The OP is about ‘how’ rather than ‘why’ or ‘whether’. There is no realistic possibility that the Dems will have that opportunity.
That said, in many ways they’ve dodged a bullet. With the Iraqi war an unequivocal failure and the relevant facts on the public record, it is a failure entirely of the Repubs making.
Any small steering of the Iraq war, even at this stage, would taint the Dems with some of the muck of the debacle. As it stands, it’s a beacon of Republican governance the Dems can drum on about for decades. Longer even, as the wash of incriminating evidence comes out with time.
Going to show my ignorance here but…really? There is no legal definition for ‘high crimes or misdermeanor’(s)??? I suppose if I knew that I wouldn’t have even bothered starting this thread at all. If its solely political and a sitting president can be impeached for anything or nothing then I’m frankly surprised it hasn’t happened more often.
I’m also surprised the Dems haven’t tried harder to get something on Bush. What? They don’t have $40 million to spend on a trumped up investigation?
So, to cut to the chase here. There is absolutely no way to resolve this except through partisan finger pointing? If you hate Bush then obviously he needs to be impeached, should be impeached, and is only not impeached because the evil Republicans control both houses? Ditto if you are a Bush supporter then obviously he shouldn’t be impeached because…well, just because? There is no formula, no legal precidence or protocol or proceedure. Just…politics? Really?
Well, here it is. Unforturnately you have to pretty much read the whole thing to follow Bricker’s argument, although the key parts are on pages 2 - 5. But, I’ll just quote some of the other posters’ conclusions:
From Hamlet:
And from Hentor the Barbarian:
Neither of those two posters is what you’d call a right-wing apologist, either.
That is correct. The Constitution says the President may be impeached for ‘high crimes or misdemeanors’ , but leaves the definition of what constitutes those offenses up to Congress.
What good is political power unless you can use it to destroy your enemies?
If this is true then I absolutely accept that the president won’t be impeached as long as Republicans control both houses…and probably would be impeached if the Dems did instead. Obviously there is no right or wrong to impeachment in this case…only the power to either do it or not. Therefore its meaningless to base anything whatsoever on impeaching Bush…good or bad. Or impeaching ANY president for that matter.
That’s right. I’m surprised you didn’t know that. That’s what we’ve all been trying to get across. You seemed to be under the impression that there is any sort of legalistic parameter or requirement for what is impeachable. There isn’t. When we say that an impeachable offense is whatever Congress says it is, that is a statement of literal truth, not cynicism or hyperbole. Congress can literally impeach a President for excessive flatulence if it wants to, and it can choose not to impeach for a series of chainsaw murders. It’s a completely arbitrary standard, completely at the whim of Congress.
They don’t have control of Congress. If they did, they well might have tried impeachment by now.
Basically, this is all correct except for your assumption that many people want to impeach Bush just because “they hate him.”
So Hamlet assures us that Clinton lied under oath without saying what Clinton said that wasn’t true and he assures us that a jury would ignore the actual wording of the question and convict anyway.
Hentor said he found Clinton’s answer fundamentally dishonest. I might agree that his parsimony was deceptive but I don’t agree that he lied.
Starr is the one who fed the blow job question to the PJ team. When he did that, he had no official involvement in the case. He fed PJ the question as a deliberate attempt to manufacture a perjury case.
Um…you just told me that impeachment basically means nothing…its at the whim of the Congress. So…of course they would be impeaching him because ‘they hate him’, or politically disagree with him, or just don’t like the way he smirks appearently. Its a meaningless yardstick appearently, meaning anything or nothing at all depending on where one sits on the political fence…no? A Bush supporter could just as easily tell me just the opposite…with as much validity since impeachment is whatever Congress SAYS it is. This is the very definition of ‘partisan’.
No, I didn’t actually realize this…I guess I’m more ignorant of how the US operates than I thought I was, so I learned a lot out of this thread today. I’m not sure where I got the impression, but I thought impeachment meant more than I’m finding out in this thread it actually does mean. As I said, I’m surprised it doesn’t happen more often…after all, how often does a single party control the Presidency AND both houses? Couldn’t be all that often I wouldn’t think (though now that I think about it I suppose the Dems HAVE done so quite often…hm).
That’s pretty much the way I see it. It’s strictly a political process. And that’s why I always argue when someone tries to maintain that the impreachment was over perjury, not a blowjob. That’s just Republicans and conservatives trying to retain some shred of dignity after they (or their fellows) engaged in a slobbering orgy of hysterical wailing over blowjobs and human humidory and such. They don’t DESERVE any dignity after what they did, and they aren’t going to be allowed any so long as I am here to remind them that the thing they got all aroused about was somebody else’s blowjob, in particular, Bill Clinton’s dick being sucked by Monica Lewinsky’s lips. That was the SUBSTANCE of the whole damned circus, it’s what was in the papers and on TV and on the radio for months, it was what the legislators were talking about in their usual mealy-mouthed, weasally way, and it’s what it will always be remembered as, even by the partisans who try to insist it was that other thing that no one but them believes it was.
You don’t fool me, partisans. Your lips say “perjury” but your eyes say “blowjob.”
Well, not literally anything or nothing. The president has to break a law. So, to use two examples already brought up, haircuts and flatulence wouldn’t qualify. But if Congress had wanted to impeach Grant for getting a speeding ticket they could have.
And to answer one of the other questions in the OP:
The administration’s contention is that acts like wiretapping, detention, and torture are not illegal despite laws being on the book saying they are. They base this on the congressional authorization given to the President in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks to prosecute the war against terrorism. The administration has argued that this authorizes the President to use any means available to fight that war, including acts that would otherwise be illegal.
Is this true, though? I mean, I know Clinton had to pay a fine and surrender his legal license for being less than forthcoming, but his formal perjury charge was never pursued, right? So, technically, he never broke a law.
OTOH, I wonder that if this story (that is, there is very good evidence that a sitting president was involved in heinous crimes) was the honest truth, or, if a sitting president was investigated, convicted, and sentenced to prison could he escape impeachment? Let’s say he was dead set against resigning and was on record saying that the only way to get him out of office was to remove him by Senate action. Let’s be charitable and say that there is something like a Jim Crow law in the state law somewhere, and we elect a civil rights crusader who has broken that law during a demonstration. He is tried and sentenced in that state and told to surrender to state authorities for incarceration sometime after his inauguration. Could he serve his term and still be president? Could he pardon himself? I get that Congress is under no obligation to pursue an impeachment decision, but are there any laws which dictate removal from office besides impeachment?
Nope…they can impeach for flatulence and bad haircuts if they really wanted to. I forget the thread that pointed this out (awhile ago now) but since there is NO appeal process for an impeachment there is absolutley no one to gainsay congress for impeaching a president who farts too much. Congress impeaches it is a done deal…whatever their reasons.
That said Congress presumably has to answer to the voters should they embarass themselves and the country for impeaching for excessive flatulence or a bad haircut. I expect the voters would take note and be none too happy so Bush telling Kennedy to “pull his finger” probably will never see impeachment (besides of the two I would bet Kennedy is the gassier of the two).
I do not know if it makes any difference but I asked in this thread in GQ if a sitting president may be criminally prosecuted without being impeached.
The answer is apparently a legal question mark but it seems a good bet that he can be criminally prosecuted (per this link (PDF) provided by Gfactor) without Congress impeaching first.
That said I am not sure who it is up to to bring such criminal charges. The Attorney General? If so I guess such a possibility is even less likey then pubs impeaching Bush.
This isn’t true. Congress has the power to decide what is legal and illegal because they can write laws. But once a law is written, it isn’t up to congress to decide when someone violates said law. For example there are federal laws prohibiting civil rights violations, and Congress doesn’t get to decide on a case-by-case basis what is and is not a violation of civil rights. That’s up the the U.S. Attorneys and U.S. District court judges.
Whether or not congress decides to impeach a President or not has nothing to do with whether or not said action is an illegal action. As has already been said, there’s nothing requiring impeachment for an illegal action or prohibiting it for a legal one. The decision to impeach or not isn’t a decision of legality.
Yes, this is something people seem to be confused about. It’s certainly arguable he didn’t lie in the deposition, he specifically asked how sexual relations were defined for the sake of the deposition, and answered that he didn’t have sexual relations with Lewinsky because in his opinion what he did did not match up to the definition spelled out in the deposition.
This assumes that Clinton exclusively had oral intercourse with Lewinsky, I wouldn’t be surprised if her and Clinton did more than that.
But as for whether or not he lied, Clinton lied to his wife when he told her they had done nothing (Hillary says this in her book), Clinton lied to the nation when he got on TV and said “I did not have sexual relations with this woman blah blah blah.”
