Articles of Impeachment for Bush

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Many of Clinton's policies were dangerous and damaging. And his lies contributed to the deaths of half a million Rwandans. That didn't make them impeachable. Perjury, however, is a felony.

I will tell you why I supported the impeachment of Clinton. He was trying to deny Paula Jones her day in court. I didn't even believe the accusations of Paula Jones until I saw the extent that Clinton went to in order to deny her a day in court. The Monica affair served to establish a pattern which would have went a long way to convincing a jury of Clinton's guilt in the Paula Jones case. Clinton was acting above the law. He acted as someone who could play outside the rules with no consequences. Well,,, he learned better. Even though the Senate didn't convict him, his dirty laundry was aired for all the world and Monica will be his legacy in history books. It serves him right. Paula Jones was a victim and Clinton deserved what he got.

In the case of Bush it is just a matter of his political opponents trying to make him into a villain. Take the wire-taping "scandal" for example. President Bush briefed Congressional Democrats on the program. Now some say it is an impeachable offense. Why didn't they tell him that when he was briefing them on it to begin with? The revealing of Valerie Plame's identity. The reporter that broke the story identified someone outside the Bush Administration as his source. There are no ties whatsoever to the President himself. There is no blue dress with Bush - no hard evidence.

[Bravus]

I posted this earlier, then deleted it because I didn't want to get into another round-and-round argument. But take it for what it's worth:

What about criminalising crimes? Breaking the provisions of the FISA Act is a crime, not a disagreement. There's a separate discussion about whether that law impeded the War on Terror, but if it did there are options for the president to have the law changed. Breaking the law as president is an impeachable offense, not just a policy disagreement.

[Tom Wetmore]

...there is this thing called the Constitution....

So constitutional rights and protections are OK if they help the pres but not if they get in his way?

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Breaking the provisions of the FISA Act is a crime, not a disagreement.

President Bush consulted Congress on what he was doing. If Congress was so worried about it, why didn't they say something at that time? Moreover, previous Presidents, including both Clinton and Carter, did the same thing. So it is a bit disingenuous to try and hold President Bush accountable for what previous Presidents had done with impunity.

Quote:

Breaking the law as president is an impeachable offense, not just a policy disagreement.

Sounds like someone who agrees that President Clinton was guilty of an impeachable offense.

[there buster]

FISA may itself be unconstitutional.

That's precisely the point about criminalizing disagreements.

[there buster]

Things which have been constitutional since the founding, and have not been changed by amendment or court decision, remain constitutional. Warrantless wiretaps for intelligence, for example, were used by both Carter and Clinton. If it was fish then, it isn't fowl now.

I suspect you don't care much for original intent. Lots of SDA's don't these days, without considering its implications, both constitutionally and hermeneutically.

Deconstructionism is a nifty intellectual hobby, but in practical terms, it is an exercise in cutting off the limb one is sitting on.

To peer into the Massachusetts Constitution, for example, and discover that it requires gay marriage, is fantasy.

Since it's OT, I'm not going to debate it further here.

but there are plenty of Constitutional scholars--backed by extensive precedents--who recognize that Bush has not violated the Constitution.

Of course, others disagree, but until the issue is settled, it remains speculative at best. And we're back to criminalizing disagreements.

[Bravus]

Nope. The law is the law. If it's unconstitutional there are mechanisms for changing it. What the president cannot legally do is break the law (tautological, I know, but the point seems not to be getting through).

[Bravus]

BTW I do agree that Clinton was guilty of an impeachable offense (perjury, not adultery).

[there buster]

I have no idea what you're referring to.

[Dr. Shane]

BTW I do agree that Clinton was guilty of an impeachable offense (perjury, not adultery).

I think the obstruction of justice and abuse of power was worse than the perjury. He solicited perjury and tried to bribe people into silence. He also misused the Secret Service to aid him in hiding his affair. Since he was hiding his affair in order to obstruct justice (not preserve the honor of his family) he used the Secret Service in order to obstruct justice. To me that is worse than his perjury.

In the case of Clinton, we have the blue dress - that is, hard evidence. If there was any such evidence against Bush, he would be suffering the same fate. His popularity is at an all-time low. Popular opinion wouldn't save him like it did Clinton.

[Bravus]

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 is US law. Bush broke it. Simple enough?

[Dr. Shane]

This is how these things work.

If a President thinks a law is unconstitutional they will break it in order for it to be challenged and taken before the Supreme Court. President Reagan stated that he believed the War Powers Act of 1973 was unconstitutional and he would not comply with it.

The case can be made that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 is unconstitutional because it violates the separation of powers. However President Bush briefed Congress on his wire tapping program. He was not doing something in secret. He consulted Congress.

[there buster]

A statute cannot negate Presidential powers granted by the Constitution. Is that simple enough for you?

[Bravus]

Yep

[Bravus]

I see no-one has yet chosen to engage with my hypothetical 'what if it was a Democrat president' exercise.

[Dr. Shane]

I have often said that had Gore won in 2000 he would have went to war in Iraq faster than Bush did and it would be Republicans doing the anti-war thing. A lot of this anti-war stuff is just politics. When Tip O'Neil was Speaker of the House he said the Democrat's job was to be the opposition party. The President could be for the cure for cancer and the opposing party would find a reason to oppose it.

[there buster]

We already know what happened with Clinton. As you say, perjury is an impeachable offense. But the press suddenly began wondering, out loud, does this in fact rise to the level of an impeachable offense? Poor people, they just were mystified by the whole thing. Maybe the fact that they find everything impeachable is just a reaction to how much they were had by Clinton.

But no, it continues. Richard Armitage is the one who leaked Valerie Plame's status--he admits it. He was a Bush critic, so the press is not interested.

Obama suddenly doesn't know anybody he's spent time with for 20 years. "That's not the (Jeremiah Wright, Father Pfleger, Michael Ayers) I know." Hope he gets to know his daughters before they get married.

The press is not interested in these facts, they're too far in the tank for Obama.

Who knows, maybe they'll want to amend the Constitution to let Obama serve for twenty years, so he can eventually get to know his cabinet members, and maybe a long-serving dictator or two.

He's either lying or he's got too long a learning curve to be in charge of anything.

[there buster]

Shane, I must disagree with you. This hyper-partisanship is a relatively new thing, especially when it comes to war.

The hard left in this country cares for nothing but power, and they are willing to undermine every institution to get it and to keep it.

They have sown the wind, and they will surely reap the whirlwind. The only question is whether we vote them into the White House. For if we do, we and the whole world with share in that terrible harvest.

[Bravus]

Completely unlike the bipartisan right during the Clinton presidency

[there buster]

I guess you missed out on welfare reform and NAFTA.

[Neil D]

I guess you missed out on welfare reform and NAFTA.

Bravus,

Just remember that the continuity of a political party is inversely related to the clarity of the remembering mind times the political values one holds....

and if my math sucks somewhat, just remember, I wasn't much good at it.....

[Woody]

We already know what happened with Clinton. As you say, perjury is an impeachable offense. But the press suddenly began wondering, out loud, does this in fact rise to the level of an impeachable offense? Poor people, they just were mystified by the whole thing. Maybe the fact that they find everything impeachable is just a reaction to how much they were had by Clinton.

But no, it continues. Richard Armitage is the one who leaked Valerie Plame's status--he admits it. He was a Bush critic, so the press is not interested.

Obama suddenly doesn't know anybody he's spent time with for 20 years. "That's not the (Jeremiah Wright, Father Pfleger, Michael Ayers) I know." Hope he gets to know his daughters before they get married.

The press is not interested in these facts, they're too far in the tank for Obama.

Who knows, maybe they'll want to amend the Constitution to let Obama serve for twenty years, so he can eventually get to know his cabinet members, and maybe a long-serving dictator or two.

He's either lying or he's got too long a learning curve to be in charge of anything.

Some people have accused Bush of not being the most intelligent President. But wait until you get the Bama man. He will certainly need the 20 years to learn the job. But can we afford to wait for him to learn it?? That is the question.

[Bravus]

...because Bush has already written a (non-ghost written) book and been a law professor, right?

(btw, I don't think Bush is unintelligent, but to claim that Obama is - is just nuts)

[carolaa]

I think the obstruction of justice and abuse of power was worse than the perjury.

What about Bush's getting rid of the email records - isn't that obstruction of justice?

[there buster]

Can't speak for Redwood, but I didn't say Obama wasn't intelligent.

I just took him at his own words. We don't have 20 years for him to get to know foreign leaders-- and they won't preach every week to him, baptize his children, serve on boards and receive grants from him, live in his neighborhood, throw fundraisers for him, and be listed as spiritual advisors.

So, you have two choices. Either he's not telling the truth, or he's just incredibly unperceptive when it comes to people.