Be cautious about impeaching Bush (GREELEY ALERT)

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | February 16, 2007 | ANDREW GREELEY

[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.

mailto:agreel@aol.com

[when the time is right]

I remember after Nixon was forced from office a lot of Democrats believed that people would march in the streets and demand that a Democrat be made President.

They were amazed and disappointed that everything went smoothly as the Constitution dictated and Ford took office. It just took the wind out of their sails and was interesting and humorous to watch.

[ConservaTexan]

This article is a bunch of crap. The libs are not only rewriting history, they are trying to right the future as well.

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!

[torchthemummy]

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.

[FreePaul]

What would the charges be?

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?

[Eva]

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.

[malia]

like this..... and why isn't this heard!!!!! I guess that is a question??



http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1698313/posts

with great links by our own freeper researchers


xxxxxx

and of course the marvelous work freeper jveritas has done....


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1697938/posts

[SuziQ]

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.

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?

[X-FID]

Has he not heard that Pres. Clinton was guilty of perjury?

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.

[greccogirl]

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.

[greccogirl]

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.

[greccogirl]

Remember that day in the rose garden with Clinton in the middle and Al dummy and all the rest circling around him like bodyguards protecting a skinny kid from a bully? That was so awful................ a horrible moment for this country.

[Forgiven_Sinner]

I said: "The popularity of the president should not be a factor in the Senate trial--only the facts of the case."

You said: "Nonsense. An impeachment trial is by definition a political act, not a legal proceeding."

You are quite right--there must be the political will to convict the impeached President. This is how Andrew Johnson got off--one Senator was POed by someone and did not vote to convict.

However, I recall the gist of the oath the Supreme Court Justice administered to the Senate: they must vote according to the facts of the case. They are then oath bound to do so. Perhaps some Freeper will search for that--it was heavily discussed on FR at the time.

Of course, my memory could be faulty too--that seems more common as I get older!

[IrishRainy]

I was taught not to say anything bad about a priest, but to pray for him instead.

Screw that in this case - Greeley is truly an a$$.

[MaxMax]

They still can't get over Blow-Job-Clintons ordeal.

Dear Democrat',
There are no erroneous "Closet Stains" on the Dress money going to Iraq. :END:

Them "Dem" idiots are still P-Oed about the 2001 election.

Pathetic. Just Pathetic.

[TADSLOS]

Maybe the dems and weak kneed RINOs will try a non-binding impeachment.