Impeachment and its ramifications.

[The Backlash Cometh]

The media continues to report that we impeached a president in the 90s. I don't remember that we impeached a president. I remember that the House of Representatives, under Newt Gingrich, used their positions to political advantage and BEGAN AN ATTEMPT to impeach Clinton. I remember that the House of Representatives voted in favor of impeachment, but their attempt was thwarted when the Senate voted against it. And if it was thwarted, there was no impeachment.

So, this brings up the question, if Clinton had been impeached, what would have been the final outcome? Would he have had to step down? Would he have to do it voluntarily or is there a constitutional requirement?

I think these questions are important, especially since Bush might be facing a similar fate if he gets re-elected.

[Quetzal]

1. The moment the Senate impeaches a president

he/she is not the president and the vice-president automatically assumes the role. There is no appeals process.

However, even if the Senate impeaches the president, the ex-president will not see jail time unless the Government of the United States brings him/her to court.

[The Backlash Cometh]

2. So...

if Clinton was not forced from office, why does the media continue to perpetuate a lie that he was impeached?

And, in lieu of the fact that Cheney and Bush are compelled to give testimony in unison, is it possible to impeach them both at the same time, for the same crimes?

[Design8edGrouch]

3. wrong definition of impeachment

Impeachment simply means the formal bringing of charges. Clinton was therefore impeached. The congress did bring charges against him. However he was not indicted, Had he been the second poster would be right. VP becomes president and there is no appeal.

If they had been successful in indicting him, they would have been emboldened enough to go after Gore on trumped up charges and then they would have gone against the high-ranking Democrats in the Congress. There aim is to destroy all liberals.

[Lasira]

4. both clinton and andrew johnson were impeached

as said above, it's just bringing charges that is required for "impeachment" - conviction is necessary to get the Pres. out of office. neither impeachment was successful.

[The Backlash Cometh]

6. It sounds like a linquistic nightmare.

Clinton was impeached (as in charges were brought against him) but the impeachment process failed.

Would that be more accurate?

[Design8edGrouch]

7. Sorry, no that is not more accurate.

No matter how wrong-headed the impeachment process was successful. Charges were brought, Clinton was tried. That is the process, irregardless of outcome. Thank God that the Repugs were not successful in removing a good President.

[The Backlash Cometh]

16. So, at what point did the impeachment stop being an impeachment,

and become something else?

I'll agree that the impeachment succeeded, using your terminology. Charges were brought, Clinton was tried by the House and found guilty. Now what did this process turn into that the Senate's decision stopped the actual removal of the president? Did the Senate just vote against indictment? Maybe that's the question. Exactly what was the Senate vote all about, that it stopped the process?

[mzmolly]

8. I think the dems should take a lesson from the filthy rotten Repugs

and impeach Bush. Though, in the case of Bush, it would be warranted. I think the Rethugs are full of dirty tricks, and I'd like to start fighting fire with fire damnit!

[Pepperbelly]

9. no way ...

The gop controls both houses. No way on earth does Tom the Hammer Delay or Dennie Hastert allow articles of impeachment to get to the House Judiciary Committee nor Sensenbrenner to allow hearings if through some quirk, articles were referred to committee.

[TexasProgresive]

10. Just how can they do that

with the house in rupug control? Dems in the house are lucky if they can get a bill heard much less passed and you want them to bring charges against dubyuk!

Much as I want him out - this procedure is too destructive to that fabric of America. Our best bet is to make him a lame duck in November. Twice repugs have brought unilateral impeachment proceedings against a president, Andrew Johnson and William Jefferson Clinton. The process was in progress against Nixon but that was different in that it was bi-partisan. That will never happen with dubyuk because he as a core group of true believers who would bully and right thinking (this is not an oxymoron) Republicans.

May those who love us love us.
And those that don't love us,
May God turn their hearts.
And if He doesn't turn their hearts,
May he turn their ankles,
So we'll know them by their limping.

[Kahuna]

11. It worked so well in Clinton's case...

</sarcasm> Voters rallied to Clinton because of the heavy-handed tactics of the repukes. If we try to impeach bush, the public will rally to him and we will end up with four more years. No thank you.

[The Backlash Cometh]

5. Well, if that's all impeachment means, then it would be a simple matter

to impeach Bush, just for the record, since he does make decisions that are unconstitutional. i.e. 700 million dollars illegally diverted to the Iraq War.

[never_get_over_it]

13. Actually I think they

they were successful in indicting Clinton. Impeachment means the House brings charges - which I believe is the equivilant of indicting him. The Senate is responsible for trying and convicting/removing the person impeached. The Senate has to vote by 2/3rd vote not just a simple majority to convict and remove - the best they could do was a 50-50 tie on one of Clinton's two charges - If I'm remembering correctly. Actually there was never a chance the Senate would have removed Clinton - the whole pathetic thing was used to humiliate Clinton and keep him from getting anything done.

There is absolutely no chance that Bush would be impeached with the makeup of the House - and no chance he would be convicted and removed - and because of that and because there is a Presidential election this year no Democrat will risk the political ramification to even bring up impeachment.

So lesson learned here is we have to work really hard at getting more Democrats in the House and Senate - for this reason and many many others.....and we have to work really hard at the State level to have Dems in the majority there because of redistricting which is used to ensure partys keep their seats in the House.

[The Backlash Cometh]

17. Thank you

You answered a question I asked above.

[Design8edGrouch]

20. Sorry,

I've been off-line all day. And,I had only read the last posting on the string. I didn't realize that you had done such a thorough and competent response to the confusion over impeachment. And yes you are absolutely right as to why we must have a clean sweep in both Houses and the White one.

[markomalley]

12. Just have patience...

...until after the election. After he is out of office, then K*'s attorney general can bring B* up on charges for his actions while in office. Getting thrown out of office would not hurt b* too badly; some jail time would be much more appropriate.

Or how about sending him to Gitmo with some of the poltiical prisoners he is keeping?

[Pepperbelly]

14. I can agree with you here, Friend Mark ...

I would not be averse to Bush collecting a few months of the sweet-sweet Prez Pension money before the War Crimes Tribunal shows up to prosecute him and stick his ass somewhere dark, damp, and dank for the next 20 years or so ....

[Q]

15. GOP Playbook: accuse AG of covering up crimes of the executive branch

- We shouldn't be calling for impeachment...yet. We must first call for a SPECIAL PROSECUTOR to investigate the many 'scandals' of the Bush* administration. To take a page from the RWing playbook: first threaten the attorney general and accuse his office of trying to 'cover up' crimes and misdeeds of the executive branch.

- RWing Republicans understood that the idea of impeachment was impossible until they turned the nation, the media and a few of his own party against Clinton. But first they had to set up a scenario where it appeared as if the attorney general (Reno) was attempting to coverup the crimes and scandals of her boss. The accusations and innuendo didn't have to be true...just repeated often and in every public forum.

- The key to pressuring the attorney general into requesting a special prosecutor is to keep up the innuendo about a CONFLICT of interest. Send out troops of talking heads armed with facts and information related to one or two instances of wrongdoing. The idea is to keep the talking points LIMITED to one or two issues so that even the dullest of Americans will understand what's at stake.

- RWing Republicans CREATED a scandal by accusing the Clinton's of wrongdoing in a decade's old land deal. When Reno found no scandal and refused to investigate further...they accused HER of trying to cover for the president. When they later found NO crimes related to whitewater...they simply expanded the investigation and went FISHING.

- The idea is to put the executive branch and attorney general OFF BALANCE by not talking about anything else UNTIL they agree to assigning an 'independent prosecutor' to look into the allegations. The investigations can be expanded once they're in progress...to look at other scandals and charges of wrongdoing.

- Investigations and hearings MUST come before impeachment. Let's use the opposition's playbook and get busy.

[Nlighten1]

18. He was impeached in the House.

But the Senate didn't do anything.

[Design8edGrouch]

19. Again, No!

It is a joint effort. The House votes to bring charges. They act as the prosecutor, presenting their case to the Senate. The Senate votes that either the President is guilty of the charges brought or perhaps it's the House proofed their case (I don't remember now). There is a magic number of 65%/75%/%? yes votes required. The Senate then conducts a voice count. "I Senator Foggy-Bottom from the state of Barf-up votes yes." If they get enough ayes the President is removed from office. What happened to both Clinton and Andrew Johnson is that the Senate did not have the aye votes to remove either of them.

As for how long this has been going on--well I learned this in my eighth grade history class. And I have children that have been out of school more than eight years

[The Backlash Cometh]

21. Just when I thought I had it...it just slipped away.

Design8Grouch stated in the previous post:


"What happened to both Clinton and Andrew Johnson is that the Senate did not have the aye votes to remove either of them."

"As for how long this has been going on--well I learned this in my eighth grade history class. And I have children that have been out of school more than eight years."

You'll have to excuse us unfortunates who weren't attending middle school during the terms of those two presidents. So...since you were there, how was Andy after the impeachment?

[Design8edGrouch]

22. He was a shaken man

He personally told me that he didn't think he could move on with his life. To his dying day he could not figure out what went wrong with his relationship to Congress

[The Backlash Cometh]

23. Must have been the haircut.

*

[No2W2004]

25. Andy wanted to follow Lincoln's plan for re-construction

and the radical republicans wanted vengance and punishment. When Andy vetoed most of their plans, they tried to get rid of him.

[Walt Starr]

24. We did impeach a president!

The House determines whether or not to impeach and yes, they DID impeach Clinton. The only other president in history to be impeached was Andrew Johnson.

Impeachment is tanamount to indictment. Remember, just as in a grand jury indictment, impeachment is stacked against the accused.

The Senate then becomes the jury for the trial. The Senate convicts or acquits an impeached president.

Clinton was acquitted.

[No2W2004]

26. right

Impeachment is the house voting to bring charges against the president for "high crimes and misdemeanors" or treason. The Senate then has a trial and votes to convict or acquit. Nixon would have been the only president removed from office had he not resigned.

[markomalley]

27. You don't want to impeach Bush right now...

...because you need to look at the lines of succession. First Cheney, then Denny Haster, then Ted Stevens...then we start working our way down the B*sh cabinet.

As I said before, we should just have patience and wait for the inevitable war crimes trial. Who knows, maybe Kerry will ship bush off to The Hague...

[PaDUer]

28. The entire gang

should be in the hague. They used 2000 for their "trial run" and succeeded, then 2002, and succeeded...Time to oust them, not play along w/ them..that's why their lol because they know the D's won't do jackshit!, and IF we have an election in Nov, IF...you know the writing's on the wall...We can't let them continue, they must go down NOW. They're already wanted for war crimes.

[markomalley]

29. Send 'em there this November

In fact that would be a good question to ask the other candidates... "if elected, would you support sending the chimp and the rest of the circus to the Hague?"

[The Backlash Cometh]

30. This is what they meant when they said that if we got rid of Sadaam

Hussein, the next in command was worse.

[dusty64]

31. If chimp stood a chance

of being held accountable for his crimes I would almost be able to deal with him stealing another election. Unfortunately we would have to have large majorities in Congress and even then I have serious doubts the Democrats would want to do anything harsh to our "glorious leader". I've seen this regime get away with outrageous crimes like we've never seen before, yet time and again the "opposition" lets them go. I don't have a lot of faith in the process and our (for the most part) corporate controlled government in Washington.

[theboss]

32. You don't understand impeachment

Educate yourself first.