# 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:** 2
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2006, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-bush/346224/21 "2006-02-27T01:44:27Z")
> [@Garfield226](#): > > Cite? > > B) “. . .everyone knows it.” > > Take your pick. One, all, none: whatever you can manage. Okay, \*not \* everyone knows it. 🙂 ---
**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 27, 2006, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-bush/346224/22 "2006-02-27T01:45:55Z")
> [@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. Cite? > [@](#): > > 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. That is perhaps closer to the truth, although still not supportable. You can’t prove that a trap was set. Certainly some Republicans were looking for an excuse to impeach him, but he gave them that excuse. You can’t blame anyone else besides him. No one forced him to lie under oath. ---
**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 27, 2006, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-bush/346224/23 "2006-02-27T02:02:39Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > 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. I don’t see what you want me to prove. If a simple majority of the House of Representatives agrees it was not illegal, goddammit, it’s not illegal, no matter what they base their decision on. If I believe the Republicans are just corrupt enough to support their party’s President without regard to what he did, there is no legal basis necessary for that opinion. Either they are, or they aren’t; you obviously disagree. But demanding we “prove” otherwise does nothing to support your opinion over mine, any more than if I demanded you “prove” that Republican congressman are ethical enough to convict Bush on any charges, no matter how blatant. > [@](#): > > 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. No legal arguments are required; only the consensus of a simple majority of the House. If they say the wiretapping without a warrant was illegal, then it is illegal. Congress has the constitutional power to define was is and is not legal, and it may done on without any supporting legal arguments beyond personal opinion. I see no reason why I should be held to a higher standard than the Congress. I believe the Democrats would impeach him in a heartbeat for political reasons, and I would support them on it. Get that meat puppet out of office by any Constitutional means necessary. ---
**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, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-bush/346224/24 "2006-02-27T02:08:40Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I…see. And what do you base that on? The fact that he hasn’t been impeached already. > [@](#): > > Is it your personal opinion or do you have something to back that up with? > [/quote > > It’s my personal opinion. > > > [@](#): > > > > I was under the impression that our system did not work that way. You are saying I’m wrong. > > If you were under the impression that impeachment is anything but purely political, you were indeed wrong. > > > [@](#): > > > > Ok, fair enough. Won’t be the first time. SHOW me why Bush could not be impeached short of rape or murder. > > Because he has a Republican Congress which has invested too much political capital in yoking themselves to Bush. It would be against their own political self-interests to impeach him unless their own constituencies support it. > > To put it another way, impeachment is only politoically viable if it has public support. As it stands, much of the public has shown that it is unwilling to hold Bush accountable for any misdeed, no matter how gross or egregious. > > > [@](#): > > > > 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? > > Nothing without public support. If the public support is there, then anything is realistic. > > > [@](#): > > > > Not bullshit and wet dreams but hard evidence and real legalistic arguments. > > Impeachment is not a real court trial. Legalistic arguments and “hard evidence” are irrelevant. The object of impeachment is not to convict the President of a crime but to convince a majority of Congress that he should not be allowed to finish his term. > > -XT ---
**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 27, 2006, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-bush/346224/25 "2006-02-27T02:14:32Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Cite? > That is perhaps closer to the truth, although still not supportable. You can’t prove that a trap was set. Certainly some Republicans were looking for an excuse to impeach him, but he gave them that excuse. You can’t blame anyone else besides him. No one forced him to lie under oath. There’s a river in Egypt in full flood around here … ---
**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 27, 2006, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-bush/346224/26 "2006-02-27T02:15:31Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > That is perhaps closer to the truth, although still not supportable. You can’t prove that a trap was set. Certainly some Republicans were looking for an excuse to impeach him, but he gave them that excuse. You can’t blame anyone else besides him. No one forced him to lie under oath. It wasn’t a trap? A 7 year, $40,000,000 investigation by Ken Starr into Whitewater (itself a somewhat dubious “scandal”) ends up devolving into, “Did you get a hummer in the Oval Office?” Maybe trap is the wrong word as that implies some sort of plan…they were just dragging the bottom for any piece of shit to stick to Clinton. ---
**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, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-bush/346224/27 "2006-02-27T02:32:36Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > > [@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. > > Cite? Cite for what? That the “perjury” weasel didn’t work then or that it doesn’t work now? > [@](#): > > That is perhaps closer to the truth, although still not supportable. You can’t prove that a trap was set. Certainly some Republicans were looking for an excuse to impeach him, but he gave them that excuse. You can’t blame anyone else besides him. No one forced him to lie under oath. Kenneth Starr fed the Lewisnky information to Paula Jones’ lawyers. The two cases were completely unrelated. The blow job had no relevance to the Paula Jones harrassment suit (a frivolous and politically motivated lawsuti which itself was ultimately thrown out of court for lack of merit). The information was fed to the PJ lawyers specifically so that Clinton could be asked about it under oath and (hopefully) cause him to lie. The attempt failed (Clinton did not technically lie) but Clinton’s carefully parsimonious answer was enough to make political hay, and force BC to have to testify before the Grand Jury. Ultimately he was impeached not for the blow job question but for allegedly lying to the Grand Jury about whether he had sucked Miss Lewinsky’s nipples as well as an unsubstantiated, bullshit charge of Obstruction of Justice for allegedly helping Lewinsky write the so-called “talking points memo.” A charge that was never remotely substantiated, and which Lewinsky herself denied. Starr’s own investigation determined that the memo was written on Lewisnky’s own computer. The only support ever offered for the accusation against Clinton was the expert opinion of dozens of Republicans and right wing radio talk show hosts that Monica Lewinsky “could not have written it herself.” I guess because she was a woman or something. They never explained. In any case, the Clinton impeachment shows just how deeply politically the process is and how little actually needs to be substantiated or even alleged. ---
**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 27, 2006, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-bush/346224/28 "2006-02-27T02:34:06Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > It wasn’t a trap? A 7 year, $40,000,000 investigation by Ken Starr into Whitewater (itself a somewhat dubious “scandal”) ends up devolving into, “Did you get a hummer in the Oval Office?” > > Maybe trap is the wrong word as that implies some sort of plan…they were just dragging the bottom for any piece of shit to stick to Clinton. Are you disagreeing with me? Because I don’t read your post as saying anything substatially different than what I said. As for the OP… I can’t see even a Democratically controled Congress impeaching Bush over the Iraq war as long as we still have troops fighting there. Guantanimo? No way. NSA wiretapping issue? Nope. Congress might force him to stop, but they won’t impeach him over it. The only way I see an impeachment happening is for the Dems to take control of both housed of Congress in November (highly unlikely) and for them to bring all the troops home for Iraq (also highly unlikely) and then for there to be enough time left for an impeachment (also highly unlikely). As you may know, to determine the probability of an event, you mulitply the probability of all the things that have to happen for that event to take place. Even if we assigning a 10% probability to those three events\*, that results in a .1% probability of impeachment. How’s that for putting a quantitative measure on imeachment? 🙂 \*very generous, indeed ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2006, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-bush/346224/29 "2006-02-27T02:35:44Z")
[A discussion of perjury traps.](http://www.perkel.com/politics/clinton/perjury.htm) > [@](#): > > In the case of United States vs. Chen, 933 F.2d 793, 796-97, **A perjury trap is created when the government calls a witness before the grand jury for the primary purpose of obtaining testimony from him in order to prosecute him later for perjury**. United States v. Simone, 627 F. Supp. 1264, 1268 (D. N.J. 1986) (perjury trap involves “the deliberate use of a judicial proceeding to secure perjured testimony, a concept in itself abhorrent”). It involves the government’s use of its investigatory powers to secure a perjury indictment on matters which are neither material nor germane to a legitimate ongoing investigation of the grand jury. See United States v. Crisconi, 520 F. Supp. 915, 920 (D. Del. 1981). Such governmental conduct might violate a defendant’s fifth amendment right to due process, Simone, 627 F. Supp. at 1267-72, or be an abuse of grand jury proceedings, Crisconi, 520 F. Supp. at 920. See generally Gershman, The “Perjury Trap”, 129 U. Pa. L. Rev. 624, 683 (1981). > > The Chen case goes on to say, “If a court divines that the purpose of repetitious questioning is to coax a witness into the commission of perjury . . . such conduct would be an abuse of the grand jury process.” Now what more-innocent purpose do you think Starr actually had, **John**? {:dubious: ---
**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, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-bush/346224/30 "2006-02-27T02:38:38Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > It wasn’t a trap? A 7 year, $40,000,000 investigation by Ken Starr into Whitewater (itself a somewhat dubious “scandal”) ends up devolving into, “Did you get a hummer in the Oval Office?” > > Maybe trap is the wrong word as that implies some sort of plan…they were just dragging the bottom for any piece of shit to stick to Clinton. It was definitely planned. The Lewinsky info was fed to the PJ team solely as an attempt to sucker BC into lying under oath. It was a complete trap and it was done from desperation after failing to find any wrongdoing in the Whitewater case. ---
**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 27, 2006, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-bush/346224/31 "2006-02-27T02:39:58Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Cite for what? That the “perjury” weasel didn’t work then or that it doesn’t work now? Both. That is what you claimed. And cites for the claim that he was impeached for a blowjob and that everyone knows it. Or, a retraction of either of those claims is also acceptable if you can’t produce a cite. > [@](#): > > …Clinton did not technically lie… That is the key flaw in your argument, even if I accept the rest of it. We’ve been over this many times. Clinton lied. No ifs ands or buts about it. I can dredge up that last thread on that subject (I think it was in the Pit) if you insist on perpetuatiing that piece of misinformation. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2006, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-bush/346224/32 "2006-02-27T02:44:21Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > It wasn’t a trap? A 7 year, $40,000,000 investigation by Ken Starr into Whitewater (itself a somewhat dubious “scandal”) ends up devolving into, “Did you get a hummer in the Oval Office?” Sure, because when the matter came up, the decision was made by the Justice Department to refer the matter to Starr rather than appoint a separate independent prosecutor. There were already enough special prosecutors running aroung Washington at the time, I suppose was the thinking. Starr wasn’t the only one at the time. I could find the letter authorizing him to look into this matter, but I’m sure some folks here still wouldn’t be convinced. At any case, it isn’t like he went off on his own looking into things. ---
**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 27, 2006, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-bush/346224/33 "2006-02-27T02:48:50Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > [A discussion of perjury traps.](http://www.perkel.com/politics/clinton/perjury.htm)Now what more-innocent purpose do you think Starr actually had, **John**? {:dubious: The questions asked about Lewinski were relavent to the Paul Jones lawsuit, which is what Starr was investigating at the time. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2006, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-bush/346224/34 "2006-02-27T02:51:10Z")
Yes, and? Take it one step further, and explain \*why \* Starr was involved in the Jones matter. _Hint: This is a “bullshit trap”._ ---
**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, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-bush/346224/35 "2006-02-27T02:52:05Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Both. That is what you claimed.[/qupte] In the case of the former, you actually want a cite that he was acquitted? In the case of the former, ask 100 people what Clinton was impeached for and how many do you think will say “blow job” as opposed to “petrjury and obstruction?” > [@](#): > > And cites for the claim that he was impeached for a blowjob and that everyone knows it. Or, a retraction of either of those claims is also acceptable if you can’t produce a cite. No retraction forthcoming. Sorry. He was impeached for a blow job and everybody knows it, including you. Impeachment is a _political_ process, not a legalistic one and the _political_ reality is that Congress hoped that a sex scandal would turn political opinion against Clinton. The technical charge were irrelevant, Politically, it was always about Clinton getting a blow job. > [@](#): > > That is the key flaw in your argument, even if I accept the rest of it. We’ve been over this many times. Clinton lied. No ifs ands or buts about it. I can dredge up that last thread on that subject (I think it was in the Pit) if you insist on perpetuatiing that piece of misinformation. If you want to dredge this up, you will lose. The manner in which the question was worded allowed Clinton to say “no” without technically lying. He was only asked about what he had done to her, not what she had done to him, and “oral sex” was specifically crossed off of the definition of “sex” by the judge. ---
**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, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-bush/346224/36 "2006-02-27T03:00:16Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > The questions asked about Lewinski were relavent to the Paul Jones lawsuit No they weren’t. > [@](#): > > which is what Starr was investigating at the time. No he wasn’t. Starr did not widen his investigation to include Paula Jones until _after_ Clinton had given his deposition. At the time Starr fed the PJ team with the blow job dirt, he was _not_ investigating the PJ case. ---
**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 27, 2006, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-bush/346224/37 "2006-02-27T03:05:06Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > In any case, the Clinton impeachment shows just how deeply politically the process is and how little actually needs to be substantiated or even alleged. That’s the rub isn’t? I think this is what galls more than anything. We had Clinton under the microscope for 7 years in something that can only be described as a witch hunt. Indeed the original reason for the hunt was a big dead end so it continued till something, anything could be found. We then get a holier-than-thou republican house bloviating on the horrors of Clinton lying to congress about whether or not he got a blowjob. Move to today and read the OP again. Check out the links. If Bill Clinton was worthy of starting impeachment proceedings against how in the world can someone suggest Bush is not worthy of the same. The things Bush may be guilty of…any of them…FAR surpass anything Clinton did. Impeach too much for you just yet because nothing is “proven” then fine. Get Ken Starr back here, hand him $40,000,000 and give him 7 years to climb up the president’s ass with a microscope (and yes I know Bush does not have 7 years left in office). If Bush comes out clean after that then great. ---
**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 27, 2006, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-bush/346224/38 "2006-02-27T03:13:53Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I can’t see even a Democratically controled Congress impeaching Bush over the Iraq war as long as we still have troops fighting there. Guantanimo? No way. NSA wiretapping issue? Nope. Congress might force him to stop, but they won’t impeach him over it. What does troops in Iraq have to do with anything? The President becomes immune to being held accountable for anything and can do as he pleases as long as he has troops fighting somewhere? Considering the “war on terror” is likely to exist for the next few generations do American presidents now have carte blanche to do as they please? Constitution and congress be damned? Impweached or not the troops in Iraq will likely get on with business as usual. I cannot see how they would be adversely affected if the president was impeached. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2006, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-bush/346224/39 "2006-02-27T03:47:42Z")
I think **John mace** is right about that. Remember that impeachment is fundamentally a political process–no president is going to get impeached for starting a war for which we still have troops committed (albeit as an occupying force). ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2006, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-bush/346224/40 "2006-02-27T03:56:00Z")
I have a dream. My dream is that someday this board starts a thread on impeachment and it immediately gets bogged down into a shouting match over Andrew Johnson’s impeachment. It’d be a refreshing change, don’t you think? Addressing the OP, the Constitution gives Congress the power to impeach the President if he commits “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”. I’m no fan of the our President, but I’d have a difficult time arguing and of his activities constituted treason or bribery. So the issue would become whether or not his activities constituted a high crime or misdemeanor, for which there is no legal definition. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-bush/346224.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-bush/346224.md?page=3)