Three More and I'll Impeach

[Zoe]

I would be concerned about removing Bush from office without removing Cheney at exactly the same time. Whoever goes first will be pardoned by the other. That’s why I don’t have my hopes up for this. I certainly think that Bush deserves impeachment just for what he has done to our Constitution.

[Bricker]

@BrainGlutton

I’ll take a stab: Violating/ignoring the Geneva Conventions is a crime under international law, the kind you get tried for at the Hague. A case could be made that fabricating a casus belli also qualifies. W is guilty of both.

What is the penalty?

If it’s a crime under international law, is there a penalty? If Bush were submit to the jurisdiction of the ICJ and they tried him, what penalty could they impose? Where is it written?

Calling this a “crime” is a stretch. Again, the House could agree with you; there’s no “crime” unless and until they say there’s one. But this is a fantasy. The House, realisitically, will not impeach a US President based on a "crime"defined only by international law.

The WH’s use of the RNC server for its e-mails violates the Presidential Records Act.

What portion, specifically, of the Act do you claim was violated? And what evidence do you have that, to the extent that there was a violation, that the President has personal criminal liability for it? Can the Exchange 2000 admin at the White House make a decision that sends the President to jail? Does W really understand what a DNS MX record is? Wow.

Whether the attorney-firings scandal involved criminal conduct is a more complex question. See this thread.

Since you’re merely claiming that this is a complex question, rather than definitively establishing criminal liability for the President, I guess we’ll wait until you feel the question has been resolved.

The Republicans’ use of “caging lists” to suppress Dem votes in the 2004 elections is a crime (I finally found statutory authority for that), but there’s no proof (yet) of personal knowledge or complicity on W’s part.

In other words, this does not support your case.

If AG Gonzalez lied to Congress, that would be a crime and I doubt W’s complicity would be difficult to prove.

On the contrary, how would you prove it?

[I_m_Ron_Burgundy]

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers has said that if three more Congress Members get behind impeachment he will start the impeachment proceedings.

If I fly three more missions, they’ll let me go home!

[Full_Metal_Lotus]

Look at the big picture …

Impeachment would probably work well for the Republicans… Look at Nixon.
The mess of the Vietnam war, Water Gate and other forces led to a point where Nixon resigned, due to the threat of impeachment.

And the problems fell in the Democrats lap.

And Carter begat Reagan, which begat Bush, which Begat Clinton, which begat Bush…

And the problems fell in the democrats lap.

I am a Canadian. The veiw from the outside is that Republicans mess things up, democrats clean it up, and then republicans get in again to mess things up again. It is actually a pretty common viewpoint up here.

I know I am being over simplistic, and will probably piss off a bunch of people (Goddam Cunuckistanis, sticking their pnko noses in!). But, hey… I’m just saying…eh.

Regards
FML

[Der_Trihs]

@DrDeth

And, any Party with a Majority can Impeach. The GOP did it to Clinton. If the Dems do it to Bush, then it will pretty much happen every time the oppostiion party gets a majority.

The “Impeachment” of Clinton was a travesty. Hopefully if the Dems show some restraint we won’t have this going on every 4 years or so.

Probably not. If Bush gets away with what he’s done, the next time a capable right winger gets into office he’ll turn the Presidency into an out-and-out dictatorship, and the Democrats won’t be impeaching anyone again, ever. Even assuming they are still allowed into office.

[jebert]

The best thing by far that I’ve seen on impeachment is this segment from Bill Moyers Journal.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/transcript4.html

–back in 1974, after Nixon had resigned, and said, “We must continue the impeachment process.” It’s-- it is under the Constitution certainly appropriate to do so. And we must continue it because we have to close the circle on presidential power. And the leaders in Congress, the Democratic leaders in Congress at the time said, “No, the-- country has suffered too much.” Well, this is the problem. Our leaders treat us as children. They think that we cannot handle a serious dialogue about the future of our republic, about what it will be and how it will operate. And so, you know, to an extent, we begin to act like children. We, you know, follow other interests. We decide to be entertained rather than to be citizens.
Well, you know, and Bruce makes frequent references to the fall of the Roman Empire. You know, that’s the point at where the fall comes. It doesn’t come because of a bad leader. It doesn’t come because of a dysfunctional Congress. It comes when the people accept that-- role of the child or of the subject and are no longer citizens. And so I think this moment becomes so very, very important because we know the high crimes and misdemeanors.
The people themselves have said, if the polls are correct, that, you know, something ought to be done. If nothing is done, if we do not step forward at this point, if we do not step up to this point, then we have, frankly, told the people, you know, you can even recognize that the king has no clothes, but we’re not gonna put any clothes on him. And at that point, the country is in very, very dire circumstances.

The basic point in the piece is that we cannot continue to allow Bush and Cheney to ride roughshod over the Constitution because the precedents they are setting will, if unchecked, be used and expanded by succeeding administrations. Impeachment is provided by the Constitution for Congress to use as a check and balance on the Executive branch. If it isn’t used on a runaway administration, it becomes virtually null and void.

[RTFirefly]

@ITR champion

As any Republican who remembers 1998 can testify, a party that sets its heart on impeachment has to abandon most of its other goals for the space of about a year. So if the Democrats try for impeachment, we’ll enter the 2008 election season with no accomplishments except throwing a spitwad at a lame duck President. Far better to focus on the legislative agenda that we promised in 2006.

As McClatchy noted the other day, that agenda’s already being bollixed up by the Senate GOP’s willingness to block cloture on practically everything.

If you’ve got a solution to that, then you might have a point. But right now, the Dems can’t pass legislation on account of GOP blocking cloture, and its ability to exercise its oversight authority has been substantially curtailed by the White House’s extensive use of Executive Privilege, combined with its moving of decision-making processes that would normally take place in the Cabinet departments, into the White House.

So they might as well impeach.

[Bricker]

@jebert

The basic point in the piece is that we cannot continue to allow Bush and Cheney to ride roughshod over the Constitution because the precedents they are setting will, if unchecked, be used and expanded by succeeding administrations. Impeachment is provided by the Constitution for Congress to use as a check and balance on the Executive branch. If it isn’t used on a runaway administration, it becomes virtually null and void.

Not everybody accepts that this is a “runaway administration.” Not everyone believes that Bush and Cheney are riding roughshod over the Constitution. In fact, if challenged to point to a single violation of established constitutional law (as opposed to merely what you think the Constitution SHOULD say) you cannot.

So what you mean here, apparently, is you don’t like the direction they are taking our understanding of the Constitution. That’s a perfectly legitimate gripe. It’s just subtly different from the idea that the are riding roughshod over the Constitution as it stands right now.

But even then… the problem is that you need to convince 218 members of the House that your view is the right one. You are not remotely close to that goal.

[Bricker]

@RTFirefly

As McClatchy noted the other day, that agenda’s already being bollixed up by the Senate GOP’s willingness to block cloture on practically everything.

If you’ve got a solution to that, then you might have a point. But right now, the Dems can’t pass legislation on account of GOP blocking cloture, and its ability to exercise its oversight authority has been substantially curtailed by the White House’s extensive use of Executive Privilege, combined with its moving of decision-making processes that would normally take place in the Cabinet departments, into the White House.

So they might as well impeach.

If this conclusion is so blidingly obvious, why do you suppose that the Democrats, who do after all control the House, have not undertaken it?

[Ludovic]

Ahhh, so we of this message board have to conclusively prove that there are removable offenses before we even advocate impeachment. I wasn’t aware that postings here are held to a higher standard than the actual impeachment vote.

[DrDeth]

Certainly GWB has done enough to be Impeached as it seems like anything is enough to be Impeached. It’s just that Conviction is impossible.

[RTFirefly]

@Bricker

If this conclusion is so blidingly obvious, why do you suppose that the Democrats, who do after all control the House, have not undertaken it?

I’m thinking it’s because they know that if they did, David Broder and Fred Hiatt would tell them what a bunch of haters they’d become, and how the voters would surely repudiate such radicalism. And they’d promptly back down and scurry away like rabbits. So they don’t bother.

I’m not sure why my opinion of why the House Dems do this or don’t do that is of any relevance to this discussion, but there it is. It’s JMHO, YMMV, and I’m not the least bit interested in defending its validity. But you asked.

[mswas]

Impeachment is a waste of tremendous resources designed to win a rhetorical victory right before the President leaves office anyway. If you want to tarnish his historical legacy, then impeachment is for you. Outside of that it is worthless on all practical levels. If they started them two years ago, then it would’ve meant something. Now it’s too little too late.

[athelas]

@Ludovic

Ahhh, so we of this message board have to conclusively prove that there are removable offenses before we even advocate impeachment. I wasn’t aware that postings here are held to a higher standard than the actual impeachment vote.

No, you who are claiming that Bush has committed gross crimes have to back up your claims with objective facts rather than hyperbolic ranting.

I think that an impeachment process would be terrible strategy for the Democrats. Not only will it fail (for reasons described above), it’ll bring out the extremists railing rabidly against Bush, as some members of the SDMB do habitually. No matter how low his approval ratings are, that kind of behavior will not carry well with the essential center and will hurt their chances in 2008.

[Ludovic]

@athelas

No, you who are claiming that Bush has committed gross crimes have to back up your claims with objective facts rather than hyperbolic ranting.

Hmmm, lemme think. One good way to garner objective facts is with an investigation…

[Shodan]

One wonders, with an approval rating as low as the Democrat-controlled Congress’ is, at what point do they assume that they have nothing to lose and go for it?

Obviously it isn’t going to go anywhere, but they aren’t accomplishing anything anyway. Why not try something? Certainly, it’s a nakedly political power grab, but nobody but the most fanatically stupid pretend otherwise.

So, pretend that this is equivalent to 1998. Clinton is impeached and acquitted. Now Bush is impeached, and acquitted. Can we then declare it a wash and go on (perhaps in 2008) and actually try to do something?

Maybe the difference is that the Republicans actually achieved something first. Maybe the Democrats realize they won’t be able to do this.

Regards,
Shodan

[LilShieste]

@Shodan

One wonders, with an approval rating as low as the Democrat-controlled Congress’ is, at what point do they assume that they have nothing to lose and go for it?

Obviously it isn’t going to go anywhere, but they aren’t accomplishing anything anyway. Why not try something? Certainly, it’s a nakedly political power grab, but nobody but the most fanatically stupid pretend otherwise.

So, pretend that this is equivalent to 1998. Clinton is impeached and acquitted. Now Bush is impeached, and acquitted. Can we then declare it a wash and go on (perhaps in 2008) and actually try to do something?

Maybe the difference is that the Republicans actually achieved something first. Maybe the Democrats realize they won’t be able to do this.

Regards,
Shodan

As one of the “fanatically stupid” that you so thoughtfully described, I have to say that I don’t understand how people like you think this is nothing more than a “political power grab”.

That whole illegal wiretapping business - so what? The president says he didn’t do anything wrong, so why should we bother him?
His potential involvement in the actions surrounding the peculiar attorney firings - so what? The president says he didn’t do anything wrong, so why should we bother him?

And the entire premise of “they just want to do it because it was done to Clinton” is utter trash.
LilShieste

[Richard_Parker]

@Shodan

Certainly, it’s a nakedly political power grab, but nobody but the most fanatically stupid pretend otherwise.

In what sense is removing a lame duck President and replacing him with Dick Cheney a nakedly political power grab?

[Der_Trihs]

@Bricker

If this conclusion is so blidingly obvious, why do you suppose that the Democrats, who do after all control the House, have not undertaken it?

Because they are the Democrats. Passive, spineless, terrified of taking a strong stance on anything.

[Bricker]

@Ludovic

Ahhh, so we of this message board have to conclusively prove that there are removable offenses before we even advocate impeachment. I wasn’t aware that postings here are held to a higher standard than the actual impeachment vote.

No. Advocate impeachment all you wish. But don’t do it in a vacuum. Any honest, practical discussion of impeachment ought to include an admission of its… unlikely nature.

Otherwise, let’s just talk about how you’re going to decide how gets the first turn riding on your new pony.