Skip to comments.Be cautious about impeaching Bush (GREELEY ALERT)
Posted on 02/16/2007 5:27:21 PM PST by Chi-townChief
Impeach the president? Impeach President Bush? We learned from the attempt to oust President Bill Clinton that there are few rules for indicting and convicting a president.
A high crime and misdemeanor can be anything that a majority of the House of Representatives says is a high crime or a misdemeanor, and proof of guilt is anything that two-thirds of the Senate says is proof. Thus, a man can be indicted (impeached) for an alleged perjury in a civil trial over private sexual behavior (usually meriting only a civil punishment), and he could be deposed if two-thirds of the Senate accepted the evidence. There is no appeal, no higher court that can declare that such perjury, while lamentable, is not a high crime. To get rid of a president, all you need to do is to have enough votes.
The only president ever forced out by an impeachment proceeding was Richard Nixon, and he was never indicted or convicted, but quit (wisely) before votes could be taken. For there to be a successful impeachment, the Congress and the public had to conclude that there was no other choice. There was no such consensus in 1998. Three-fifths of the American public approved of the way Clinton was doing his job, and everyone knew there were not enough votes in the Senate. The House voted for impeachment because, as Newt Gingrich said, ''We can do it.'' It was an empty, partisan and vindictive choice. The national media hyped it into a big deal when it was only a shabby political trick.
What, then, about increasingly frequent cries for impeachment proceedings against Bush? There are certainly enough votes in the House to indict him, just as the Gingrich House indicted Clinton, but hardly enough in the Senate to convict him.
What would the charges be? Launching a war based on lying to the people, incompetent and corrupt administration of the occupation after the war, deceiving the people about conditions in Iraq and refusal to begin removing the troops when the public had made it clear that they wanted an end -- all substantially more serious than perjury in a civil trial. Not valid reasons for removing a president? If a majority of the House should say that they are valid reasons, then they become valid reasons. What better cause for dumping a president than monumental and stubborn incompetence that has caused tens of thousands of deaths?
Neither the country nor the Congress is ready for such a battle now -- though three-fifths of Americans wish his term was over. When U.S. Rep. Bob Drinan of Massachusetts, a Jesuit priest, introduced a motion to impeach Nixon in 1973, it was quickly shunted off the agenda. Yet, a year later it was voted out of committee, and Nixon left the White House. The public and Congress had all they could take of the man. Should Iraq keep deterioring until the end of the summer, impeachment might make more sense than cutting funds for the war, although both the president and the vice president would have to be convicted of high crimes at the same time.
I am not advocating the deposing of the president by congressional vote. Nor would I, unless the country was ready for it and enough of those senatorial Republicans up for re-election were eager for such a vote lest their future be tied to the fate of that swaggering, stupid man.
The firing of a president is a traumatic event. It would cause a deep wound in the body politic. It took a couple of decades to recover from the shock of deposing Nixon, though after the trivialization of the process by Gingrich it might be less shocking. It may be necessary to strike back at the pernicious claims of extra-constitutional presidential power by the administration. It is not true, as Garry Wills has reminded us, that the title of ''commander in chief'' magnifies the constitutional power of the president. Indeed, his title of commander in chief of the Army and the Navy is limited by the constitutional powers of the president. He is not the commander in chief of all of us, and perhaps that needs to be made clear. Yet, deposing a president is a savage and blunt instrument to be used only when absolutely necessary and at the risk of poisoning the political atmosphere for decades.
Thus, a man can be indicted (impeached) for an alleged perjury in a civil trial over private sexual behavior (usually meriting only a civil punishment), and he could be deposed if two-thirds of the Senate accepted the evidence
***Baloney. Perjury would be punishable by jail time for an ordinary mortal.
I hope they actually try this crap. Of course, it's really for all the moonbats in their base. Such a move would go nowhere and only expend capital.
Nobody's talking impeachment except this bird.
(usually meriting only a civil punishment)
Tell that to Martha Stewart who served time for lying about a legal (no insider trading) stock trade.
By the way...since when is perjury a civil offense? Even in civil proceedings? I'd really like to know that.
I hope they push for impeachment. They'll lose and it will help us next election
Ironic, some want to impeach the man who will someday be on Mount Rushmore.
this what you mean.....
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source
Hillary Clinton: No regret on Iraq vote
Completely hypothetical and correct me if I am wrong here:
If President Bush were impeached, and he was removed from office by the Senate, that would put Vice President Cheney in as President unless he was also impeached and removed from power.
Would that put Nancy Pelosi as President?
I'm not entirely sure how succession goes in that case.
"Thus, a man can be indicted (impeached) for an alleged perjury in a civil trial over private sexual behavior" ...
all I saw was blah, blah, blah, yaddah, yaddah, yaddah, more of the same lib crap, blah, blah, blah, yaddah, yaddah, yaddah, more of the same lib crap,...
I want to heartily thank the 9 Senate rats who could have changed history by changing their vote to convict Clinton in 1998.
If these 9 would have done that, Gore would have immediately become president, would have won the next election in 2000. Gore would have then tried to nogotiate "peace" with Osama following the attacks on the WTC. Saddam would be in power, North Korea would be continually threatening us.
Again, my endless thanks to those 9 rats who refused to buck the party line and vote for conviction.
At the time in 1998, we were all upset about Clinton getting away with perjury by lying under oath.
God works in mysterious ways.
Great post. Thanks.
"Would that put Nancy Pelosi as President?"
A new veep would be selected within moments after Cheney became Prez.
Well it would put to rest that bigger jet she wants
Thanks for that post.
I know a few libs who are getting these quotes in their e-mail.
Nope, not valid. They are lies, and everyone in Congress knows it.
Really? Wouldn't any of us go to jail for it?
With less than 2 years left, why go through the process now? I seriuosly doubt they will risk it, as much as they'd love to and the left is eager for it.
You missed the two most important ones:
"The British and the American people loudly declared their support for their leaders decision to attack Iraq. It is the duty of Muslims to confront, fight, and kill them."
Osama bin Laden, December 26, 1998
"Oh sons of Arabs and the Arab Gulf, rebel against the foreigner . . . Take revenge for your dignity, holy places, security, interests, and exalted values."
Saddam Hussein, January 5, 1999
In the bad old day, that was quaintly known as a declaration or war. Clinton, of course, responded by attacking Yugoslavia.
No honest person would claim that perjury by the defendant in a workplace sexual harassment lawsuit doesn't qualify.
I've a feeling it would also fatally cripple the WOT and the market.
And, I've got a feeling that such would be precisely what the dems want.
Don't look for this stuff to go away.
Come on. As I recall Newt had resigned as Speaker before Clinton was impeached. Had Newt remained there would probably have been no impeachment.
Ah yea there is that.
I was just having visions of a political coup by removing President Bush and Vice President Cheney at the same time.
Has a nice ring to it.
VP Rumsfeld. ;-)
Of course that is exactly what he is advocating. This article is utterly worthless. But thank you for posting it, because it is important to continue to keep track of what the radical left is thinking.
No, nominated. I doubt that if Cheney were to be removed, the houses would concur with his choice.
Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
But, Pelosi will never have to worry about becoming president.
Andrew Greely is scum. HHC's husband
Right. Clinton broke the law and others have been imprisoned for the same thing. Nowhere in that stupid article is it stated that Clinton broke the law and lied about it and Bush didn't.
I strongly urge the Democrats to throw caution to the wind and IMPEACH THAT SOB NOW!!!! (for the children of course)
Since WE have the guns, BRING IT ON! < /sarc >
I see no particular reason why the President and VP could not be constitutionally impeached and removed simultaneously, perhaps in a single legislative act.
In any case, if Bush were impeached and removed from office, whoever he nominated to be the new VP would not actually be VP until approved by majority vote of both houses of Congress, as Ford was. So the House of Reps and Senate could just proceed to impeach and remove from office President Cheney, who would then be replaced by formerly Speaker, now President, Pelosi, next in the line of succession.
Whether this is politically feasible is another question entirely.
First time I read Mr. Greeley. It was like watching a train wreck--horrible, but I couldn't stop reading. I lost track of the counterfactuals after the first paragraph. Has he not heard that Pres. Clinton was guilty of perjury? Doesn't he know that is a felony? Does he really think we want a felon as President? The popularity of the president should not be a factor in the Senate trial--only the facts of the case.
But Ann Coulter does this better in "High Crimes and Misdemeanors".
Nonsense. An impeachment trial is by definition a political act, not a legal proceeding.
Yo, Andy! Heads up! I thought I saw an 11 year old boy walk by!
"Thus, a man can be indicted (impeached) for an alleged perjury in a civil trial over private sexual behavior (usually meriting only a civil punishment), and he could be deposed if two-thirds of the Senate accepted the evidence."
If there was nothing wrong with perjury, perhaps Greely can tell us why Scooter Libby is on trial.
Ironic. BJ's from barely legal interns in the oval office, perjury, sale of missile technology for Chinese money, renting out the Lincoln Bedroom; none of these "trivialized" the office of the President, did they?
These people could rationalize pedophilia if it was committed by a office holding Democrat. Talk about selling one's soul.
for an alleged perjury in a civil trial
I seem to remember it as an admitted perjury.
Three-fifths of the American public approved of the way Clinton was doing his job...
Hitting on fat interns was more important than dealing with the 1st WTC attack in '93, and aggresively pursuing a guy by the name of Bin Laden who was offered to him. Great job, Clinton.
It took a couple of decades to recover from the shock of deposing Nixon.
To the author of this trash, the country did not recover until Clinton. I seem to remember a President by the name of Reagan who restored American's faith in their country. It will take decades to recover from the pillaging that the Clintons have done to the country!
Thanks for posting those quotes. I have said it before and I will say it again: bombarding the US electorate using ONLY the Dems direct quotes should be THE top priority to counter the tag team of the Dems and the LMSM and their revionist campaign.
No filler. No commentary. Just bounce their pro-Iraq vs. anti-Iraq statements. Go back as far as 1991.
How about refusing to enforce the laws he swore to uphold and conspiring with a foreign government to violate them? That seems to be enough for me. Maybe he has a defense. Who knows?
Oh, my gosh, I just realized that Fitzgerald is trying to get Libby for lying about something that wasn't really a crime. Libby was as close as he could get to the President.
like this..... and why isn't this heard!!!!! I guess that is a question??
with great links by our own freeper researchers
and of course the marvelous work freeper jveritas has done....
Perjury wasn't the only charge against x42. He also suborned perjury, including among members of his Cabinet. He also used Monica to try to get Linda Tripp to lie. Fortunately, Linda wasn't having any of it, and encouraged Monica to protect herself against the Clintons. For that, Linda was roundly trashed among the journalistic and political illuminati.
The only reason x42 wasn't convicted was because there were NO Democrat senators with the cojones to view the evidence against him, so they let him get away with it. They spit on the justice system, but then, what else should we expect with the Clintons are involved?
The good "priest" covered that already, he also thinks adultery is ok and screwing in the workplace is personal just like the old talking points of the day. Greely is scum.
Of course - they WOULD impeach both at the same time which would install Pelosi as President - the only good part of that nightmare would be the Hildabeast's immediate suicide.
But of course....... three years and all this money for nothing - Fitzgerald couldn't "get" anyone for outing Plame (among the hundreds who knew) because it wasn't a crime. All he could come up with was this perjury trap. I fully expect Scooter to be convicted (after the jury shennanigans the other day they are obviously not the brightest bulbs). He will appeal and Bush will pardon him. All this EVER was was a witch hunt, partial payback for Clinton. But they aren't finished yet. They will try to remove Bush and Cheney at the same time through impeachment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.