Is President Bush inviting impeachment?

[sarge]

I have noticed that President Bush has made quite a few speeches lately about how things are going here, economically, and in Iraq, which is good, but often he will say something to the effect of "not as long as I am president."

 

It is almost as if he is throwing the gauntlet down before the Democrats. Is it just me, or is he challenging the Democrats to write up articles of impeachment?

[swansont]

What charge(s) would the articles of impeachment include?

[Helix]

What charge(s) would the articles of impeachment include?

 

 

I personally think Bush meant a "over my dead body" sort of thing; not inviting impeachment.

 

But if he were to be impeached, here we go:

 

1. Aiding and abetting violation of the Geneva Convention

2. Violating international laws (including U.S. ones) about prisons and the treatment of prisoners (note: I don't mean Abu Grahib, I'm refering to the secret prisons in East Europe).

3. Violation (along with the NSA) of domestic spying laws.

4. Allowing corporate entities to benefit from war directly; warprofiteering.

5. Knowledge of federal crimes regarding intelligence agents and their released identities.

6. Breaching the Establishment Clause of the Constitution ( a few counts here.)

 

There must be more, but these are a few. Compassionate Conservatism my arse.

[ecoli]

He won't get impeached, despite the ample charges, becasue he has other people to take the hit for him.

[sarge]

I personally think Bush meant a "over my dead body" sort of thing; not inviting impeachment.

.

 

Maybe because he thinks it will make him seem to be committed to what he thinks is best for America come Hell or high water?

[Helix]

Maybe because he thinks it will make him seem to be committed to what he thinks is best for America come Hell or high water?

 

 

Maybe, but a lot of Americans are starting to ask "committed to what?". I'm American and I can safely say I have no godly clue why we invaded Iraq. Bush has shown himself to be incapable and unfit, the only thing he is committed to is oil and legacy, both of which he is losing.

[Pangloss]

I personally think Bush meant a "over my dead body" sort of thing; not inviting impeachment.

 

But if he were to be impeached' date=' here we go:

 

1. Aiding and abetting violation of the Geneva Convention

2. Violating international laws (including U.S. ones) about prisons and the treatment of prisoners (note: I don't mean Abu Grahib, I'm refering to the secret prisons in East Europe).

3. Violation (along with the NSA) of domestic spying laws.

4. Allowing corporate entities to benefit from war directly; warprofiteering.

5. Knowledge of federal crimes regarding intelligence agents and their released identities.

6. Breaching the Establishment Clause of the Constitution ( a few counts here.)

 

There must be more, but these are a few. Compassionate Conservatism my arse.[/quote']

 

Not that I mind or object to your post, Helix, so don't take this the wrong way, but let me address the (unasked) question of whether those would actually constitute grounds for impeachment.

 

1. Too many loopholes. Combatants not wearing uniforms, etc.

2. No evidence that violations took place under orders.

3. This one could get interesting. I think we should discuss in a separate thread. It's a very large and complex subject. I just was too busy today to start a thread on it, alas. I do have some input on the subject if someone wants to start one up, though, and I'll jump in on it tomorrow.

4. No evidence (even less than we had with Clinton, since the Bush handlers learned from Clinton's mistakes vis-a-vis the Hay Adams Hotel video).

5. No evidence.

6. Need more info.

[Jim]

The Republicans control the congress and I think the democrats are too smart to start something that (i) has incredibly thin basis and (ii) they would not control.

 

The event with the most traction is the NSA Order primarily because it is an Executive v. Legislative issue on which some Republican legislators will disagree. Even so, this issue is very thin. The president does have implied powers as the Commander in Chief. I am no expert on Constitutional law but I suspect the worst a Court would do is invalidate the order.

[bascule]

I'd much rather see Cheney go down for his involvement with the Joseph Wilson/Valerie Plame case, but he as fall guys too and they'll likely take the brunt of the charges. I see Bush as more of a stooge figurehead and the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz triumvirate really leveraging more of the control in shaping policy.

 

Bush getting impeached would be one of the worst things I could imagine right now. As much as I dislike Bush and feel he's doing a bad job as president, I fear "President Cheney" would be many times worse...

[Pangloss]

If I remember correctly, a vote of impeachment would require 51% of the House of Representatives anyway (2/3rds to convict). Republicans presently control 53% of the House.

 

The real question here would be what happens after the 2006 congressional election. Should Democrats take a majority, all bets are off.

[sarge]

If I remember correctly' date=' a vote of impeachment would require 51% of the House of Representatives anyway (2/3rds to convict). Republicans presently control 53% of the House.

 

The real question here would be what happens after the 2006 congressional election. Should Democrats take a majority, all bets are off.[/quote']

 

The impeachment process is initiated by the house and equates roughly to an indictment. That requites 50% + 1 to pass.

 

Then the trial is conducted in the Senate with the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS acting as judge and the cases are argued pro and con until both sides are done.

 

The vote, (of all Senators) requires a 2/3 majority, or in todays world, 67 Senators for the President to be found guity.

[Helix]

Not that I mind or object to your post' date=' Helix, so don't take this the wrong way, but let me address the (unasked) question of whether those would actually constitute grounds for impeachment.

 

1. Too many loopholes. Combatants not wearing uniforms, etc.

2. No evidence that violations took place under orders.

3. This one could get interesting. I think we should discuss in a separate thread. It's a very large and complex subject. I just was too busy today to start a thread on it, alas. I do have some input on the subject if someone wants to start one up, though, and I'll jump in on it tomorrow.

4. No evidence (even less than we had with Clinton, since the Bush handlers learned from Clinton's mistakes vis-a-vis the Hay Adams Hotel video).

5. No evidence.

6. Need more info.[/quote']

 

 

I respect your general point on all this, for example #1 does have too many loopholes. But still, torture of enemies is torture and should not be tolerated. There are laws about prisoners and POWs. They may not be wearing uniforms (some of them were actually, the members of the Guard), but they are still Prisoners of War.

 

But still he can be linked to the other charges. The NSA thing he actually admitted to and it is a crime to spy domestically so that's a solid charge. But the CIA (Plame) thing; he's the president and is responsable for what goes on in his administration. First, I believe he knew. But even if he didn't, he still hindered the investigation and didn't immediately acquiesce to the investagators.

 

Seperation of Church and State was him, but it was also a bunch of other people. So even though he is guilty, he couldn't be impeached for it.

 

Warprofiteering can definitely be proved, and I don't ben with Michael Moore style pseudo-logic. if you trace the people you will find it leads from CEO's and Exec's right to the reconstruction; as in the companies are benefiting from the war and most likely pushed for it. While I'm no conspiricy theorist, I believe it isn't insane to think those companies, also his financers for the campaigne, would urge him to enter the conflict.

 

I'll admit, though, that what I just said and said before are also my beliefs and therefore might not be true. Maybe he can't be linked to most of those charges (except for the NSA, there was an Exec. Order allowing illegal practices), but still I believe he is guilty, even if it can't be proven.

 

For the ones he can't be pinned to, it doesn't mean there wasn't a crime. It means he can't directly be charged. Rove is, by leaps and bounds, the guilty party in "Plamegate", and the generals obviously knew about Gitmo and Abu Ghriab.

 

Looking at all of this, I can't help comment how ineffective the GOP has been. They have made a mockery of the U.S. and drove the surplus of a couple trillion into a debt that's actually embarassing. Can't say the Democrats would be much better, right now the American Party has the choice between Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum and that's not a choice, that's a threat.

[bascule]

I should say...

 

Bush getting impeached for repeatedly signing his name on something that violates the Fourth Amendment plus other federal laws

 

Cheney going down as part of the Joseph Wilson/Valerie Plame scandal...

 

= President Hastert!!!

 

I could live with that, at least as much as President Gerald Ford...

[Jim]

I should say...

 

Bush getting impeached for repeatedly signing his name on something that violates the Fourth Amendment plus other federal laws

 

Cheney going down as part of the Joseph Wilson/Valerie Plame scandal...

 

= President Hastert!!!

 

I could live with that' date=' at least as much as President Gerald Ford...[/quote']

 

The democrats know better than to try to impeach on this loser. What I find surprising is that so many people will just assume he didn't have executive authority to act without warrants without having analyzed the issue. It's just a case of people needing to believe that the other side is evil. Kind of like Rush Limbaugh...

[Pangloss]

I respect your general point on all this' date=' for example #1 [i']does[/i] have too many loopholes. But still, torture of enemies is torture and should not be tolerated. There are laws about prisoners and POWs. They may not be wearing uniforms (some of them were actually, the members of the Guard), but they are still Prisoners of War.

 

But still he can be linked to the other charges. The NSA thing he actually admitted to and it is a crime to spy domestically so that's a solid charge. But the CIA (Plame) thing; he's the president and is responsable for what goes on in his administration. First, I believe he knew. But even if he didn't, he still hindered the investigation and didn't immediately acquiesce to the investagators.

 

Seperation of Church and State was him, but it was also a bunch of other people. So even though he is guilty, he couldn't be impeached for it.

 

Warprofiteering can definitely be proved, and I don't ben with Michael Moore style pseudo-logic. if you trace the people you will find it leads from CEO's and Exec's right to the reconstruction; as in the companies are benefiting from the war and most likely pushed for it. While I'm no conspiricy theorist, I believe it isn't insane to think those companies, also his financers for the campaigne, would urge him to enter the conflict.

 

I'll admit, though, that what I just said and said before are also my beliefs and therefore might not be true. Maybe he can't be linked to most of those charges (except for the NSA, there was an Exec. Order allowing illegal practices), but still I believe he is guilty, even if it can't be proven.

 

For the ones he can't be pinned to, it doesn't mean there wasn't a crime. It means he can't directly be charged. Rove is, by leaps and bounds, the guilty party in "Plamegate", and the generals obviously knew about Gitmo and Abu Ghriab.

 

Looking at all of this, I can't help comment how ineffective the GOP has been. They have made a mockery of the U.S. and drove the surplus of a couple trillion into a debt that's actually embarassing. Can't say the Democrats would be much better, right now the American Party has the choice between Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum and that's not a choice, that's a threat.

 

 

Interesting post.

 

Let me just prelude my response by saying that a president can be impeached for anything -- just like being sued. The standard of evidence is "anything the House feels like it is". So if you want to make the point that the president could be impeached, in theory, I certainly have no problem with that.

 

I do agree with many of your points (and you make them well -- that was a nicely written piece), I'm just not sure they're going to be sufficient grounds to bring about an actual impeachment (on a realistic basis), even if Democrats win control in 2006.

 

Still, if you'd asked me back in the day if I thought Clinton would be impeached for lying about having an affair with Monica Lewinsky (etc), I would have said "not in a million years". And the outrage against Bush (right or wrong) is certainly as great or greater than the outrage against Clinton.

[Jim]

Still, if you'd asked me back in the day if I thought Clinton would be impeached for lying about having an affair with Monica Lewinsky (etc), I would have said "not in a million years". And the outrage against Bush (right or wrong) is certainly as great or greater than the outrage against Clinton.

 

Just to be clear here: Clinton was impeached for lying UNDER OATH in the midst of a serious sexual harassment lawsuit which Clinton ultimately paid $850,000 to settle. He followed this up with deception to a grand jury. Clinton's perjury ultimately caused the Federal Judge in the sexual harassment case to sanction him $90,000 and to refer the case for possible disciplinary action with the state bar.

 

At the time, I still would not have impeached. The Republicans let their principles get in the way of common sense on this one.

[Helix]

Interesting post.

 

Let me just prelude my response by saying that a president can be impeached for anything -- just like being sued. The standard of evidence is "anything the House feels like it is". So if you want to make the point that the president could be impeached' date=' in theory, I certainly have no problem with that.

 

I do agree with many of your points (and you make them well -- that was a nicely written piece), I'm just not sure they're going to be sufficient grounds to bring about an actual impeachment (on a [i']realistic[/i] basis), even if Democrats win control in 2006.

 

Still, if you'd asked me back in the day if I thought Clinton would be impeached for lying about having an affair with Monica Lewinsky (etc), I would have said "not in a million years". And the outrage against Bush (right or wrong) is certainly as great or greater than the outrage against Clinton.

 

 

That's true, he can be impeached for anything, but still won't be because, in all probability, the trail of Crime to President is roundabout and hazy. It would be better to prosecute the more low-level officals who definitely knew something was going on.

 

This has generated more anger than the Clinton fiasco because what Clinton did was more social while Bush's crimes are political. Bush has been accused of far more serious crimes than giving the time to an intern. And he has done more to cover his tracks, so obviously people are going to be more enraged. In any case, I doubt he will be impeached as well but he should be.

[bascule]

The democrats know better than to try to impeach on this loser. What I find surprising is that so many people will just assume he didn't have executive authority to act without warrants without having analyzed the issue. It's just a case of people needing to believe that the other side is evil. Kind of like Rush Limbaugh...

 

IANAL, but I don't see how it could be legal, much less Constitutional.

 

Howard Dean had a nice writeup:

 

http://dnc.org/a/2005/12/did_george_bush.php