Impeach Bush/Cheney: Take Action Now!

[Gokul43201]

my apologies..I meant to type johnson... Johnson was http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/aj17.html"

kat, that's just a cheap shot. Now you want to make the Dems look dirty by association with Johnson, who wasn't a member of the Democratic party. And even if he was elected as a Jacksonian democrat, he was impeached as a stuck-up conservative.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It wasn't a mere threat of impeachment it was the imminent impeachment that caused Nixon to attempt to save some bit of dignity and resign.

You are toying with words. He was not impeached but he left due to the threat.

Clintons impeachment was based on the same charge that helped send Martha Steward to prison.

Clinton was impeached for lying about his sexual affairs. He was fined for contempt of court and was never sent to jail. This was not a presidential matter and he should have been prosecuted after leaving office. His conviction was a civil and not a criminal matter.

Clinton's shenanigans were orders of magnitude less significant than those of the criminals in power now.

 

[SOS2008]

I said charges, Astronuc (Sos, Ivan, et al). Those aren't charges. If you could impeach someone for being an idiot or a jerk, half the Presidents we've had would have been impeached.

Do you really believe the only thing Dubya has done wrong is be an idiot or jerk?

You are toying with words. He was not impeached but he left due to the threat.

It was more than a threat--Nixon would have been impeached. And this is only one difference between Watergate and Whitewater/The Clinton Investigations. Clinton was never in jeopardy of impeachment so there was no reason to resign, and indeed he ended up being acquitted.

Clinton was impeached for lying about his sexual affairs. He was fined for contempt of court and was never sent to jail. This was not a presidential matter and he should have been prosecuted after leaving office. His conviction was a civil and not a criminal matter.
Clinton's shenanigans were orders of magnitude less significant than those of the criminals in power now.

Good Lord, we have to keep going over this don’t we? How anyone can compare lying about infidelity (which was a personal, civil matter as Ivan points out), and lying about an illegal invasion of another country that has resulted in the loss of American lives is beyond me. IMO this is even more serious than Watergate.

 

[Townsend]

Look at it this way...

Bush is on his way out no matter what!

Hopefully we will have some decent candidates to vote for in 2008 unlike we did this last election.

 

[SOS2008]

Hehe. You actually believe that?

Please see posts #92 & #93 in the “What can Bushy do to gain back favor?” thread.

 

[kat]

kat, that's just a cheap shot. Now you want to make the Dems look dirty by association with Johnson, who wasn't a member of the Democratic party. And even if he was elected as a Jacksonian democrat, he was impeached as a stuck-up conservative.

Lol...anyone who is ignorant enough to think that the parties..then resemble the parties today..well..whatever.
By todays standards they were all conservatives.

 

[kat]

You are toying with words. He was not impeached but he left due to the threat.

No, you're toying with words. It was not a "mere" threat. It was a definitive threat and very imminent.

Clinton was impeached for lying about his sexual affairs.

Clinton was impeached based on the charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.

 

[SOS2008]

No, you're toying with words. It was not a "mere" threat. It was a definitive threat and very imminent.

Clinton was impeached based on the charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.

He was acquitted.

 

[kat]

He was acquitted.

AND?! It's irrelevant to my origional statement!
And you also had pardongate...chinagate...oh my lord...travelgate..and oh my goodness... way to many gates to remember... how much of it stuck and how much was a waste of our money and time? and how much of this is the same...IN THE END?!

And on another note..what's going on elsewhere while this is in the news... While america was focused on monicagate...we had far more serious matters that should have been on the front page and weren't. What's not being reported while this is? If in the end..all we have is accusations and possible charges of obstruction and perjury..then...what a waste!

 

[GENIERE]

...Clinton was never in jeopardy of impeachment...

Duh!

 

[edward]

...Clinton was never in jeopardy of impeachment...

Duh!

Impeachment requires a two thirds majority vote . Since Clintons situation was perceived by Democrats as being a result of a political witch hunt by the republicans, there was no possibility of impeachment.

The democrats stood firmly behind Clinton. Many republicans are distancing themselves from Bush.

 

[Astronuc]

Hopefully we will have some decent candidates to vote for in 2008 unlike we did this last election.

I second that!

 

[Cosmo16]

I third it! I couldn't vote in '04 cause I was only 16 however, I would have voted for Bush because the the alternetive was worse.

It was a choice between Twidle dee or twiddle dum. And Twidle Dee was stupid in my general direction of choice so I supported him.

 

[moose]

So first people complain that we are spending too much money and supplies in Iraq, now that we aren't giving enough? Right

 

[GENIERE]

...Clinton was never in jeopardy of impeachment...
Impeachment requires a two thirds majority vote . Since Clintons situation was perceived by Democrats as being a result of a political witch hunt by the republicans, there was no possibility of impeachment.
The democrats stood firmly behind Clinton. Many republicans are distancing themselves from Bush.

That deserves a double duh! Apparently you have no knowledge of the impeachment process re: the executive branch. If you take the trouble to enlighten yourself, you will find it is similar to a criminal indictment and that Clinton was most definitely IMPEACHED.

Personally I took great pleasure in his impeachment, but I would have preferred that he was simply condemmed as per N. Pelosi. After his presidency ended he would have been tried before his peers and found guilty and served a few months in jail. As it was he was later stripped of his law license for "serious miscounduct" purjury and obstruction of justice by a judge he appointed.

DUH!

 

[Skyhunter]

Personally I took great pleasure in his impeachment, but I would have preferred that he was simply condemmed as per N. Pelosi.

Nancy Pelosi was condemned? :uhh:

 

[SOS2008]

That deserves a double duh! Apparently you have no knowledge of the impeachment process re: the executive branch. If you take the trouble to enlighten yourself, you will find it is similar to a criminal indictment and that Clinton was most definitely IMPEACHED.

Personally I took great pleasure in his impeachment, but I would have preferred that he was simply condemmed as per N. Pelosi. After his presidency ended he would have been tried before his peers and found guilty and served a few months in jail. As it was he was later stripped of his law license for "serious miscounduct" purjury and obstruction of justice by a judge he appointed.

DUH!

As much as it would be nice to stay OT regarding a Bush/Cheney impeachment, let's at least try to stay germane to the matter of Clinton and impeachment – or should we say a trial for impeachment, which concluded in:

a. Impeachment
b. Acquittal

While you consider your answer, I'll be out getting enlightened…

From The Kansas City (Mo.) Star:
"It has been a long, humiliating and deeply flawed process. But the Senate finally arrived at the right place Friday when it decided against removing President Clinton from office. …the bar for removing a sitting president is and should remain extremely high. While there is room for reasonable people to disagree on whether Clinton's misdeeds were sufficient to trigger impeachment and removal from office, we believe that the House managers failed to make their case."

From Sunday's Chicago Sun-Times:
"The impeachment trial is over and the vote to acquit was the proper verdict. As we said from the start, President Clinton's campaign of lies to cover up his sexual exploitation of Monica Lewinsky constituted small, tawdry, pathetic, personal crimes that did not threaten our democracy." [underline added]

From the Corpus Christi (Texas) Caller-Times:
"There was no surprise to the end of the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton. The Senate voted against conviction, as expected, and against turning Clinton out of office."[underline added]

From the Chicago Tribune:
"It has been widely predicted that Republicans will pay dearly in the 2000 elections for overzealously pursuing the removal of a popular Democratic president for offenses that most Americans considered essentially private and definitely not substantial. [:uhh: ][underline added]

And pay they may, especially if independent counsel Kenneth Starr and his prosecutorial posse persist in their holy war, reminding people of just how relentlessly obnoxious and scary a Republican with subpoena power can be." [underline added]

From the Detroit Free Press:
"And now it's Kenneth Starr's turn. Between the philandering president and the obsessed prosecutor, it is the prosecutor who has been the greater threat to the values of the republic. [underline added]

Now it's time to shut down the inquisition, write finis to the tawdry drama, and send Starr himself back into the private sector, where he can console himself with million-dollar fees from the clients and associates who have long hoped he could bring down Bill Clinton."

From The Dallas Morning News:
"The U.S. Senate's gathering at noon Friday lacked the dramatic suspense that surrounded Andrew Johnson's narrow escape from impeachment in 1868. There were clear signs all week that the Senate would not remove President William Jefferson Clinton from office on grounds of perjury and obstruction of justice. Perhaps the only surprise was that neither charge gained a majority of guilty votes." [underlines added]

From The Times-Picayune of New Orleans:
"After his acquittal, President Clinton committed himself to the ''work of serving our nation and building our future together.""

And that he has (for those whose hatred goes back to the draft and not inhaling, er, um, I think Dubya out-stripped him on this ).

 

[Skyhunter]

I third it! I couldn't vote in '04 cause I was only 16 however, I would have voted for Bush because the the alternetive was worse.
It was a choice between Twidle dee or twiddle dum. And Twidle Dee was stupid in my general direction of choice so I supported him.

I hope you spend time informing yourself and have a more comprehensive opinion of the candidates in 2008.

 

[Gokul43201]

I've got no clue what kat, Ivan and Geniere mean when they that Cinton was impeached.

Yes, he went through impeachment proceedings (as did Johnson and Nixon), but no, he was not impeached...right ? Or am I - like SOS - missing a technicality here ?

 

[SOS2008]

I've got no clue what kat, Ivan and Geniere mean when they that Cinton was impeached.

Yes, he went through impeachment proceedings (as did Johnson and Nixon), but no, he was not impeached...right ? Or am I - like SOS - missing a technicality here ?

Seems there was an incoherent rant, and then Geniere quoted me instead of edward, and I’m trying to be enlightened — maybe everyone has been drinking, being the weekend and all. :rofl:

 

[GENIERE]

I've got no clue what kat, Ivan and Geniere mean when they that Cinton was impeached.

Yes, he went through impeachment proceedings (as did Johnson and Nixon), but no, he was not impeached...right ? Or am I - like SOS - missing a technicality here ?

Johnson was impeached, Nixon wasn't impeached, Clinton was impeached!

The house by a simple majority found sufficient evidence to pass the articles of impeachment v. defendant Clinton. As I stated it is a similar to the indictment of a common criminal. Thus Clinton was impeached by the House then made to appear before the Senate for trial.

 

[Gokul43201]

Johnson was impeached, Nixon wasn't impeached, Clinton was impeached!
The house by a simple majority found sufficient evidence to pass the articles of impeachment v. defendant Clinton. As I stated it is a similar to the indictment of a common criminal. Thus Clinton was impeached by the House then made to appear before the Senate for trial.

But the Senate overturned the decision by the House, no ?

And Nixon quit (during impeachment proceedings) when it became clear what the outcome was going to be.

PS : Here's a link and an exerpt :

With closing arguments completed, the Senate began three days of closed-door deliberations on the two articles of impeachment, with each senator limited to 15 minutes of speaking time. Senate Democrats had attempted, but failed, to open this process to the public via television.

On Friday, February 12, television cameras were once again turned on inside the chamber and senators gathered in open session for the final roll call. With the whole world watching, senators stood up one by one to vote "guilty" or "not guilty." On Article 1, the charge of perjury, 55 senators, including 10 Republicans and all 45 Democrats voted not guilty. On Article 3, obstruction of justice, the Senate split evenly, 50 for and 50 against the President.

With the necessary two-thirds majority not having been achieved, the President was thus acquitted on both charges and would serve out the remainder of his term of office lasting through January 20, 2001.

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/clinton.htm

 

[SOS2008]

But the Senate overturned the decision by the House, no ?

Correct about the House versus the impeachment trial and ultimate conviction by the Senate. Neither Andrew Johnson nor Bill Clinton was impeached. Nixon resigned before being convicted. Now can we get back to impeachment of Bush/Cheney?

 

[GENIERE]

But the Senate overturned the decision by the House, no ?

And Nixon quit (during impeachment proceedings) when it became clear what the outcome was going to be.

Jeeez, He left before the impeachment proceedings began, ignoring the possibility they may not have begun, nor was a conviction by the senate a certainty. Whatever, no one, not even the president can quit while the process was underway.

NO! NO! Like all you have to do is read the Constitution:

"The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."

Clinton was impeached (indicted) by the House and later acquitted by the Senate (Jury). His acquittal does not negate the fact that he was impeached. OJ Simpson was indicted for murder and later acquitted by a jury. Does his acquittal erase from history the fact that he was indicted.

A person reading history books 200 years from now will discover that Johnson and Clinton were impeached and that Nixon was not impeached.

 

[Skyhunter]

But the Senate overturned the decision by the House, no ?
And Nixon quit (during impeachment proceedings) when it became clear what the outcome was going to be.
PS : Here's a link and an exerpt :
http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/clinton.htm

Nixon resigned before the accusation was formulated, whatever that means in US law. I think the technicality is that the House had not brought formal charges, although one might argue that impeachment proceedings had definitely already begun.

Clinton and Johnson were both impeached, tried, and acquitted.

Impeachment
Impeachment, in the U.S. and Great Britain, proceeding by a legislature for the removal from office of a public official charged with misconduct in office. Impeachment comprises both the act of formulating the accusation and the resulting trial of the charges; it is frequently but erroneously taken to mean only the removal from office of an accused public official. An impeachment trial may result in either an acquittal or in a verdict of guilty. In the latter case the impeached official is removed from office; if the charges warrant such action, the official is also remanded to the proper authorities for trial before a court.

http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html

 

[SOS2008]

Nixon resigned before the accusation was formulated, whatever that means in US law. I think the technicality is that the House had not brought formal charges, although one might argue that impeachment proceedings had definitely already begun.
Clinton and Johnson were both impeached, tried, and acquitted.
http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html

Then there is a splitting of hairs: "An impeachment trial may result in either an acquittal or in a verdict of guilty. In the latter case the impeached official is removed from office." Note the word "trial" and if acquitted (found not guilty), impeachment then means nothing.

 

[Skyhunter]

Then there is a splitting of hairs: "An impeachment trial may result in either an acquittal or in a verdict of guilty. In the latter case the impeached official is removed from office." Note the word "trial" and if acquitted (found not guilty), impeachment then means nothing.

Exactly. Just like indictment, it means that a formal accusation has been made. Legally there is a point where the indictment, is made formal.

Impeachment is for a trial by the Senate to remove a president from office. Indictment is for a criminal trial.

Nixon wasn't technically impeached, he resigned because he knew that if tried, he would not be acquitted.

 

[GENIERE]

...impeachment then means nothing.

If the law of the land, the US Constitution, means nothing than you are correct. I thought the `founders’ would have omitted items of little consequence.

Never the less, spin it as you may, Clinton was impeached.

Re: Nixon, the House never voted on “The Articles of Impeachment” referred to the floor by the Committee by a 23-17 vote, hardly a convincing majority. Many committee recommendations go to the floor with negative results. We will never know what the vote may have been.

I witnessed first hand the national tumult caused by the desire to impeach a president. I had to fire an engineer who could not unglue his eyes from a TV tuned to the Congressional hearings in the employee lounge. It serves no good purpose to impeach a president for the reasons thus far used.

Chirac may be indicted after he leaves office, it seems even the French know enough to avoid disrupting the government.


.

 

[russ_watters]

Do you really believe the only thing Dubya has done wrong is be an idiot or jerk?

He's also a poor speaker.

SOS, if you think he's done something criminal, by all means, answer the question I posted: what should the charges be?

All this talk about Clinton is pointless. Regardless of whether or not it was just a political ploy, there were still charges! So I'm asking: what should the charges against Bush be? Since no one has given any, I must assume that you guys just want to impeach him out of spite, not because you actually think he comitted "high crimes and misdemeanors."

Edit: and I love how going for factual accuracy is splitting of hairs. Even better that finding the factual answer to a Constitutional question makes people go to news articles instead of the Constitution.

Clause 6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Ie, voting to hold the trial means that Clinton was impeached. He just wasn't convicted.

As already said, "impeached" is a synonym for "indicted", with the House taking the place of the grand jury, and working in pretty much the same way. The Senate's vote is the trial and it doesn't overturn the impeachment, since there isn't anything to overturn - it's just a formal bringing of charges/accusation.

So, again, the fact: two presidents were impeached: Clinton and Johnson.

 

[Mercator]

You Americans may discuss the real meaning of these terms until you're blue. For the rest of the world, Clinton was innocent and Nixon was a crook and there is nothing you can change about that view.

 

[Mercator]

Chirac may be indicted after he leaves office, it seems even the French know enough to avoid disrupting the government.
.

Your wishful thinking fools you again Geniere.

 

[SOS2008]

He's also a poor speaker.

SOS, if you think he's done something criminal, by all means, answer the question I posted: what should the charges be? All this talk about Clinton is pointless. Regardless of whether or not it was just a political ploy, there were still charges! So I'm asking: what should the charges against Bush be? Since no one has given any, I must assume that you guys just want to impeach him out of spite, not because you actually think he comitted "high crimes and misdemeanors.".

This has been addressed above (if you read the whole thread, I was merely quoting websites). Nonetheless, the matter of charges has been answered in many threads—the breaking of international and U.S. laws for a starter. But I agree all this talk about Clinton is pointless in that Whitewater does not compare to Watergate, and certainly not to misuse of our military that has resulted in loss of nearly 2,000 American lives so far.

Edit: and I love how going for factual accuracy is splitting of hairs. Even better that finding the factual answer to a Constitutional question makes people go to news articles instead of the Constitution. Ie, voting to hold the trial means that Clinton was impeached. He just wasn't convicted.

As already said, "impeached" is a synonym for "indicted", with the House taking the place of the grand jury, and working in pretty much the same way. The Senate's vote is the trial and it doesn't overturn the impeachment, since there isn't anything to overturn - it's just a formal bringing of charges/accusation.

Well of course when it comes to definitions you are elated, but unfortunately you are defending the misuse of the term. Clinton-haters constantly use the word impeachment to convey conviction--they know it, and we all know it. They sure as heck don't go around saying he was "charged and acquitted." I'm tired of the propagandistic spin.

You Americans may discuss the real meaning of these terms until you're blue. For the rest of the world, Clinton was innocent and Nixon was a crook and there is nothing you can change about that view.

True.

 

[russ_watters]

This has been addressed above (if you read the whole thread, I was merely quoting websites). Nonetheless, the matter of charges has been answered in many threads—the breaking of international and U.S. laws for a starter.

And yet, I'm still waiting... Once again, you have alluded to crimes, but you haven't specified any. That's what this whole thread has been about! Ie: "breaking of...U.S. laws..." Great! Tell me which laws?

Well of course when it comes to definitions you are elated, but unfortunately you are defending the misuse of the term. Clinton-haters constantly use the word impeachment to convey conviction--they know it, and we all know it. They sure as heck don't go around saying he was "charged and acquitted." I'm tired of the propagandistic spin.

Huh? You want to reread that and, perhaps, correct it? Or do you just still not understand that "impeachment" is what the House did and "acquittal" is what the Senate did? They are separate acts: Clinton was both impeached and acquitted. It's just too funny, SOS: you are accusing people of using the word in the factually inaccurate way that you are using it! I know Clinton wasn't convicted. I say he was impeached and I mean he was impeached!

Smurf, I don't fault you for not knowing - it is a subtlety and a great many people missed it at first when it happened. But now that you do know, don't assume everyone else is making the same mistake.

 

[edward]

In essence Clintons impeachment became irrelevant the moment he was acquitted. Why does the right feel that they have to bring it up to defend Bush?

The charges against Clinton were for lying about something most men would lie about. The whole multimillion dollar witch hunt was aimed at finding anything on Clinton, not a specific incident. When nothing could be found in the area of the original investigation, Kenneth Starr was allowed to move on to another, then another.

Neither Bush or his Administration could stand up to that kind of in depth scrutiny and I mean in depth scrutiny. Cheney was allowed to keep secret the names of the persons who attended his "national energy policy meeting". The administation even opposed having a 9/11 commission. Hell eveything is a secret in the Bush administration.

But when the effects of the secrets start to adversly affect true national security and violate federal law, as in the Plame incident, it is time to pull off the veil and take a close look at the truth.

Sadly that will never happen. Every thing this administration has done has been carfully and deliberately wrapped in secrecy and cloaked with the flag.

The Bush administration has removed from the public domain millions of pages of information on health, safety, and environmental matters, lowering a shroud of secrecy over many critical operations of the federal government.

The administration's efforts to shield the actions of, and the information held by, the executive branch are far more extensive than has been previously documented. And they reach well beyond security issues.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/usinfo/press/secrecy.htm

The Bush Administration has even coverd it's behind for the future by changing The Presidential records Act.

Historians and others who have seen the proposed order called it unprecedented and said it would turn the 1978 Presidential Records Act on its head by allowing such materials to be kept secret "in perpetuity."

Under the order, incumbent and former presidents "could keep their records locked up for as long as they want," said Bruce Craig, executive director of the National Coordinating Committee for the Promotion of History. "It reverses the very premise of the Presidential Records Act, which provides for a systematic release of presidential records after 12 years."

Other critics voiced concern about the impact of the order "in the post-September 11 world," with its wartime atmosphere.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A20731-2001Oct31

Even historians will be blocked from ever finding what was within the vast secrecy of the Bush administration.

 

[russ_watters]

Why does the right feel that they have to bring it up to defend Bush?

Scroll back to page 1 and check who brought Clinton's impeachment up and why.

And in all due deference to the many liberals and foreigners who wanted to discuss Clinton (and Nixon and Johnson), historical precident is relevant. Ie, if they can show that Clinton's impeachment was just a political shenanegan, then that's all that is needed and Bush could be impeached under the same criteria. The problem with that, of course (not claiming anyone missed this), is that the republicans control the House, so a purely political impeachment is unlikely.

edit:...which is why I keep asking about actual crimes. Since a purely political impeachment is unlikely, there needs to be some decent evidence of actual crimes being comitted. Hence, I'm harping on people specifying actual crimes Bush comitted.

edit2: ...and if there is good enough evidence of it, and with his popularity low, Republicans in Congress will abandon him if they think it'll help them retain their seats.