Impeachment requirements.

[Warren Stupidity]

The constitution is massively vague regarding what is an 'impeachable offense'. It cites two specific crimes: treason and bribery, and then utters the famous phrase: "High Crimes and Misdemeanors".

It is my assertion that there is no requirement for a statutory offense in order for the house of representatives to impeach a federal officer.

I provide as evidence the following two links:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764613.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States

I invite an honest and polite discussion on this subject as I think it, given current events, is vitally important.

[EVDebs]

1. War Powers Act of 1973

http://www.milnet.com/warpower.htm

discusses the War Powers Act of 1973 and as amended, with a link to the act itself.

A cursory reading of the Act reveals the phrase when introduction of US forces are to be used in situations "clearly indicated by the circumstances". The phrase is repeated many times in the document.

Even a moron would agree that such circumstances would have to be TRUTHFUL circumstances. Furthermore, unless Congress itself enjoys being lied to, the testimonies presenting the resolution for war in Iraq which Congress relied upon, were perjuries.

See the war resolution itself at:

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, October 2002

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

It is interesting to note that in US vs. Poindexter that

"86 U.S. v. Poindexter, 951 F.2d 369, 390 (D.C. Cir. 1991).

The Poindexter appeals panel also overturned the two obstruction convictions on the grounds that the statute was ``unconstitutionally vague'' in its proscription of ``corruptly'' endeavoring to impede a congressional inquiry. The appeals panel ruled that a defendant's lying to Congress does not constitute obstruction unless the defendant corruptly influences someone else to do so. Again, Chief Judge Mikva dissented, finding it ``obvious . . . that Poindexter 'corruptly' obstructed the congressional investigation when he lied to Congress.'' 87"

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/chap_03.htm

So apparently a conspiracy, which this Iraq War certainly entails, is required in order to convict both on the lying to Congress charge but also any obstruction of justice charges.

My head hurts.

[Maraya1969]

13. Where is that list of CIA memos that clearly show how the White House

edited them to make it seem as if Iraq were a threat. That is why the Senate and the rest of us thought we needed to go there.

Those memos are very important. Those plus the Downing Street Memo is enough to prove blatant lying in an attempt to start a war.

Isn't there a law against lying to start a war? We HAVE the evidence.

Where are those CIA memos anyone?????

[EVDebs]

25. I love the way you put "Isn't there a law against lying to start a war?"

It's called 'common sense' and it needs to sink in with the Republican controlled House and Senate (and Supreme Ct) in order to become 'enforcable'.

[berni_mccoy]

2. I lay out a case

That the entire administration is guilty of treason here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1828838

Be sure to read my follow-up post in that thread about the U.S. constitution's definition of treason. Also, keep in mind that A.G. Gonzales just said Deep Throat may be guilty of treason .

[tmorelli415]

3. seems unlikely they could mount a case without statutory violations

questions is what constitutes a 'crime'? I think Common Law tradition would consier a 'crime' to be a statutory violation. It could also be argued, I would suppose, that a president who did not necessarily violate any laws per se, but who had a pattern of abusing the power of his office for personal gain or the disadvantage of the American people would be subject to impeachment and removal from office. For example, if he were to stand on a street corner barking like a dog every day, or dressed like Scarlet O'Hara every day, or had violent profane outbursts when representing the country with foreign leaders on a regular basis (or even once depending on how damaging the outburst was), the Congress could be justified in impeaching and removing him from office despite the fact that no specific statutory violation took place on the grounds that it was counter to the best interests of the nation to have such a person as president.

I would even argue that the current occupant of the White House could be subject to impeachment and removal from office for regular stating that God talks to him (e.g., "I asked God if I should invade Iraq and I heard the voice of God tell me to strike them." paraphrasing his own words here). A president who is prayerful and talks to God is a fine thing; it is even very acceptable to have a president who actually believes he is doing the right thing in the eyes of God, but to actually hear the voice of the Almighty saying "strike them'? Now that is verging on unbalanced so say the least, and would in my opinion be grounds for impeachment and removal from office in the best of worlds. Aren't we justified in the impeachment and removal from office of a president who demonstrates pscychotic tendencies, or even one diagnosed as mentally ill? Seems doubtful there are statutes that specifically call for the removal from office of one who is mentally unbalanced, but are we just expected in that case to hope for the best and deal with it? I think the Constitution is deliberately vague on this and many issues - that is the beauty of the document despite what the strict 'dead document' judicial cabal would say, I believe it was intended to be a 'living' document.

[berni_mccoy]

11. I agree there are many reasons for impeachment

Unfortunately we won't get the republicans in power to do it unless there is something so blatantly bad that they can't refuse to do it. In this case, the DSM flies right in the face of Congress. The repubs in congress still like to think they have power, but what the DSM shows them is that they don't. If Bush wants something, he'll go to illegal lengths, even duping the republicans in Congress, to get it.

Treason is the most fitting charge here, and I don't think it should be the only one when the articles are drafted.

BTW, I think Bush was barking on the street corner and dressed like Scarlet O'Hara before he got elected, so it would be extremely hard to get him impeached on these grounds. Likewise the God commanding attacks thing... he probably had God (which was most likely Cheney/Rove over the radio via a middle-ear implant) talking to him before he got elected too.

[EVDebs]

29. Abuse of federal agencies was one of the Nixon impeachment charges

Speaking of the abuse of our intelligence agencies, especially the stovepiping of Office of Special Plans over conventional truth-based intelligence. BTW, wouldn't treason charges apply too if Chalabi turns out to actually be an Iranian spy ?

[tmorelli415]

7. That would be the same A.G. Gonzales who said...

that the Geneva Conventions were "quaint" and irrelevant. They twist the law to suit them at will, and if they don't like a particular law they just say it is "quaint" and ignore it. That is now neo-cons operate; if you read Straus, their philosophical hero, it is clear that they don't believe those in charge are subject to the law. Religion and laws are for the masses, as they see it - just tools to maintain order and control. The truth is what they decide it is, to be changed as they see fit, and is completely relative in so much that it provides them with a justification for their own actions. Straus hated the Constitution. So do the neo-cons.

[ClassWarrior]

4. Talking about impeachment:

PRICELESS. :D

NGU.

[expatriot]

5. greatest constitutional flaw: you cant impeach entire administrations

i can't think of any examples right now but how are entire administrations that are corrupt to the bone to be dealt with constitutionally? You impeach the president, the VP is Prez and nominates a new VP, just as corrupt. The new Prez is impeached and the VP takes over and appoints a new VP, so on and so forth.

on edit: forgot :sarcasm: tag after "I cant think of any examples right now"

[berni_mccoy]

12. Well, there's a first for everything...

Simultaneous impeachment, and then arrests of the rest. If I had to guess, I would say McCain is likely selected by Congress as the replacement.

Or maybe special elections... they did it in California...

The Constitution does give power to Congress to make the call.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

6. before this invasion somebody in this administration

said, regarding WMD, "we know where they are". I think it was Rummy it could have been Powell. I also believe it was either under oath or before the UN. I mention this only because it illustrates a provable lie - not that there are any shortage of provable lies but I also think of it as the most glaring example.

[ginnyinWI]

9. Rummy should go

If they throw him overboard, it will be a sure sign that there's big trouble afoot. He's one of the worst of the bunch, IMO.

The best plan: regain a Dem majority in 2006, impeach/force resignations of B/C; Pelosi, as Speaker, becomes president. :)

[SlavesandBulldozers]

28. i agree

that's why they won't throw him overboard, it would be tacit admission of failure.

[Liberty Belle]

8. There is historical precedent for impeaching based on lies,

Since lying about sex was what they nailed Clinton on. Surely lying to start a war is worse.

[napi21]

16. The Pub explaination Bush/Clinton lies=one was under oath!

Don't you remember the drowning repetition of "He lied under oath"?

To the best of my knowledge, Shrub has never been under oath. Even in the questioning by the 911 commission, he said he and Cheney would talk to them, but NOT UNDER OATH!

[Warren Stupidity]

23. He was under the oath he took on 1/20/2001

And he has violated that oath.

[EVDebs]

26. Ann Coulter would have gone after these guys

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

http://www.constitution.org/usdeclar.htm

The left is Treasonous, never the rightwingnuts. Repeat along with the M$M as often as you can...(sarcasm !).

[bleever]

10. In the interest of being prepared at DU,

I think it's about time for a long, studied series of discussions about how this impeachment is going to happen.

Because unless I miss my guess, a lot of the impetus and ingenuity and sheer drive to see this become reality is going to happen here at DU.

(rubbing hands together)


:thumbsup: and, NGU.

[Pryderi]

14. False Statements Accountability Act of 1996

False Statements Accountability Act of 1996

Quote :
" Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully --

1. falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
2. makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
3. makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."


http://www.law.uh.edu/healthlaw/law/FederalMaterials/FederalStatutes/fraudandfalsestatements18usc1001.pdf

[napi21]

17. Please explaine how this section amight ot might not apply:

(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch,
subsection (a) shall apply only to--
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the
procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support
services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the
Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any
committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with
applicable rules of the House or Senate.
********************************************************************
Especially the first part. It states "any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm asking. If there are supposed to be 3 separate branches of gov't, doesn't that exempt the Administrative Branch from this Act?

[Warren Stupidity]

21. I think (2) expressly includes

making any statement to congress within any of congresses formal activities. So for example the executive statement sent to congress under the war powers act certifying that Iraq posed an imminent threat would qualify, and it is now known that the administration knew that statement was false.

But back to my original point- even if the administration could avoid criminal charges for violating the fraud and false statements law, based on a constitutional argument that this law violates separation of powers for example, that would not prevent impeachment. In fact, give that I believe ultimately that we will lose on a party line vote, I like the idea of the Republican Party forced into a 'technicalities defense' that admits that they lied and committed fraud and in doing so killed tens of thousands of people. That is fine with me.

[lavenderdiva]

15. don't know if you saw this, or if this quote is from your post.

but Scoop in New Zealand is quoting DU here, about the articles of impeachment for Bush.

Link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3783724

[Warren Stupidity]

22. Thats good.

I think that goes right to the point. Nitpicking over 'which law has been violated' will be a diversional strategy from the right. The ground for impeachment are as laid out by scoop: Bush has acted in a manner so egregiously wrong - taking the nation to war under false pretenses, that his actions constitute a clear violation of his constitutional duties as president. If he also managed to violate some federal statutes that is fine but not needed. Thanks scoop.

[corbett]

18. Gonzales Will Be A Huge Problem But...

What we have going for us are all the families of the fallen. They deserve our full support but we also can tap them. In my humble opinion, roughly 85% of them turn against Bush when they receive their military burial flag. If they lead the call based on the Downing Street Memo, it's a whole new ball game.

We also should remember that Kerry won the majority of overseas military absentee ballots in many states. A great deal of the military is anti-Bush now, especially the ones caught in the back-door draft.

Other suggestions here:

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050601/the_key_to_impeachment.php

[Warren Stupidity]

20. how does the AG factor into impeachment at all? EOM

[corbett]

24. Technically, No

It's supposed to be up to the House to decide to begin impeachment. However, you can bet your bottom dollar that he'll be consulted by Sensenbrenner, DeLay and Hastert if we ever get that far.

[Warren Stupidity]

19. Thanks everyone

So I think that there are several interesting issues here regarding impeachment.

1) statutory requirements - I continue to assert that there is no such requirement for impeachment, but I agree that it would 'help the case' if there were one;

2) would removing Bush just make matters worse? That's a tough one. My opinion is that impeachment will fail in the house so the question is moot. I actually was against impeachment at all just a short time ago for this reason. I've changed my mind. I think that we have to stop not acting out of fear that we will not succeed. We, the 'loyal opposition', have to stand up and do what's right and let the chips fall where they may. It is too late for nuance and deep strategizing and the endless self-defeating political jui-jitsu that the Democratic Party leadership has used to avoid taking a stand on practically anything.

3) explicit violations - good stuff regarding the war powers act and the various regulations prohibiting false statements.

[EVDebs]

27. "...a long train of abuses"

http://www.constitution.org/usdeclar.htm

requires SOMEONE like those Freemasons of 1776 to risk some of what's left of 'our sacred honor' these days.

The Truth will out. But who will tell the people ?

[Imagevision]

30. Bush: "High Crimes & Misdemeanors" {Downing Memo}

[warrens]

31. I consider lying to promote an illegal war and get our kids killed treason