New at Reason

David Weigel | June 28, 2006

Tim Cavanaugh weighs the impeachability of George W. Bush against the stability of the folks who want to do it to him.

Comments

Taktix|6.28.06 @ 12:36PM|#

I think, at least for the Senate, that the real roadblock with impeachment is that those getting re-elected in 2008 were the one's who campaigned on support for the war in 2002.

They'll all be vulnerable if thier opponents can say, "they voted for the war, then impeached (or tried to) the President that led us to war."

Captain Holly|6.28.06 @ 12:54PM|#

Quibble: Impeaching the president is what the House does, the Senate votes to remove the president from office.

I don't see why impeachment is such a big deal. It's the mechanism built into the Constitution to allow the people, through their elected representatives, to rebuke a president.

Impeaching a president isn't a Constitutional crisis, it's the Constitution working the way it's supposed to. If the Democrats become the majority in the House then they have every right to impeach Bush.

Whether or not the Senate would go along with it and whether or not it would be politically wise or whether or not it would even be justified are different things altogether. But there's nothing unconstitutional or improper about the process itself.

|6.28.06 @ 1:05PM|#

Can anytone think of the last president that wasn't impeachable?

|6.28.06 @ 1:14PM|#

If the Democrats become the majority in the House then they have every right to impeach Bush.

Only if they can meet the Consitutional standard (treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors).

Policy differences and frothing personal hatred are not Consitutitional grounds for impeachment.

Not that I'm ruling out the commission of said high crimes or misdemeaners, but most of what is bandied about as reasons to impeach the Chimpster are not, actually, you know, crimes.

|6.28.06 @ 1:20PM|#

JM - Ford? Maybe?

|6.28.06 @ 1:23PM|#

Bush pretty much made himself impeachment proof by having Dick Cheney as his Veep.

|6.28.06 @ 1:29PM|#

So if every President is impeachable, and the Constitution provides for it, why don't we impeach every one? And every Congressman and Senator as well? This could replace sports on TV, and be far more useful to society.

Captain Holly|6.28.06 @ 1:35PM|#

Only if they can meet the Consitutional standard (treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors).

Two things: The House acts kind of like a grand jury and can issue articles of impeachment for whatever they want to (kind of like the saying "you can indict a ham sandwich"). It's then up to the Senate to decide if it's Constitutional or not.

And the term "misdemeanors" is quite broad; another meaning for it is "misbehavior", which was part of the justification used for the Clinton impeachment (which, by the way, was both Constitutional and proper).

For example, the House Democrats could claim that the President "lied" about Iraq (where have we heard that one?) and issue articles of impeachment on simple majority vote.

The Senate would then deliberate the articles and of course refuse to remove the President. And in the process the Democrats would relegate themselves to the backbenches for another decade or so.

Which is why the Demos will whisper impeachment to their Far Left donors but then will do nothing about it when (or if) they get back in power.

|6.28.06 @ 1:35PM|#

"This could replace sports on TV, and be far more useful to society."

Don't. You. Dare.

Captain Holly|6.28.06 @ 1:39PM|#

So if every President is impeachable, and the Constitution provides for it, why don't we impeach every one? And every Congressman and Senator as well? This could replace sports on TV, and be far more useful to society.

Because impeachment has big political consequences, and the overriding interest of every politician is getting re-elected. So the House won't consider impeachment unless it's obvious that's what the people want. Otherwise, they'd be out of a job in the next election.

Which, incidentally, is how the system is supposed to work.

|6.28.06 @ 1:42PM|#

Behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit.

|6.28.06 @ 1:44PM|#

For example, the House Democrats could claim that the President "lied" about Iraq (where have we heard that one?) and issue articles of impeachment on simple majority vote.

Of course they could, but like so much else they do, it would be unconsitutitional.

I was responding as much to the statement that Democrats "have every right" to impeach the President. They don't "have every right"; they have only the impeachment powers granted in the Constitution.

|6.28.06 @ 1:50PM|#

Tim Cavanaugh really put together a heckuva piece here, huh boys? No garbage or unsupported implications here, no way! Just pure Reason, GOP-style. Seriously, what cheek to bring up Bill Clinton's impeachment for lying about dicky-dicky, then not even criticize the GOPers for that disgusting display of pure partisanship in the 90's. Instead, Cavanaugh states as fact that Clinton's military action in Bosnia was to diffuse the impeachment. What does this have to do with the fact that the GOPers impeached the president for playing grab-ass? Perhaps your memory is a bit faded, Mr. C?
And while your point that the GOP controls both houses, and will not allow an impeachment is obvious, you seem to miss the case against the Prez. If Clinton got impeached for a headjob, surely authorizing warrantless searches and other constitutionally questionable spy programs would merit the same scrutiny? So, first, you might want to know, that impeachment means that there is enough evidence to bring charges, and the President admitted to authorizing a warrantless spying program. But since you're apparently a relativist, I guess misleading the public means nothing to you, since it's all just someone's take on the situation. In the end, you deride the Democrats and Bill Clinton because Bush has mislead the country and authorized legally questionable spying?!?!?!?! Good job, heckuva job. Constitutional violations get less scrutiny than blowjobs. Is that Reasons new platform? Heck-uv-a-job.

|6.28.06 @ 1:56PM|#

lying under oath in a conspired effort to deny a fellow US citizen rights under a law that you, ironically, signed is now equal to 'playing grab-ass'.

Talk about a memory that is a bit faded.

Captain Holly|6.28.06 @ 2:03PM|#

I was responding as much to the statement that Democrats "have every right" to impeach the President. They don't "have every right"; they have only the impeachment powers granted in the Constitution.

Stop thinking logically, RC. :-)

Impeachment is as much, if not more, a political process than a legal one. And if 75% of the public strongly felt that George Bush should be impeached, then the House would probably do it, even with the Republicans in charge. Constitutional questions would not even be considered at that point.

As much as some deride Clinton's impeachment, the system worked exactly as it was supposed to in 1998. Clinton got caught whoring and trying to cover it up. Most Americans were disgusted. The Republicans in the House, responding to public disgust, investigated and eventually issued articles of impeachment. The Senate took over, deliberated the articles, and said this is bad but not bad enough to remove him. And for the most part, Americans agreed.

Clinton was given a rebuke but was allowed to stay in office. As messy as it was, that was what the majority of Americans wanted. The system worked.

|6.28.06 @ 3:16PM|#

Hey Cab, thanks for the big-wordization, but as a lawyer, I know that your post doesn't mean anything. "A conspired attempt"? With whom did he conspire? Bill Clinton denied having sex with somebody unrelated to the sexual harassment suit in which he was testifying. So, yes Cab, he lied about playing grab-ass. No amount of big-wordizing will change that fact. Because in the end, Bill Clinton got caught with his dick in the wrong place, then tried to squirm out of it, whereas George W. Bush lied about a number of things, admitted to warrantless searches and other extra-constitutional invasions of privacy, then tried to squirm out of it. You think I'm trying to exonerate Clinton (probably because of partisan blinders), but all I'm calling for is some consistency. Regardless of partisanship, I think libertarians would agree that lying about HEADJOBS in the oval office is a little different than unilaterally suspending the 4th Amendment.

|6.28.06 @ 3:41PM|#

"A conspired attempt"? With whom did he conspire?

I thought he had Monica sign an affidafivit saying they didn't have sexual relations. That would mean two people got together and lied. That would be conspiring.


Bill Clinton denied having sex with somebody unrelated to the sexual harassment suit in which he was testifying.

OK, lawyer, let's say you have a client that says she didn't get a promotion, although she has experience, because she didn't sleep with the boss when he asked.

And, lawyer, you found out later he gave a promotion to an intern with no experience because he slept with her.

Lawyer, do you think that information could be relevant to your case?

If not, lawyer, please inform us of your real name so that we know not to hire you as counsel.

yet, then again, what do I know? I'm no lawyer.

|6.28.06 @ 3:56PM|#

"I don't see why impeachment is such a big deal. It's the mechanism built into the Constitution to allow the people, through their elected representatives, to rebuke a president.

Comment by: Captain Holly at June 28, 2006 12:54 PM"

No, it's part of the It's the mechanism built into the Constitution to allow the people, through their elected representatives, to remove a president. Using it merely to rebuke a president abuses the process. If you wish to rebuke him, censure him.

|6.28.06 @ 4:39PM|#

Bill Clinton's answers concerning his affair with Lewinsky were absolutely relevant to the case and amounted to perjury. The gist of Paula Jones' suit was that Bill Clinton made sexual advances to her and then retaliated against her as a result of her saying no. Once this allegation was made, two questions became relevant: 1) Did Bill Clinton ever have sexual relations with other employees in his charge; and 2) if so, were the employees who had sex with him treated better than those who like Jones turned him down? At this point under sexual harassment law as it currently stands, Bill Clinton's entire sexual history both before and after the incident with Jones becomes relevant. Clinton had to truthfully answer whether he had ever had sexual relations with employees of either the federal government while he was President or the State of Arkansas while he was governor. When he lied about having had sex with Lewinski in deposition, he committed perjury. It is that simple. Whether that is an impeachable offense or not is another issue. But, the people who claim that Clinton did not commit perjury because his answer Lewinski was not material are either ignorant or lying.

Captain Holly is exactly right about this one. No one outside of the tinfoil hat left wants impeachment. More importantly, the Democrats will have to claim that the only reason they voted for the war was Bush's evil lies. That just makes them look weak and stupid. Since Bush can't run again, even if they do manage to damage Bush, it won't make any difference. All impeachment would do is make the Democrats look like the kooks the Republicans accuse them of being. Impeachment did the Republicans no good in the 1998 mid-term elections and Bush only won the 2000 election by running on compassionate conservatism and renouncing the rabid Clinton hating of the prior eight years. Impeaching Bush is a road to nowhere. As a vicious partisan I can't help but hope they do it and show themselves to be the jackasses they truly are. As an American who would like to see the government concentrate on more important things and move on from four year old debates.

Thomas Paine's Goiter|6.28.06 @ 5:31PM|#

Can anytone think of the last president that wasn't impeachable?

Truman. Prior to that...

Coolidge. Prior to that...

Ugh.

Ship Erect|6.28.06 @ 11:10PM|#

Wow, I never thought I'd see Tim Cavanaugh try to impeach the long-gone and long-dead LBJ. Who cares about the war going on right now or who got us into it? Vietnam was worse! J. Edgar Hoover!

Reason: fighting the tough battles.

|6.29.06 @ 12:14AM|#

What does this have to do with the fact that the GOPers impeached the president for playing grab-ass?

I thought he was impeached for lying in a court of law.

|6.29.06 @ 9:25AM|#

Ship erect -

So imagine a small, unjust war in the year 2020. Do we drop all criticism of Bush/Iraq just because it's not "a tough battle"?

First, RTFA.

Second, get a clue: everyone who deserves it, gets skewered here.

Third: there is no statute of limitations on presidential criticism. You should read what's said about Wilson.

Don't be such an LBJ fanboi.

|6.29.06 @ 11:57AM|#

Just because grab-ass was a central issue in the case filed by Coulter doesn't make it something other than grab-ass. Perhaps you are angry at my flip attitude towards fraudulent litigation, or anything done at the behest of Ann Coulter. Two sets of lawyers later, Jones had no case, but Clinton got nailed in a lie about how much grab-ass he was playing. His entire sexual history was at issue. In case you didn't figure it out, that's grab-ass. Fast forward to the point you are trying to deflect: George W. Bush has disregarded the Constitution, lied about his war intentions, and grabbed enough power to frighten even Republicans. Now compare: (1) Clinton gave misleading testimony when asked about his sex life and was cited for contempt of court (not the "simple" perjury claimed by John), (2) he was impeached by self-righteous GOPers, (3) GOPers argue that perjury isn't all that important in the Valerie Plame context, (4) George W. Bush misleads the public and authorizes the infringement of our Constitutional rights. I said it seems logical that if Clinton gets impeached for grab-ass (or lying about grab-ass), then Bush should get the same treatment, especially when his misleading testimony about Iraq leads to a questionable war. I think impeachment is the wrong treatment in both cases, but the Clinton precedent, in my view, is this: if, in the course of making a case for something, you go over the line and say something that is untrue, you get impeached. That's the dubious line drawn by GOPers in the Clinton Impeachment Scandal.

|6.29.06 @ 1:50PM|#

I know that it is easier to say "it was just a blow job", I know that it seems to make a better point to say "it was just a blow job", I know it is funnier to say "it was just a blow job", but easy, direct, and funny doesn't make it accurate. And, let's face it, those are the only real reasons anyone continues to espouse the 'grab-ass' meme.

I'm not trying to beat a dead horse, but you can tell the younger generation anything you want about the facts surrounding the Clinton impeachment. I'm going to tell them the truth.



For the record, I could give a fuck about the self-righteous GOPers as well.

|6.29.06 @ 2:52PM|#

I hope you'll also tell your kids the truth about Paula Jones and Ann Coulter, and just perhaps you'll pass on the idea that it is in poor form to blabber on about sexual partners in public. I guess we all get different truths out of similar facts. I noticed, though, that you're still stuck on Clinton's dishonesty, and haven't quite been able to address Bush's, and why he deserves better than Clinton (he get's better treatment because his party is in power).

|6.29.06 @ 4:35PM|#

You want me to address why I think Bush deserves better than Clinton, huh? That is a tricky worded phrase (you may be a good lawyer after all). If I say Bush doesn't deserve better, then I'm "pro Bush-Impeachment". If I say Bush does deserve better, you'll attempt to corral me in the "partisan-hack" crowd.

But, I'll be a man and answer. Bush deserves to be treated fairly. Clinton was not treated fairly. Therefore, by definition, Bush deserves better treatment than Clinton received. Frankly, I don't think Clinton should have been impeached for his 'dishonesty'. I just think his dishonesty rose above the level of 'playing grab-ass'. When I (as you advised) tell my kids about Coulter, Jones, and the poor taste of kissing and telling, I will be sure to add that although Clinton unarguably broke the law, in the end it was the political make-up of the house at the time that was the main reason for the impeachment.

I suspect we aren't as far off as it might seem. And even if we are far off, I'd rather hang with a passionate person that disagrees with me than an apathetic person that agrees (even if he/she is a lawyer).

I'll see you when the next dead horse needs beating.

Larry A|6.30.06 @ 11:29AM|#

Can anytone think of the last president that wasn't impeachable?

The only two I can think of were Kennedy, who wasn't in office long enough before he was assasinated, and Washington, who served before there were political parties.

|6.30.06 @ 3:34PM|#

Some of the reasoning remindes me of the preadolecient rational" but bobby did it too"so that makes it o.k.?As for Clinton, Paula Jones never suffered any sexual harrassment or retaliation which is why the case was thrown out.As a woman I can tell you having a boss come on to you once never to repeat it may be inappropriate but is not harrassment.Lying under oath is something that seems to happen frequently without concequence(remember the tobacco c.e.o.s).Too bad we never seem to be able to get this administation to even take an oath when testifying.