How do you know that? The Washington Post is a Liberal newspaper...My guess is that they are more likely to poll someone in a DC coffeehouse then someone in Texas.
This is the time on Sprockets when I point out, again, that the perjury charge got 5 fewer votes in the Senate than the obstruction charge. Considering that (i'm pulling this number out of my butt, but I doubt anyone will say I'm way off base) 95 senators thought either that Clinton should be removed for being Clinton, or that impeachment was never meant to apply to those sorts of acts, the fact that the perjury charge got fewer votes is very strong evidence he didn't commit perjury. People forget that Clinton's lawyers negotiated these very detailed (and oddball) definitions of what did and did not count as "sexual relations." I honestly don't think he committed perjury. I do think that he committed obstruction. EDIT: Damn, beaten to the punch. All these years later, I still don't understand why conservatives almost always get this wrong. I guess they're so accustomed to exercising the "will to power" philosophy in which worrying about what's true and what's a lie is for pvssies, they're lazy about details like this. Anyway...no, Dante, it doesn't equal that. You need to learn some history and what the founding fathers intended impeachment to be used for. It's not meant as an individual punishment for the president, it's meant as a collective protection against a president endangering the Republic. If Congress had had about 10 more history professors and about 10 less lawyers, this never would have gotten so far.
And to carry on...you clearly, CLEARLY, don't know what the hell you're talking about. Lying to get the nation into war is probably the 3rd most impeachable thing a president could do, behind treason and attempting a coup. I'm embarassed for you for this part of the post, unless it's irony, and you're a pretty unironic guy. This type of thing is EXACTLY what they had in mind when they put impeachment in the Constitution. Stuff like this, or Nixon's actions wrt Watergate, or Reagan's actions in Iran-Contra despite congressional prohibitions about aid to the Contras. Frankly, except for Ford,* every Republican president since Ike has done something classically impeachable. *I'm not enough of a constitutional expert to know whether it would have been valid to impeach Bush I for things he did while VP. So maybe he skates too.
2 pages and nobody has said "It doesn't rise to the level... ?". Some folks are losing thier touch...
No. In fact, when you consider that there's an "indictment" and a "trial," in that context, there's very little intersection between criminality and impeachment and conviction. Not really...they rejected "malfeasance" as grounds for impeachment.
Funny... that's exactly what happened with John Kerry's official exit poll pollsters on election eve according to the after-election report!
Perjury is a crime, but how often is it prosecuted? That being said, what Clinton did was well within the "high crimes and misdemenors" but it still was a political act by Congress. As for Bush, the evidence is now staring to pile up against him, but as long as there is no true smoking gum (sorry, I don't think the Downing Street Memo fits that term) then Bush will not be impeached.
First, there is so little law to define "high crimes and misdemeanors" that we really can't say what fits "well within" the definition. Second, I do think that the DSM is an incredible smoking gun. If you are waiting for a memo to be produced signed by Dubya saying that he is planning on giving a tv speech in which he will lie to the nation about war, you will be waiting a long time. Re-read the DSM (or more accurately the composite of memos). If you were in congress, wouldn't you say to yourself, "Hmmmmm . . . I'd like to get the guy who wrote that under oath in front of the committee and ask him some questions"? A memo of a meeting at the HIGHEST level of Brit government that suggests that a year before Bush said we hadn't made the decision to go to war, we had already decided to go to war AND that says the evidence of WMD and ties to AQ are flimsy isn't good enough to start the process? Again, having said that, I am not convinced it is in our best interest to go down that path.
I honestly don't think the Founding Fathers would have considered obstruction in a matter wholly unrelated to his duties as president to be impeachable. I mean, remember, the point isn't to put him in jail. You or I could got someone to tamper with evidence in order to help us win a civil case. It's a banal bit of immorality. You or I can't break the law by firing a cabinet official without the consent of the Senate. The latter is what impeachment is for, not the former. That's my understanding...it's for things a president can do, but a common citizen can't. Yeah, you could come up with a crazy hypothetical. "superdave, what if the president pulled out a pistol at a press conference and wasted an impertinent reporter? Is that impeachable?" And I'd say, yeah, and I could explain why. But if we're going to stay grounded in realistic situations, that's what it comes down to. Impeachment isn't for punishing a president, it's a self-defense mechanism for the republic. If you or I could do it, it's probably not impeachable. If you or I can't do it, it probably is. To put it simply...cheating on your taxes, IMO, isn't impeachable. Calling up the IRS director to get him not to audit your return is.
I should have said little "American" law. Much of our common law is derived from British common law, however, none of it is binding on our courts.
It used to be. Congress didn't like how Andrew Johnson was conducting Reconstruction, so they passed this law to keep in place Lincoln appointees who were too hard-core for Johnson. This is what he was impeached for.
Right...Johnson clearly broke the law, but the law was also clearly unconstitutional, and by a single vote, the Senate let him skate. I just decided to use that as an example cuz I figured I would avoid any controversy by referencing Watergate or Iran-Contra or Stupid Pointless War-age. Which, in retrospect, was in error.
The words themselves, yes. But, they are vague to say the least. As with all other sections of the constitution, we rely on American courts (or in this case congress) to interpret the words so that there is a consistent application of the law. My point was simply that the constitutional language is vague, and there is little precedent to use in interpreting the law. There was one impeachment in the first 210 years. Now there are two.
If in English common law the phrase referred to official acts, and there was tons of case law that that's what it meant, then no, it's not vague.
By all means, lay out the clear and unambiguous meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors" because I haven't found it. In fact, most of what I have read demonstrates that the constitutional convention debated this language for four months, precisely to avoid the British use of impeachment which had become far too political in the 18th century.
Well professor, please point out where in the Consitution it states what you are implying is an impeachable offense. Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution "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 don't see anything about starting a war under fals pretenses. So what can you impeach him under? Bribery? No, Midemeanor? No. The only two things would be High Crime and Treason and trying it under Treason is a stretch. That leaves you with High Crime and then it's open to A LOT of interpretation.
An Interesting Read Here (Albeit A Bit Dated) So the Vice President went on TV and insisted to the American people that Saddam had indeed "reconstituted nuclear weapons" even though the U.S. conceded the most of the IAEA's conclusions to the contrary behind closed doors. His statements were at best disingenous and at worst, outright lies or wanton misrepresentations of the facts. Although these statements weren't made by Bush himself I'm sure Cheney was speaking on his behalf, and on behalf of the entire administration.