Should not logically be the Congress

[jmatthan]

that Bush lied to that should impeach him.

How can those whom he did not lie to start a process of impeachment?

Is this not a flaw in the American system?

Jacab Matthan
http://jmpolitics.blogaspot.com

[Poppyseedman]

1. Is this not a flaw in the American system?

I don't think so.

Congress, which is controlled by republicans at the moment are the only body that can bring articles of impeachment. The Senate finds him innocent or guilty

The standard is "high crimes and misdemeanors" Lying doesn't fall into that category. If that was case very President in modern times would have been impeached.

Clinton was impeached for lying before a grand jury, which is a felony, not for boinking Monica. Still doesn't make it right.

You want Bush to be impeached, get him to testify under oath.

Good luck

[H2O Man]

2. Lying to Congress

in order to bring the nation to war absolutely falls into the high crimes and misdemeanors that the Founding Fathers intended impeachments to confront.

[Poppyseedman]

3. As much as you and I would like that to be true

It simply isn't.

If you think it is, go right ahead and prove it by posting Constitutional history and legal precedent that can be used as groundwork to impeach him. If you think Congress is going to break new legal ground, I'll stop wishful thinking.

Congress has to authorize the use of troops, so by doing so they will have confirmed themselves to be part of the lie

The legal precedent isn't there, but good luck in your research.

[Orsino]

4. Yes. The crimes are unprecedented.

But "high crimes and misdemeanors" can mean whatever Congress wants it to, including lying about BJs.

They only have to want it badly enough.

[Poppyseedman]

6. If you are going to lie about BJ's

don't do it in front of a grand jury. That's a felony. What Clinton did in his private life is no concern to me, but the fact is he lied to a grand jury, that tells me he thought he was above the law. At that point he loses me.

I do disagree that "high crimes and misdemeanors" can mean whatever Congress wants it to. There is law and precedent on what the legal definition is constitutionally, thought not everybody agrees.

For Bush to go down in impeachment you are going to have to prove he purposely lied to the people, Congress to go to war knowing in full knowledge there were no fact no WMD. Good news for Bush, bad news for us, just about the whole world thought Saddam had them or was hiding them.

It's called plausible deniability

As for Congress wanting it badly enough. Never going to happen.

[H2O Man]

8. Speaking of "unprecedented,"

those DUers wishing for an accurate history should read Amplification #7 in Vince Bugliosi's book "The Betrayal of America" (pages 77-86). There is not a single case of a man being tried for perjury for lying in a civil case. Not one until Clinton. His "crime" is known as a "self-definive perjury," and is something that may indicate a character flaw, but which only a clown could argue meets the standard of high crimes or misdemeanors.

[Toots]

9. At least you didn't say perjury but he evaded the truth not lied

He was supposed to give the whole truth and he did not but he did not actually lie. He was evasive and has admitted so and lost his right to practice law for five years for doing so but actually lied ...No.

[forgethell]

10. I never understood how

his statement, "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky," did not qualify as a straight-up lie rather than an evasion, or half-truth. Is there something in the context that I have missed?

Anybody care to answer because I'm really curious. Thanks.

[Toots]

11. He was given by the IC all the definitions for sexual conduct

Oral sex was not by definition considered to be sex. They were very specific in their definitions and required all answers to be very specific as well. That was not the statement that they used against him anyway. That was the statement he made before the TV Camera not the Grand Jury. He was judged to be evasive in his answers about other things. The thing about sexual relations was how he was tried in public opinion just as his explaining how there can be more than a single meaning for the word is. Is can be either a question or an answer like in ~ Is this the case? or ~ This is the case

[forgethell]

13. Thanks.

I had read a lot of stuff about it, of course, and never managed to pick that up.

Although, I guess it does not qualify as perjury, many people consider half-truths to be "lying". Certainly I have found out that my wife does.

:)

[H2O Man]

14. It was a lie

and it was certainly perjury. But it is not the type of perjury that ever has resulted in a legal consequence. The explanation by Bugliosi is worth reading.

[WillowTree]

16. I always thought that was such baloney.

If oral sex is not, by definition, sex, why don't we call it oral not by definition sex? That's just playing word games and insulting people's intelligence. It's called oral sex BECAUSE IT'S SEX.

And your explanation of the word "is" is nonsense. "Is" is the third person singular present indicative form of the verb "be". Whether used in a declarative or interrogatory sentence, it's meaning does not change, any more than the definition of the word "and" is different when you say "Bob and I went to the park" rather than "Did you and Bob go to the park?".

He lied to a Grand Jury under oath, pure and simple. Whether doing so in that particular set of circumstances rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors as intended by the Constitution is debatable, but I think most people would agree that it's an awfully big stretch. Fortunately, the Senate obviously didn't think it was a serious enough infraction to remove him from office. The ramifications, had they done so, would have been incalculable.

[forgethell]

17. Right.

Al Gore would probably be President today.

[H2O Man]

5. Read "The Imperial Presidency"

by Arthur Schlesinger. It has the best description of what is and isn't ground for impeachment hearings. I feel no need to post anything to convince you. You are as entitled to your opinion as I am mine. However, if you are interested in knowing where you err, look back through threads from last week, which included information from a Boston area attorney who specializes in constitutional issues; he wrote the cover letter for the alliance asking the House to investigate the Downing Street Minutes. Go find that, and let me know what you think about his opinion on impeachment.

[G_j]

12. for one thing

the bombing started before Congress aproved anything.

[Perky]

7. I am not sure Bush lied to Congress, certainly not under oath

that is the unfortunate, but correct ditinction the reukes would make between W and Clinton.

Now he lied repeatedly to the the american people in the run up to the war but that is no an impeachable offense.

Now having said that the entire thing is academic unless we take back the House next year.

[Mr.Green93]

15. Yodaspeak is tedious