Is there any legal justification for impeachment of Obama

As already explained, legitimacy has jack-all to do with Congress’ authority. As to the lying under oath assertion, you’d have a lot of trouble explaining what that lie was, and why he was never prosecuted for it in the legal system.

How do you feel about Bush lying us into a war? :dubious:

The address is not constitutionally required. And if you’re going to impeach for “lying” in that address, then you better line 'em up, because the opposition party is always going to be able to find a lie in that speech. Posters here seem to think that there is some objective lie measuring device that we can use to determine if something is a lie or not. What the president gives in his STOTU speech is his assessment of the situation, and certain predictions about the future and what he plans to do. Much of that is open to interpretation.

Whether you feel it’s worthy of impeachment or not is one thing, but in terms of what the lie was, he made false statements to Paula Jones’s lawyers during a deposition.

  1. He claimed that he and Monica Lewinsky never had a sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky. He did.

  2. He claimed that he didn’t recall if he had been alone with her, when he had (it’s possible that he really didn’t remember that, I guess, but ‘I don’t recall’ isn’t a get out of jail free card when it comes to perjury.)

  3. He claimed he received “one or two gifts” from Lewinsky, when it turned out he received over 40.

  4. He claimed he last met with her earlier than he actually did meet with her, relevant because in between when he claimed he last met with her and actually did, she had been subpoenaed by Jones’s lawyers.

  5. He claimed the first person to tell him about the subpoenas was the White House Counsel. It was actually Vernon Jordan, earlier than when he claimed he first found out about it.

Obviously, it’s debatable whether these things rise to the level of a perjury charge, and Clinton’s attorneys argued they shouldn’t. But it’s not an absurd charge to make,

And he wasn’t prosecuted for it because he made a deal with the independent prosecutor to not indict, in exchange for Clinton admitting he gave misleading testimony, have his license to practice law in Arkansas suspended for 5 years, and pay $25,000 .

??? Article II, Section 3, “He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information on the State of the Union…”

What’s the difference if he lied in a speech or in a memo?

Bush lied to Congress about a situation involving troops going to war. Clinton lied about having sex. (In the old days, it was called protecting a woman’s honor. No one had any damn business asking the question in the first place.)

The false equivalence is specious, at best, and absurdly facile partisanship…at best.


Back when this happened, I danced this dance with you, and I am loathe to actually deal with you again. So I’ll simply refer you back to this old thread where this was all explained to you, repeatedly and with cites. Yet, after all that (and other threads) you still play the “he was never criminally prosecuted so there was no lying under oath” game. Funny how that logic never really carries over to Bush or his administration when it’s mentioned they too must not have broken any laws because they were never prosecuted.

That recollection lies entirely inside your own imagination - a land which is not sufficiently interesting for me to explore, but which I’m truly glad you find so comfortable.

The reality-based version, for the rest of you: He was never prosecuted, therefore the prosecutor didn’t think the case would hold up in court (note for emphasis to the slower learners among us: No, that does *not *mean there was nothing there, even though there actually wasn’t - read as often and as slowly as required), with or without the consideration that he had *created *the situation himself. Since Starr couldn’t admit that to his sponsors or himself, he used it to conspire with the House investigation so it could be used to destroy his target anyway. Part of that effort required spreading the nonsense that an impeachment is simply the legal system’s way of prosecuting federal officials, as a way of making it appear legitimate. That effort succeeded all too well.

You know what, it’s not worth it.

Using ordinary definitions of the word, yes. Using the ones provided to him by Starr’s team (in illegal conspiracy with Scaife’s, but that’s another matter), then no, it does depend on the meaning of “is”.

Except perjury has to be relevant to the case. This wasn’t.

Recollection again, and also irrelevant in substance. Ibid. for the rest of your list.

Perhaps not, but don’t fall into the same trap as Counselor Hamlet, okay?

Long, long after the impeachment, as a way to end it all, as we discussed rather thoroughly at the time. Did you forget that part, as well as how the Jones suit in which the irrelevant, personally-targeted deposition came to be authorized, and how it got dismissed for lack of any substance? Did you?

Or, as Charlie Sheen would put it, “Losing!”

"“As a consequence of his conduct in the Jones v. Clinton civil suit and before the federal grand jury, President Clinton incurred significant administrative sanctions. The Independent Counsel considered seven non-criminal alternative sanctions that were imposed in making his decision to decline prosecution: (1) President Clinton’s admission of providing false testimony that was knowingly misleading, evasive, and prejudicial to the administration of justice before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas; (2) his acknowledgement that his conduct violated the Rules of Professional Conduct of the Arkansas Supreme Court; (3) the five-year suspension of his license to practice law and $25,000 fine imposed on him by the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas; (4) the civil contempt penalty of more than $90,000 imposed on President Clinton by the federal court for violating its orders; (5) the payment of more than $850,000 in settlement to Paula Jones; (6) the express finding by the federal court that President Clinton had engaged in contemptuous conduct; and (7) the substantial public condemnation of President Clinton arising from his impeachment.”

Your argument basically comes down to ‘Clinton’s perjury didn’t really matter because I like him’.

Either you accept that lying under oath is a bad thing and should be punished or you don’t. I happen to fall into the ‘It’s a BAD thing’ camp myself. Regardless of how Clinton ended up giving testimony, the fact is that since he got there he HAS to tell the truth. He didn’t.

One of the big problems this country has right now is that both sides play ‘He/She is on my side so I will defend them no matter what’. It is stupid and damages everyone involved. We need to push those we elect to hold themselves to a higher standard. If we let them off when they do not meet those standards we are only hurting ourselves. That goes for Republicans and Democrats alike.

But of course, that will never happen.


Oh, for fuck’s sake. He was answering a question about what his options were. He answered, correctly, that there were only two options, one of which no one is talking about, and that wouldn’t really be an option unless things got worse. It has nothing to do with what is going on now.

Anyone wishing to make a bet on whether or not there will be an impeachment vote in the House this term? And just to make sure it’s a partisan issue and not some crazy unknown, legit cause that comes up in the next 4 years, let’s stipulate that no more than 10% of the Democrats in the House contribute to the yeah vote.

I really don’t understand the whole ‘Benghazi’ thing, Sure ultimately the President is responsible for everything that happens on his watch, but where would that leave George W. Bush with 9/11?

Couldn’t they impeach Obama for teleporting to Mars and getting gay married there when he was in college? If that ain’t a “high crime” I don’t know what is.

It’s called “reality”, which seems to be a foreign concept to conservatives these days.

Apparently yes as there is no “objective lie measuring device that we can use to determine if something is a lie or not”.

It doesn’t have anything to do with Starr’s team. The alleged perjury happened during the deposition for the Jones lawsuit, before Starr started investigating that.

The “and Misdemeanors” part of the Constitution, if you look at what the word meant back in the late 1700s, meant political malfeasance, in addition to the ‘minor crime such as shoplifting’ meaning it has, now. Congress can impeach merely because they don’t like the use the president made of powers he unquestionably has. The Democrats in congress, who claimed, after the fact, that their ‘use of force’ authorization didn’t give GWB permission to start a war, could have chosen to impeach him for it. Obama can be impeached merely for signing a bill congress handed him last week, if congress so chooses. There is no need at all for ‘legal justification’ to impeach. All it requires is the will of the majority of congress to get rid of the guy.

That said, I don’t see it happening to Obama anytime soon, especially just after him having won reelection, unless someone stumbles upon an actual murdered body in his closet. BTW, has anyone seen Michelle, lately? :smiley:

So, when a president says he has a plan that will reduce unemployment by 2% in the next year, and that doesn’t happen, we just invoke “reality” and impeach him? If that’s the norm, then a president will simply say nothing quantitative. And that improves things, how?

And even then, it better be a Christian or a Jew. Muslim? Just put it on the pile with the others.