Read this and come back.
How would a "centrist" describe the presidents comments? I'd call it "lying".
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about a blow job. I would remind everyone that a blow job in the oval office is not as dangerous as lying about the conduct of a war.
In this context, what is the proper consequence for the president? I think, impeachment.. but then I'd like to see how a "centrist" describes the presidents comments.
9 comments:
I would say that technically he cant be impeached for this particular incident because he wasnt under oath.
I would say, however, that due to the amount, severity, and ultimate consequences of the lies of the administration, one could impeach him simply for gross misconduct.
And now Negropante is telling everyone this particular part of the 100+ page document was taken out of context.
I dont know if I beleive him, and I suppose therein lies the problem.
ps: Pisses me off that Blogger wont capitalize my name.
...
Lying to the public isnt an impeachable offense. Otherwise, we would never have press conferences.
Bill commited purgery, which is impeachable.
Bush has yet to do anything that is technically impeachable, as there is no such thing as a "High Crime" in America besides Treason. So, unless you can prove that something he has done is deliberately treasonous, then you technically wouldnt have a case by legal definition.
However, I think you could make a situational case for gross incompetence. While not legally substantiated, I think that depending on the way the elections go this Nov, it would at least have a chance at arriving at a succesful impeachment. As for a succesful removal form office...who knows? I would expect maybe not, as the 2 new supreme court justices sway things in Mr Bushes favor, but I dunno.
Jesus Christ you continually pull factually inaccurate information out of your ass and state it as if it's fact.
You don't know shit about the formalization of articles of impeachment, or what constitutes a "high crime or misdemeanor".
The Supreme Court has nothing to do with "swaying" shit.. certainly not with "2 new supreme court justices". The chief justice merely presides over senate trial, so there is no "vote" or otherwise in the supreme court.
Go do some research for god's sake.. hell, make it easy and use wikipedia..
It just makes me crazy how you do zero research before just throwing out that bullshit.. stop it..
I realized by reading this that I didn't know much about the details of the impeachment process. Wiki, here I come!
It actually was quite interesting. The "high crimes and misdemeanors" phrase in particular is interesting because there really is no set criteria for what meets it.
I would think that one would actually have to be convicted of something to be impeached - after all, if one is not convicted of anything there is neither a crime (much less a high crime) nor a misdemeanor.
I would think that one would actually have to be convicted of something to be impeached
That's a common misconception. Clinton was impeached, but he wasn't convicted, therefore retained his office.
Being impeached is fundamentally the same as being indicted.
**blogger sucks, posted this 3 times with no luck - hope it doesn't get triple posted**
I understand that part of it. Wasn't Clinton convicted of perjury prior to the impeachment though? That's an honest question - I thought that was the case but I could be wrong as I was much more interested in drinking and doing the occassional recreational drug at the time this all went down.
I wouldn't think they could impeach him on the grounds of perjury without him being found guilty of perjury already - seperate from the impeachment hearings.
Can you read what you write?
Key word here is high CRIMES. Do I need to define crime for you? Explain to me exactly what crime Bush has commited, other than being grossly incompetant.
Arguably, you could impeach a judge for being grossly incompetant, as it says that judges may remain in office with good behavior, implying that they can be removed for bad.
However, that only applies to the judiciary.
Again, Bush has done nothing legally wrong, and the only thing they could try to do is apply the gross ineptitude to the executive, something which I dont think would fly.
As for the judges thing, you do know that the current Cheif Justice was appointed by Bush, and if you dont think that different people presiding over the same trial can have different outcomes, you have no concept of our legal system and have never set foot in a courtroom.
Sidebar: One might argue that he could be impeached on the grounds of Abuse of Power. IMO, a very shaky ground to indict somone on, and even harder still to prove.
After delving a bit more deeply into the impeachment thing, I think they could do it, but not about this issue.
They cant get him for lying to the American public. Its not a crime.
However, they could get him for the NSA secret wiretapping program. I think its pretty clear cut that this program violates the constitution, and a public official knowling violating the constitution is a crime. That, they could impeach him for. In fact, he couldnt really defend himself, as hes admitted to doing it. The only arguement they could make was that it wasnt illegal, which the FISA passed in 1978. In fact, Nixon claimed his wiretaps were in the interest of national security.
So, as to the intitial question, no. He cant be impeached for the War in Iraq. Well, maybe, but it would be e difficult case to build.
However, if he were to get impeached for the NSA wiretaps, he would have a good chance of getting ousted, barred from holding public office, and some criminal proceedings.
Unless, of course, part lines determine justice in Washington, in which case he may walk.
Sidebar: I always though it was interesting as to that last point in the Clinton case. He commited Purgery. That much was obvious. The only real debate was the content of the purgery impeachable, and was the context of the purgery impeachable. Bush might argue the same thing.
A strategy for the president could take the stand that the ends justify the means. If they can prove that listening on on 30 peoples phone calls saved 80 people, can you really dispute the usefullness of those phonecalls? However, that opens up an extremely dangerous legal precident. But do impeachments apply as legal precedent? Utilitarianism at work.
Post a Comment