Will Bush be impeached??

[Will9]

Originally posted by Darius871


Congress is able to impeach the VP too. If they went for a full court press we'd have President Pelosi.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO!

[Timexwatch]

Originally posted by Lord Nuclear


If a President knowingly lied to the American public and Congress about a nature of a war, it would be a high crime.

What exact crime would he be charged with? Lying isn't a crime unless he's under oath.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Jack_www
Please see my post above, and I will make the point again in this post, Impeachment is like charging the President or other eleceted leaders with a crime. When you impeach an eleceted leader it does not lead to their removal from office. They have to be tried in the US Senate and their has to be 2/3 vote to convict. If they vote to convict, then the President is removed from office.

Obviously I was referring to conviction as well in that hypothetical, in response to AH's hypothetical. I never said a 2/3 vote is actually feasible.

[TCO]

This is silly.

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by Darius871
Congress is able to impeach the VP too. If they went for a full court press we'd have President Pelosi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession

Indicates that after Cheney comes a man called Dennis Hastert followed by Ted Stevens followed by Condie Rice.

[Ecthy]

Fine, Mrs. Pelosi will be Speaker of the House and thus #3 from January 4 on.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
Oh, I'm sure there's plenty of crimes. The trouble is, once you start it up, every president will be impeached for something. Let's face it, Clinton was basically impeached over nothing.

What specific crimes are you referring to?

Originally posted by Lord Nuclear
If a President knowingly lied to the American public and Congress about a nature of a war, it would be a high crime.

As Timexwatch said, that is not a crime unless under oath and IIRC, the only time Bush has testified under oath was to the 9/11 Commission where A) Cheney was there to make sure he didn't slip up and B) Iraq wasn't discussed anyway.

Secondly, even if knowingly lying while not under oath were a crime (and it isn't), there really is no way to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. As the right is so fond of reminding us (to the point of making it a cliche), President Clinton and Democratic Senators were given the same intel as Bush and came to the same conclusion about Iraqi WMD.

Even IF Bush indeed launched a war of aggression just to steal Iraqi oil/raise global oil prices to enrich his oil buddies' profit margins/create a strategic noose to prepare for invading Iran/inflate the 'terrist' bogeyman to perpetuate the military-industrial complex's funding and influence/acquire another plank in the NWO to accelerate the Bilderberger Illuminati's global fascist police state/harvest Arab babies for Ariel Sharon's breakfast/whathaveyou, that doesn't mean he actually knew Iraq had no WMD. More likely he and/or his handlers probably concluded WMD would be found, and thus that casus belli would be established after the fact. If that was the case then nobody lied per se; rather they said what they believed to be the truth whilst remaining quiet about ulterior motives. If lying were an impeachable offense (which, again, it isn't anyway) that wouldn't qualify anyhow.

Pretty much the only thing that would amount to a smoking gun is an oval office tape recording of the guy saying "this report unequivocally proves to us that Iraq has no WMD nor any active WMD program, but I'm throwing it in the fireplace right now so the foolish masses will believe our lies! MUAHAHAHAHAHA!!!11one." Good luck finding that.

[Dr Strangelove]

In a more perfect world.....................

[Zkribbler]

I said in the OP that I don't think Bush will be elected. As pointed out above, there really needs to be a smoking gun--and so far, there isn't.

Congress would also have to impeach Chaney. No Dem is going to vote to convict if it means Chaney will become President.

"High Crimes and Misdemeanors" means whatever Congress says it means. For example, it could be Abusing the Trust of Congress -- which voted to authorize the President to use forceas a last resort. Instead, Bush told the UN inspectors to get out of the country while they were still in the process of looking. Another charge--depending on the "smoking gun" (if any) which appears--could be Authorizing the Use of Torture in Violation of the Geneva Accords."

As I said in the OP, the legal charge is merely a necessary figleaf behind which Congress hides its real motivation -- which here would be opposition the the President's sending increased troops into Iraq when almost everyone wants him to withdraw and when an election year is fast approaching.

If Senate Republicans see their choice as convicting Bush and Chaney or losing their own jobs...they'll vote to convict.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=Zkribbler]"High Crimes and Misdemeanors" means whatever Congress says it means.[/q]

Yep. Exactly. Some of you are trying too hard here. Congress can impeach people for anything. They simply call it a 'high crime'. It can be that the color of the President's tie angered them.

After all, President Andrew Johnson was impeached for intentionally violating the Tenure of Office Act.

Besides, if Bush knowingly lied to get Congress to vote on something, that'd be fraudulent behavior.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Darius871

Secondly, even if knowingly lying while not under oath were a crime (and it isn't), there really is no way to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sounds like you should introduce a law that makes such a thing (lying of official representatives of the states in public speeches (to the people or senate or congress) a crime.

It´s somehow strange that a high ranking iofficial could get away with knowingly lying to the people (for example about important things cincerning the state) only because it wasn´t done under oath.

[Zkribbler]

Don't be ridiculous. It'd be silly to have to change the meeting place of Congress to the cafeteria of some federal prison because that's were all the members were.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Look, if impeachment was really about a 'crime', the conviction part would go to the Supreme Court rather than the Senate. It is an inherently political process, which means there doesn't really need to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt, except if a Senator requires it.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Look, if impeachment was really about a 'crime', the conviction part would go to the Supreme Court rather than the Senate. It is an inherently political process, which means there doesn't really need to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt, except if a Senator requires it.

Why do you suppose the wording "high crimes and misdemeanors" was selected when all they meant was "for any reason at all"?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Geronimo


Why do you suppose the wording "high crimes and misdemeanors" was selected when all they meant was "for any reason at all"?

The question lies in the definition of a crime or misdemeanor. Congress legislates, and it is legislatures that decide what constitutes any crime or misdemeanor.