Yes, easy to grasp, the offering was out. Once the offering fell apart, the lockup was waived (why the excuse that he got a permission was needed? Or because he knew why it was waived?). But, this same collapse of the offering put Harken in an extremely precarious financial situation. Bush’s claim that he did NOT trade on inside information sounds even more shaky.
The significance of the letter is not that He violated it. By the time he sold it was no longer operative.
No, the significance is that it contradicts Bush’s statment that he had always intended to sell stock to pay off the loan he used to buy his stake in the Rangers. Heres the timeline
[ul]
[li]loan[/li][li]letter[/li][li]sale[/li][/ul]
So if Bush had intended to sell stock to pay off the loan, why did he sign the letter?. Answer: he’s lying about his motivation for selling.
Yes, why? What’s your concern?
No, only you guys would do that :d&r:. No, the process is to protect the country from a president who is doing it harm, when it can’t wait for the next election. Legality or illegality of his conduct is not decisive. One example I’ve heard would be that of a president who took the oath, then immediately headed for some Caribbean island and refused to perform any of the duties of office. That’s entirely illegal, but it puts the country in clear danger. Somehow the concept also exists that it’s simply a special court for officeholders, otherwise functioning as a normal court - as if even jaywalking required a Senate trial.
Capisce? Now, as has been suggested to you several times, come out of the legal shell and address the question for what it is - political.
ElvisL1ves
Nope, you can’t duck the legal argument like that:
That’s a vague requirement granted, but it does require that something be declared a high crime or a misdemeanor before it becomes an impeachable offense.
In your example, Article II. Section 1 as amended by the 25th Amendment would come into play:
Capisce? 
grem, what you have described is indeed a political process, despite the legal trappings, as I stated. Note that the definition of adequate cause is whatever Congress says it is, and not what any court says - see the word “other” in there, for instance?
Glad we could clear that up.
Oh for crying out loud. I see the word other. Do you see that other is not separated from “high crimes and misdemeanors”? Do you realize that in this case “other” is acting as an adjective with the meaning “Different from that or those implied or specified”? Do you understand that the things specified are legal terms and have a defined meaning?
I provided my cite, time for you to pony up. You 've made an assertion. Let’s see the Supreme Court ruling that it is not necessary for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” to be specified in the impeachment proceedings.
Alright guys, break it up! The exact limitations on impeachable offenses remain, apparently, undefined. It’s a matter of opinion among legal experts.
Here’s a FAQ on impeachment from the American Bar Association. They say, quoting John D. Feerick, Dean of Fordham University School of Law, 1984:
Here’s an article from the Association of the Bar of NYC, Committee of Federal Legislation, 1974. Their position:
Finally from a “backgrounder” provided by the Cornell Legal Information Institute, we have the opinion:
'Zalright?
Thanks, Xeno, for the cites agreeing that it’s up to Congress to decide whatever grounds it feels appropriate. If the law governing impeachments is to be clarified, it will be done by, guess who, Congress - the same body that conducts the process.
Grem, please show where you get the idea that the Supreme Court, or any other court, has any say at all in the matter, other than providing a mostly-ceremonial presiding officer for the actual “trial”.
Obviously the inevitable borrowing of vocabulary from the law has confused a lot of people into thinking the impeachment process is actually *part/i] of the law. But it ain’t.
The Corps of Cadets at Texas A&M uses ranks, uniforms, and procedures imitated from the Army - but that doesn’t make it part of the Army.
The Catholic Church holds trials as part of excommunication procedures - but they’re not part of the law, either.
Clear now, gang?
Now, just to clarify my own views on this matter, there aren’t (yet)grounds for even considering impeachment in Bush’s case. There aren’t any facts available now that weren’t available before the election (to those who had an interest deeper than the mass media’s “Gore is stiff, Bush is stupid” approach, that is). Yet. But there are certainly grounds for beginning a credible political investigation (not an oxymoron), independent of anyone’s legal opinion about the thickness of the whitewash on the old SEC report.
(Don’t blame me, I voted for McCain in the GOP primary)
IMHO:
I am less interested in Mr. Walker-Bush’s actions with Harken Energy stock as I am with his actions after becoming governor of Texas.
Before re-entering politics in 1994, Mr Walker-Bush, who ran and runs on a strict conservative free market, limited government philosophy, revitalized the fortunes of the Texas Rangers baseball club.
Mr. Walker-Bush was a minority owner of that club, but his prominence as the son of the then President of United States, allowed such majority owners as the billionaire Mr. Marvin Rainwater, to rest in the background. Other owners were wealthy individuals with long ties to the Bush family including Mr. Edward Rose (Mr. Rainwater’s business partner), Mr. Fred Malek (who served both Bush the Elder and Richard Nixon), Mr. William Dewitt and Mr. Mercer Reynolds.
These owners raised Mr. Walker-Bush’s investment of $600,000 for 2% of the club to 11% - as a “gift”. When Bush and his partners sold the club in 1998, (as governor of Texas, the stock was in a blind trust), he netted almost $15 million.
Governor Walker-Bush would use his earnings from the sale of that club, in 1998, to buy his Crawford “ranch” (like Mr. Reagan’s “ranch” in Santa Barbara County, Mr. Walker-Bush’s ranch is not an agricultural business) and help finance his run for President.
As most of you know, Mr. Walker-Bush success with the Rangers came at the expense of local taxpayers, who funded the construction of a new baseball stadium - lest they lose their team to a competing city. The wealthy owners of the Rangers had no intention of copying sports owners like Mr. Jack Kent Cooke in building a stadium with their own money.
Nonetheless, Mr. Walker-Bush pushed the sales tax deal through and once the stadium was built, Mr. Walker-Bush became a hands-on “managing general partner”, attending many games, and is credited with increasing attendance - which was also aided by the Rangers improved play.
When Mr. Walker-Bush describes himself as a “successful businessman”, he is referring to his tenure with the Texas Rangers.
At that same time, however, he was active in his father’s administration, acting as described by Mrs. Karen Hughes as “his father’s trusted consigliere”. He was most well-known for his role in the ouster of Mr. John Sununu as White House chief of staff in 1991.
He used these “successes”, and his name recognition to win the govenor’s office in 1994.
The sale of the Rangers was to a Mr. Thomas Hicks, a billionaire and a long-time campaign contributor to the Bush family. (Mr. Hicks is famous for spending $250 million on one player on his losing team.) Mr. Hicks was also the largest contributor to Mr. Walker-Bush’s successful re-election as governor in 1998.
Mr. Hicks was not only a major contributor but also the recipient of Governor Walker-Bush’s “privatization” of the University of Texas’ endowment fund, called the “Permanent University Fund”.
Mr. Hicks, who sits on the UT Board of Regents, (chaired by long-time Bush family friend & “Bush 2000” campaign finance manager Mr. Donald Evans), was able to avoid any public scrutiny of the management of this public institution’s endowment fund of approximately $1.7 billion. Charges that large amounts of this fund were being invested in companies owned or managed by Mr. Hicks’ freinds and business associates could simply not be verified.
Note that Mr. Walker-Bush received the additional shares of the Rangers right from the start. It was not payment for his leadership in pushing the sales tax increase and reviving attendence. But was it payment for future favors as the then President’s consigliere? And even though Bush the Elder was defeated in 1992, did Mr. Walker-Bush return these “gifts” as governor?
To me, anyway this is at best, crony capitalism that would make an Indonesian businessman blush. At worst, it indicates that a Congress that was so hot to investigate the so-called “Whitewater” scandal should look into the details of Mr. Walker-Bush’s tenure in Texas.
dos centavos
It strikes me funny. Impeaching a guy we did’nt even vote in. I don’t know what voice we have any more.
ElvisL1ves,
Maybe this will help. I concede that impeachment naturally has political overtones.
Yes, it is. It is a part of law as defined by the Constitution (House impeaches, Senate convicts). The required majorities are defined. The limits on power are defined. This is a matter of law. The fact that the list of impeachable offenses is not clearly defined makes that determination political, but doesn’t change the fact that once the impeachment process begins, it is governed by the highest law in the land. From a FAQ of the American Bar Association:
[quote]
Q. What is most important to any process of presidential impeachment?
A. What is essential is that the process proceed in a manner that promotes public confidence in it for the good of the nation, consistent with the rule of law as embodied in the Constitution.
[quote]
emphasis added
Sorry, this was off-the-cuff. I was thinking in terms of the role of the SC in interpreting the Constitution. Going back to your original statement, I misread it. I thought you were asserting that the House could simply say that they were impeaching the President and not offer up specific charges. Re-reading it, I have no idea how I got there.