Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
OK, I don't like Bush.
Please cite the law and the instance along with evidence which is not hearsay which in fact makes a case strong enough to remove a sitting President.
No "should be" or "we must"
Cite the law violated, and the specific evidence (which op-eds are not)
Pretend you are an attorney trying to convince a Congressman that there is a substantial case IN LAW.
Whatcha got?
A list of specifics for which to impeach Bush.
Good! You have a list that has some merit.
Now, what is it you really want done with it? Not a trick question, but let's suppose you can get half that list to stick. I've often thought that a violation of FISA might be sufficient.
The absolute best case for impeachment would likely take a few years.
My reading suggests that Congress could act very quickly, if they want to, well within his remaining term, i.e. a few months. BTW, FISA jumps to the head of my list, too.
Here's one summary I've seen responding to that claim:
When they say "There is not enough time for impeachment."
* If Congress decided to impeach Bush or Cheney then it could happen fairly quickly.
* Andrew Johnson fired Edwin Stanton on February 21, 1868. On March 2nd, ten days later, the House voted to impeach him for that crime. The trial lasted two months. The Republicans who led the impeachment against Johnson won the Presidential election later that year with 53% of the popular vote.
* On July 27th, 1974, the Judiciary Committee approved Articles of Impeachment against Richard Nixon for spying on Americans and ignoring subpoenas. On August 8th, twelve days later, Nixon announced that he would resign. [BBC]
* The House voted to initiate impeachment hearings for Bill Clinton in October 1998. He was impeached two months later on December 19th. The trial began January 7th after the Winter break and ended one month later on February 6th.
* An aide to Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) once said that the impeachment of Bush might take longer because the crimes were so much more serious and more numerous and there was so much more evidence. But we could focus on one or two of the most serious crimes to begin with. Bush or Cheney need only be convicted on one Article of Impeachment in order to be removed from office.
* At a minimum, we can at least start impeachment hearings in the Judiciary Committee. Representative Wexler and others are asking John Conyers to begin hearings.
Understand that Bush will pull Executive Privilege out for everything. That means a stalemate that goes until the SCOTUS resolves the issues.
It doesn't matter. Congress has more than enough evidence - they don't need to go through the 'Nixon tapes trial' the Supreme Court quickly resolved.
They need sufficient, not complete info, and they already have it available.
Bush simply will refuse to give the proceedings any credence.
That hardly matters - like Nixon 'gave them credence'.
He will prohibit testimony by anyone remotely connected with the Executive Branch, and the Attorney General isn't going to be hauling anyone before Congress. His basis for refusing to participate in the process will be the concept of the Unitary Presidency. That will have to be struck down by the SCOTUS. Anyone who is tossed in jail for contempt will be pardoned. They will walk free, and not just for the remainder of this term.
For one, the congress can get the evidence they need without that testimony.
For two, it's debatable whether Bush would choose to so blatantly abuse his power. You might recall how public opinion turned on Nixon for his 'massacre' when he got rid of the special prosecutor investigating him - which he had the power to do, but which he had to get rid of two of his own people who refused on principle to do, until the third person, Robert Bork (yes, that Bork, later rewarded for his 'party loyalty') was willing to be his political tool.
For three, Congress *could* conceivably even use such a blatant abuse of the power to obstruct justice as additional grounds for impeachment.
Simply put, no one CAN impeach Bush, because he can throw monkey wrench after monkey wrench into the works.
You are not going to get him while he's in office. Time is too short.
We disagree.
Now, suppose you take that same list, and investigate the day after he leaves office. He's no longer President. He can't use Executive powers to hamper investigations. He's Joe Citizen.
I don't want to make a great noise to no effect. I'd rather see the evidence without being hampered, then if he broke the law he can hardly pardon anyone, can he?
Fight now and lose, or fight later and maybe win. Which is better to you?
Perhaps unfortunately, we have a strong precedent in this country for not going after a former president for wrongdoing in office, probably out of a healthy desire not to set a precedent for 'payback' abuse. I suspect there will be little interest in doing so. The time to hold him accountable is now, while he's in office, first because that's what the law says to do, and second, for what it matters, I think it'll make a far stronger 'statement'.
Facebook
Twitter