimed that these were justified on the basis of national security. But there is a legal mechanism for conducting emergency wiretaps followed by court approval within 72 hours. Bush ignored that mechanism and exceeded his executive authority. > > This seems pretty cut and dried. If indeed it was illegal, why wouldn’t Bush be impeached for it? Unless I am missing your point, the reason Bush would not be impeached even if it was an illegal act is because the Republicans control the House. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2006, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-bush/346224/9 "2006-02-26T23:29:33Z")
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). ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2006, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-bush/346224/10 "2006-02-26T23:37:02Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > 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). While that may be technically true, it has never happened. And that is extremely disingenuous of you to imply that it has. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2006, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-bush/346224/11 "2006-02-26T23:39:19Z")
And lest anyone wants to argue the contrary… [cite.](http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/resources/1998/lewinsky/articles.of.impeachment/article2.html) ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2006, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-bush/346224/12 "2006-02-26T23:39:21Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > 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). I think one more condition must be added, and an added phrase: > [@](#): > > Conversely, if Congress is controlled by the President’s poiltical enemies, **and those enemies are morally bankrupt scumbags,** and those enemies **feel that they** have support from their own constituencies, the Prez is vulnerable to impeachment for even a trivial offense (like getting a blow job). ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2006, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-bush/346224/13 "2006-02-27T00:16:10Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > While that may be technically true, it has never happened. And that is extremely disingenuous of you to imply that it has. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2006, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-bush/346224/14 "2006-02-27T00:17:16Z")
Also, what **Evil Captor** said. ---
**Author:** ![Garfield226](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Garfield226](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Garfield226)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2006, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-bush/346224/15 "2006-02-27T01:00:39Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > 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. Cite? 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. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2006, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-bush/346224/16 "2006-02-27T01:13:34Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > You missed the one on torture: Sorry…my bad. It wasn’t deliberately left out. > [@Fear Itself](#): > > Unless I am missing your point, the reason Bush would not be impeached even if it was an illegal act is because the Republicans control the House. 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. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2006, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-bush/346224/17 "2006-02-27T01:16:26Z")
> [@Garfield226](#): > > Cite? > > 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. All of the above, dawg…all of the above. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2006, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-bush/346224/18 "2006-02-27T01:17:35Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Sorry…my bad. It wasn’t deliberately left out. > > Thats another debate IMHO. What I’m asking for is something solid that the President could actually, realistically, be impeached on. There is nothing short of rape or murder that Bush could ever be realistically impeached for by the current Legislature. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2006, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-bush/346224/19 "2006-02-27T01:30:36Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > There is nothing short of rape or murder that Bush could ever be realistically impeached for by the current Legislature. 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. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2006, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-bush/346224/20 "2006-02-27T01:44:14Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > … > 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. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-bush/346224.md?page=2)