nixon vs. bush impeachment

[frostyhawaiian]

@Frank

I’ve fixed the thread title, as even Nixon deserves to have his name spelled correctly.

sooorrryyyy

[Frank]

@frostyhawaiian

sooorrryyyy

your welcum

[BobLibDem]

It won’t happen. As noted, the Pubbies will have the majority in the House until at least 2007, and even then if a new Democratic House impeached him, they’d never get the margin needed to convict in the Senate.

I for one am terrified of it happening. If you’re rooting for impeachment, repeat these words to yourself: “President Dick Cheney”. Should cure any thoughts you have toward impeachment.

[NurseCarmen]

With every drumbeat of scandal coming out of Republican Washington, the ever more slightly the Democrats come closer to having a stellar 2006.

Not that the Dems could ever be organized enough to pull that off. It’s just that the Republicans might be corrupt enough to hand it to them.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Frank

There are apparently no newspapers with balls these days.

I blame well-lit security-camera’d parking garages.

[BarnOwl]

[QUOTE=NurseCarmen]
With every drumbeat of scandal coming out of Republican Washington, the ever more slightly the Democrats come closer to having a stellar 2006.

It’s my wet dream, but could come true if electronic voting machines are banned nationwide.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

I dunno. Even if there were to be a Bush-Cheney simulpeachment (extreeeeeeeeeeemly unlikely), the thought of a Hastert Administration doesn’t fill me with glee…

[BrainGlutton]

@Elendil's Heir

I dunno. Even if there were to be a Bush-Cheney simulpeachment (extreeeeeeeeeeemly unlikely), the thought of a Hastert Administration doesn’t fill me with glee…

But it wouldn’t happen, anyway, unless the Dems had won control of the House.

Which means we would have a Pelosi Administration! Glee, glee, plenty of glee!

[Martin_Hyde]

The President is only supposed to be impeached for High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Anyone know of any High Crimes or Misdemeanors he’s committed?

And if you say, “He’s evil!! He’s got us in a war!!” that doesn’t count.

I’m talking actual, statutory crimes here (the only kind that actually are crimes.)

Anyways, a lot of people don’t understand just what Nixon was doing with Watergate.

He was committing completely domestic illegal wiretapping for the pure purpose of political gain (spying on the Democrats so he would have a better chance of getting elected.) And that’s just a PART of his dirty tricks. He was using the government to intimidate political opponents, ordered secret bombings, and obviously ordered the Watergate break-in.

Then, he broke the law most explicitly in trying to cover it up. Nixon broke many laws that are specifically prohibited by statute and carry with them specific penalties (making them substantive criminal laws.)

Bush, at worst, has overstepped his authority as executive. That means he may (or may not, only the SCOTUS can settle that) have acted extra-constitutionally. Which isn’t something he’s allowed to do, but it is not a “High Crime” or a “Misdemeanor” because there is no statute on the books making it illegal and assigning to it a criminal punishment.

[BrainGlutton]

@BarnOwl

It’s my wet dream, but could come true if electronic voting machines are banned nationwide.

Or if paper trails on those machines are mandated by law. Which will happen, if the Count Every Vote Act passes. See http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=307833; http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oId=18049.

[BrainGlutton]

@Martin Hyde

The President is only supposed to be impeached for High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Anyone know of any High Crimes or Misdemeanors he’s committed?

And if you say, “He’s evil!! He’s got us in a war!!” that doesn’t count.

I’m talking actual, statutory crimes here (the only kind that actually are crimes.)

'Fraid not. Remember, the Constitution does not actually define what “high crimes and misdemeanors” constitute impeachable offenses. And the decision to impeach is left to the House of Representatives, not the Justice Department or the courts. In other words, it is intended to be a political, not a legal, calculation and decision. Certainly, no preliminary indictment or conviction through the criminal justice system is required. Therefore, an “impeachable offense” is whatever the House decides it is.

[Martin_Hyde]

You are indeed correct that impeachable offenses constitute whatever the House says they constitute, but the reading of the constitution and, the practice of the House has generally been that there must be some pretense of a crime being committed for the House to consider impeachment. A notable exception would be the Johnson impeachment, however when the Senate voted to acquit Johnson, the Senator that cast the deciding vote said he did it because he did not think the President should be removed over politics.

And indeed, outside of the microcosm of the ultra-leftist, lunatic fringe left that is the SDMB, most people think there needs to be some criminal element to justify an impeachment.

In society at large, “I don’t like what he’s doing” isn’t enough to justify an impeachment. And by and large that’s why the Democrats haven’t even mentioned the word “impeachment.”

To say that impeachment was intended to be a political process is extremely dubious. Any student of history would find that that is not what impeachment is, and that it was specifically designed to remove a leader who was acting illegally.

And before you jump on the whole Clinton thing, remember, an independent prosecutor filed charges against Clinton. The necessitated some action on the part of the House. I think a censure would have been more appropriate, as I don’t think obstruction of justice and perjury (at least of that nature) constitute proper cause for impeachment.

[Martin_Hyde]

@BrainGlutton

'Fraid not. Remember, the Constitution does not actually define what “high crimes and misdemeanors” constitute impeachable offenses. And the decision to impeach is left to the House of Representatives, not the Justice Department or the courts. In other words, it is intended to be a political, not a legal, calculation and decision. Certainly, no preliminary indictment or conviction through the criminal justice system is required. Therefore, an “impeachable offense” is whatever the House decides it is.

Also you should look at the word in my post, “supposed.” I wasn’t claiming it had to be that way.

[XT]

@frostyhawaiian

If I’m not mistaken nixion was forced to resign because of illegal wire tapping and other evil deeds so what the difference now. is it lack of cahones.

I think its broken sentences and lack of capitalization. Even I don’t write this bad and I’m famous for poor writing skills.
I don’t think any but a partisan could see a true parallel between Bush and Nixon…at least at this point in time. It may come out that Bush indeed HAS broken the law and so deserves to be impeached. Even if he did though his crimes would be different from Nixon’s. Of course I’m no lawyer so perhaps my view on this is simplistic (that should get a laugh anyway ).

@RTFirefly

Yeah, I know just how large a quantity of finite improbability we’d need here. But a guy can dream.

lol, certainly. Of course, if you only get half of your dream…well, I for one would be more scared of that then simply riding out Bush until '08.

@ElvisL1ves

The flat insistence by the Bricker faction that it ain’t gonna happen has an air of desperation about it, doesn’t it?

Does it? I’d say the ‘Bricker faction’ has an increasing air of frustration and exasperation about it on this subject…I see no sign they are desparate. YOUR faction however…

-XT

[ElvisL1ves]

@xtisme

I’d say the ‘Bricker faction’ has an increasing air of frustration and exasperation about it on this subject…I see no sign they are desparate. YOUR faction however…

Enjoy.

[XT]

A smattering of polls (some commissioned by partisan groups) has found considerable, if often qualified, support for impeachment. But Frank Newport, the director of the Gallup Poll, told E&P recently that he would only run a poll on the subject if the idea really started to gain mainstream political traction, and not until then. He noted that he had been besieged with emails calling for such a survey, but felt that was a “well-organized” action.

Very enjoyable ElvisL1ves…thanks for the link! I’m not going to hold my breath here but I can understand if you feel the need.

-XT

[ElvisL1ves]

Note the increasing frequency with which the subject is being discussed, while you’re whistling past it. Zogby, once “the conservatives’ favorite pollster”, did this 6 months ago, for crying out loud, even before the illegal wiretapping and official torture polices got wide traction:

In a sign of the continuing partisan division of the nation, more than two-in-five (42%) voters say that, if it is found that President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should hold him accountable through impeachment. While half (50%) of respondents do not hold this view, supporters of impeachment outweigh opponents in some parts of the country.

Among those living in the Western states, a 52% majority favors Congress using the impeachment mechanism while just 41% are opposed; in Eastern states, 49% are in favor and 45% opposed. In the South, meanwhile, impeachment is opposed by three-in-five voters (60%) and supported by just one-in-three (34%); in the Central/Great Lakes region, 52% are opposed and 38% in favor.

Impeachment is overwhelmingly rejected in the Red States—just 36% say they agree Congress should use it if the President is found to have lied on Iraq, while 55% reject this view; in the “Blue States” that voted for Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry in 2004, meanwhile, a plurality of 48% favors such proceedings while 45% are opposed.

A large majority of Democrats (59%) say they agree that the President should be impeached if he lied about Iraq, while just three-in-ten (30%) disagree. Among President Bush’s fellow Republicans, a full one-in-four (25%) indicate they would favor impeaching the President under these circumstances, while seven-in-ten (70%) do not. Independents are more closely divided, with 43% favoring impeachment and 49% opposed.

Still enjoying it?

[XT]

@ElvisL1ves

Still enjoying it?

Yep. You got to realize though that its a win/win for me. IF Bush gets impeached (something I personally estimate at something near a snowball in hell) then I win…I would LOVE to see him go down hard (though I’d be a bit frightened with the prospect of Chaney in charge…unless you guys manage RT’s twofer). I can be big enough to eat crow on this if he goes down…happily. Start a XT crow eating thread if it happens and I’ll join in the jeering. If he doesn’t get impeached I win because I don’t think there is a snowballs chance in hell and I think that a lot of you are so blinded by your partisan hatred of the man that you have let your wits become clouded wherever he is concerned.

So, either way…I’m enjoying the hell out of it as always Elvis! Its endlessly amusing to me to see you and the Republicans endless squabbles. Especially since there is an even less that a snowballs chance in hell that anyone I vote for ever getting in power so I can sit back and feel superior.

-XT

[ElvisL1ves]

@xtisme

I think that a lot of you are so blinded by your partisan hatred of the man that you have let your wits become clouded wherever he is concerned.

Saying that he lied us into a war is a simple statement of fact, and there is no reason for you or anyone to be “enjoying” it. Gawdamighty, man.

[XT]

@ElvisL1ves

Saying that he lied us into a war is a simple statement of fact, and there is no reason for you or anyone to be “enjoying” it. Gawdamighty, man.

I suppose your definition of what constitutes ‘it’ has expanded some from how I read your original question. I wasn’t talking to his lieing us into war when I said I was enjoying ‘it’ Elvis. But Merry Christmas and Happy New year to you anyway.

-XT