Should Bush Be Impeached?

[Master Demonius]

do you guys think bush should be impeached or not?

i think he should so that the war spending bill can get passed

[Rogue Nine]

Impeachment isn't like a switch being flipped. It's a long involved process that requires the participation of both houses of Congress. The party lines are split so that even if a resolution to impeach came to the table, it certainly wouldn't pass with the needed majority.

 

Impeaching the president to get the war spending bill passed is like trying to solve quantum mechanics equations with soggy pasta and a ball of lint. He's already vetoed the bill and there's no way to reverse that.

[tk102]

He's already vetoed the bill and there's no way to reverse that.

 

*Cough* Article 1 Section 7

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law.

 

Sorry RN, I couldn't resist quoting the Constituion to a law student.

[Jae Onasi]

Yeah, but they don't have the 2/3 majority to override the veto. They barely had a majority to get it passed in the first place.

 

It also had a lot of completely unrelated crap/pork added to it, just to make that more interesting.

[tk102]

Details details...

 

Hey some of that crap/pork would've re-opened our libraries which have been closed for the last two weeks. (more info).

 

Edit:

vvv--- I knew what you meant RN, but you walked right into that one.

[Rogue Nine]

I was stating that there was no way to take back his veto, tk. He's done it, that's it. Impeachment will not nullify his veto. I know full well that a president's veto may be overriden by Congress.

[Jae Onasi]

Details details...

 

Hey some of that crap/pork would've re-opened our libraries which have been closed for the last two weeks.

 

They actually broke their own rules doing that. Rep. Ryan and others had passed a provision last year disallowing non-essential spending provisions getting attached to emergency spending bills:

 

This bill violates the emergency spending reforms Rep. Ryan helped put in place last year. These reforms were meant to prevent non-emergency spending from being inserted into emergency supplementals. This measure waives those safeguards.

[tk102]

Guess it's all a matter of perspective what constitutes an emergency.

[SilentScope001]

No.

 

Did Bush ever committed any crime? Impeachment is for crimes committed by the President, and crimes do not include doing something that the majority of Americans hate.

 

But Bush can be impeached. All it takes is a majority vote in the House of Represnatives to "impeach" Bush. Then, Bush is impeached. But to formally kick Bush out of office, you have to have a Impeachment Trial and then 2/3 of the Senate has to Convict Bush of a crime.

 

Before you can impeach Bush though, you need to find a charge to impeach him with. No War in Iraq, however.

[Emperor Devon]

I can think of a lot of things I'd rather impeach Bush for than just vetoing this bill. Kicking him out of office over just this seems rather silly to me.

 

By the time they finished impeaching him the bill would've been resolved anyway. Doesn't seem to be much of a point to it.

[Char Ell]

do you guys think bush should be impeached or not?

i think he should so that the war spending bill can get passed

Eh? So you're saying Bush should be impeached because he vetoed the spending bill? It's a very good thing the United States federal government doesn't work that way or we would be swapping new presidents in every month.

 

Vetoing a bill is hardly grounds for impeachment. I believe Article 2 Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution establishes the grounds for impeachment.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

[Windu Chi]

do you guys think bush should be impeached or not?

i think he should so that the war spending bill can get passed

Hell yeah he should be impeached!

They need to veto his ass out of office, NOW.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Did Bush ever committed any crime?

Do lions ever hurt antelopes?

 

Has he broken any laws? Well... only 26 very serious and important ones (summary):

 

• Deception of Congress and the American Public
  • Committing a Fraud Against the United States (18 U.S.C. § 371)
  • Making False Statements Against the United States (18 U.S.C. § 1001)
  • War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148)
  • Misuse of Government Funds (31 U.S.C. § 1301)

   

  [*]Improper Detention, Torture, and Other Inhumane Treatment

  • Anti-Torture Statute (18 U.S.C. § 2340-40A)
  • The War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. § 2441)
  • The Geneva Conventions and Hague Convention: International Laws Governing the Treatment of Detainees
  • United Nations Convention Against Torture, and Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment: International Laws Governing the Treatment of Detainees
  • Command Responsibility (for known illegal acts of subordinates in the military)
  • Detainment of Material Witnesses (18 U.S.C. § 3144)

   

  [*]Retaliating against Witnesses and Other Individuals

  • Obstruction Congress (18 U.S.C. § 1505)
    
  • Whistleblower Protection (5 U.S.C. § 2302)
    
  • The Lloyd-LaFollette Act, or "anti-gag rule" (5 U.S.C. § 7211)
    
  • Retaliating against Witnesses (18 U.S.C. § 1513)

   

  [*]Leaking and other Misuse of Intelligence and other Government Information

  • Revealing Classified Information in Contravention of Federal Regulations (Executive Order 12958/Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement)
    
  • Statutory Prohibitions on Leaking Information (18 U.S.C. § 641, etc.)

   

  Laws Governing Electronic Surveillance

  • Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (50 U.S.C. § 1801, et seq.)
    
  • National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. chapter 15)
    
  • Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. § 222)
    
  • Stored Communications Act of 1986 (18 U.S.C. § 2702)
    
  • Pen Registers or Trap and Trace Devices (18 U.S.C. § 3121)

   

  Laws and Guidelines Prohibiting Conflicts of Interest (28 U.S.C. § 528, etc.)

 

And that's but the tip of the 750-law ice berg.

 

Dubya is a corrupt war monger who's cost the US far more than he's given it.

He's turned the stable dictatorship of Iraq into a civil war-ridden anarchy.

Through bullying, threats and a general cowboy attitude, he's worsened the precious US-Europe relations we so much need. Anti-Americanism soared as the Coalition went into Iraq.

He's put the brakes on stem cell research, an important field of medicine that will better peoples' lives.

He's given the people of the US a tax cut during deficit and war.

 

I know he'll not be impeached. I know he'll never be made to stand for his crimes. I still oppose him.

[Q]

An actual crime needs to be commited first, like, well, I don't know -perjury!

[Windu Chi]

 

Vetoing a bill is hardly grounds for impeachment. I believe Article 2 Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution establishes the grounds for impeachment.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

I will say lying to start a bloody war, count as a misdemeanour, Cutmeister.

They need to convict his ass, NOW.

He got to go!

 

For those people who still support him and his administration, are just delusional or they worship him as a prophet.

So, they're lost!

[Jae Onasi]

Clarification on Dagobahn Eagle's comment about stem cell research....

 

He has not stopped adult stem cell research, which is the most promising field for continuing development of medical treatments anyway. He also has not pulled funding for experimentation on existing embryonic stem cell lines. He will now allow government funding for new embryonic stem cell lines to be created since that currently involves destruction of embryos. Private funding is still allowed.

 

Making the blanket statement that 'he doesn't support stem cell research' is misleading at best and disingenuous at worst.

 

moderator note: Watch the language/tone/expletives. I'm not going to work too hard at editing posts, and I'll delete them if it's going to be too much work to edit. This is a friendly discussion forum.

[Windu Chi]

moderator note: Watch the language/tone/expletives. I'm not going to work too hard at editing posts, and I'll delete them if it's going to be too much work to edit. This is a friendly discussion forum.

Ok, Jae or miss moral it's obviously you are talking to me, I'm the only saying bad words that FCC deem uncivilized.

[Jae Onasi]

Ok, Jae or miss moral it's obviously you are talking to me, I'm the only saying bad words that FCC deem uncivilized.

 

If I was speaking just to you I would have sent you a PM.

 

This has the potential to be a flame-y kind of subject for a lot of people, hence the general comment.

[SilentScope001]

It could be best just to lock this, really.

 

If it becomes problematic the moderating staff will address it as appropriate. --Jae

 

I am not in favour of any impeachment effort. The Democrats can do it, they just need a majority vote to bring Bush to trial, and bringing Bush to trial is basically "impeachment". I am against it. It is just too overtly political and in the end, it means nothing, in any sense of the word.

[ET Warrior]

It might mean that Bush has to at least FACE trial for the crimes he has committed. I think a little symbolism at least would go a long way, and might actually remind politicians that they are supposed to be representing us, as opposed to taking advantage of us.

[Char Ell]

Hell yeah he should be impeached!

They need to veto his ass out of office, NOW.

Statements like this make me think of the oft-quoted Aristotle statement, "The law is reason free from passion." I really don't think Aristotle held much water on this one as I realize this is an ideal, not reality, but it's what came to mind when I read the comment quoted above.

Has he broken any laws? Well... only 26 very serious and important ones (summary):

* Deception of Congress and the American Public

...

Laws and Guidelines Prohibiting Conflicts of Interest (28 U.S.C. § 528, etc.)

 

 

And that's but the tip of the 750-law ice berg.

A very impressive list of allegations, no doubt. But of course as you have already recognized there doesn't seem to be much momentum in the House of Representatives towards impeaching President Bush, despite the efforts of Representative Kucinich. It makes me think that the allegations really don't have a whole lot of weight behind them because if they did then Representative Kucinich would have a great many more of his fellow Democrats supporting his efforts.

I will say lying to start a bloody war, count as a misdemeanour, Cutmeister.

Yes, but during impeachment proceedings one needs to prove that the president purposefully lied. It doesn't seem to me that anyone has solid proof on this one and understanding somewhat the nature of how things work in Washington D.C. I think it rather unlikely such proof will be found.

 

The question at hand is whether or not President George W. Bush should be impeached. I don't think there is enough solid evidence available to warrant impeachment proceedings, in spite of the concerted efforts of many impassioned anti-Bush people to come up with grounds for kicking Bush out of office.

[Bimmerman]

No. He shouldn't be impeached. He's screwed up royally, and I don't support him at all, but impeachement is a bit much. Dick Cheney deserves impeachement much more than Bush does, as Cheney's the brains behind the incompetent duo. Bush just gets the credit.

[Totenkopf]

DE's list of allegations aside, what would be the specific charge? It would need to be more specific than a kind of show trial to "put the fear of god" in present and future politicians, who more often than not would fall into the category of taking advantage of the populace, rather than representing it (a tall fractious order all by itself). After the debacle of Clinton's impeachment (the only other one on the books is Johnson in the 19th century), it's unlikely that Bush would be impeached with <2 yrs in his last term (if only b/c the numbers just aren't there).

 

Frankly, about the only reason I could see to impeach W would be over mishandling of the illegal immigration issue. But, then, you'd probably have to throw out much of the Congress and individual state/local governments as well. If vetoes were grounds for impeachment, FDR would've lasted less than 2 terms (600 +/- in 3 terms).

[SilentScope001]

A very impressive list of allegations, no doubt. But of course as you have already recognized there doesn't seem to be much momentum in the House of Representatives towards impeaching President Bush, despite the efforts of Representative Kucinich. It makes me think that the allegations really don't have a whole lot of weight behind them because if they did then Representative Kucinich would have a great many more of his fellow Democrats supporting his efforts.

 

Actually, that might not be somewhat good logical reasoning. While I am against impeachment, the object of discussion is: "Should the House of Represnatives Impeach Bush?" We are questioning the desicion of the House to not Impeach Bush, so stating that since the House does not impeach Bush, we should not impeach Bush...is somewhat fallicous. Begging the question. But, I do agree with you that the Democrats are making a good desicion.

 

Let's start with the rebuttal, please...

 

* Deception of Congress and the American Public

o Committing a Fraud Against the United States (18 U.S.C. § 371)

 

To commit a fraud, you must lie. From what I can tell, Bush was honestly mistaken.

 

o Making False Statements Against the United States (18 U.S.C. § 1001)

 

 

o War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148)

 

Bush is the commander-in-cheif, and he got full premission from Congress to invade Iraq, so everything is fine. Unless you wish to use the War Powers Resolution clause to attack Bush for invading Afghanistan without prior authorization from Congress...but that's a tenous case, and while Iraq is unpopular, Afgahnistan is popular.

 

o Misuse of Government Funds (31 U.S.C. § 1301)

 

One person's pork is another person's Very Important Project.

 

* Improper Detention, Torture, and Other Inhumane Treatment

o Anti-Torture Statute (18 U.S.C. § 2340-40A)

 

CIA and FBI are able to determine definition of tortue. Many things that are not considered tortue, like keeping people locked up in a cell for a very, very long time...does seem like tortue. All this does is state that tortue is wrong, but if those in power determines what tortue actually is...you got nothing.

 

Abu Gariah is the only place where tortue actually was committed. But, it is not linked to Bush, and it is likely an isolated incident by very troubled youths. Maybe it isn't...but since this is in question, your case isn't airtight.

 

o The War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. § 2441)

 

That Act bans all "grave vioaltions" of the Genva Convention...however...Bush deterimines what the Gevena Convention means. He states that enemy combantants are not prisoners of wars, and therefore, are not covered by the Convention. Agree or disagree, but this is what Bush says, therefore, Bush did not violate these laws.

 

o The Geneva Conventions and Hague Convention: International Laws Governing the Treatment of Detainees

o United Nations Convention Against Torture, and Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment: International Laws Governing the Treatment of Detainees

 

As above. Bush says that it is not tortue, therefore, for all intents and purposes, it is not tortue.

 

o Command Responsibility (for known illegal acts of subordinates in the military)

 

1) Prove to me that there were acts in the military that were illegal.

2) Prove to me that Bush did these illegal acts.

 

o Detainment of Material Witnesses (18 U.S.C. § 3144)

 

From what I see, there seems to be nothing wrong with this. Looks to me that FBI is abusing the law rather than violating it.

 

* Retaliating against Witnesses and Other Individuals

o Obstruction Congress (18 U.S.C. § 1505)

o Whistleblower Protection (5 U.S.C. § 2302)

o The Lloyd-LaFollette Act, or "anti-gag rule" (5 U.S.C. § 7211)

o Retaliating against Witnesses (18 U.S.C. § 1513)

 

...How?

 

There is no proof Libby is ever connected to Chency. It's all speculation.

 

* Leaking and other Misuse of Intelligence and other Government Information

o Revealing Classified Information in Contravention of Federal Regulations (Executive Order 12958/Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement)

o Statutory Prohibitions on Leaking Information (18 U.S.C. § 641, etc.)

 

Again, there is no proof.

 

Laws Governing Electronic Surveillance

o Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (50 U.S.C. § 1801, et seq.)

o National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. chapter 15)

o Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. § 222)

o Stored Communications Act of 1986 (18 U.S.C. § 2702)

o Pen Registers or Trap and Trace Devices (18 U.S.C. § 3121)

 

I'd agree with you on this. But this is not a problem with Bush, this is a problem with the FBI and the CIA heads. And I trust this power will be expanded under the Democrats as well. Bush is not responsible for this, so bring these people to justice...

 

Or change the law so that the CIA and the FBI are legally allowed to do such a thing.

 

Laws and Guidelines Prohibiting Conflicts of Interest (28 U.S.C. § 528, etc.)

 

Where is the conflict of interest? Haliborton? It seems to me that, well, er...yes. Looks to me that there was favoring of certain companies over another. But you have to prove it though, rather than relying on hearsay. And is that grounds of impeachment though? Remember Whitewater though...

===

And I could go through the whole list as well. But basically, this is a small sample of how a person can easily declare that the impeachment case has no merit.

 

The only way that I can see bush getting impeached is if he flew a kite within Washigton, D.C. limits. Since it is illegal to fly kites in Washigtion, D.C. a person can then declare that since he broke the law, he should be Impeached.

[Nancy Allen``]

Aside from Iraq, something he may or may not be held accountable for (America being renounced from the UN? I think it's big enough to warrent such action were it to be taken up) what crimes can be levelled at Bush's feet? September 11? Convince me that he should be impeeched and I'll vote for it.