Binary_Digit said:If he broke any laws, yes, otherwise no.
That was actually lying to federal grand jury, or put another way, perjury. He's lucky he's not in jail. So to say it was nothing is a lie and I demand a retraction and an apology. :roflKidRocks said:What the hell does that mean? You can't impeach a President for nothing, oh, wait a moment... President Clinton, I forgot!
Clinton was impeached for having sex in the White House, er, BJ's in the White House. Is that ( BJ's) considered "sex"?Binary_Digit said:Clinton was impeached because he broke the law. Bush should not be impeached if he didn't break any laws. IMO
That depends on what the meaning of "is" is. (someone had to say it!)Is that ( BJ's) considered "sex"?
If the rep/cons hadn't such a hardon ( :3oops: ) for getting Clinton out, and hadn't hired some trollop to kiss-and-tell, Clinton wouldn't have had the opportunity to lie to a grand jury.Binary_Digit said:Clinton was impeached for lying to a grand jury.
You're kidding, right?KidRocks said:Is that ( BJ's) considered "sex"?
He most definitely WAS impeached. He wasn't removed from office, but he was impeached. Sorry, son.Paladin said:Well, no. He was never impeached. Who's confused?
Well then, so was Bush.KCConservative said:He most definitely WAS impeached. He wasn't removed from office, but he was impeached.
President Clinton Impeached
Behind a backdrop unique in historical terms, on Saturday 19 December 1998, President William Jefferson Clinton was impeached by the United States House of Representatives, becoming only the second President in U.S. History, and the only man popularly elected as President to have been so charged.
The House voted 228 to 206 to approve proposed Article I of Impeachment (Perjury before a Federal Grand Jury), and voted 221 to 212 to approve proposed Article III of Impeachment (Obstruction of Justice).
Although the impeachment process succeeded at the level of the House of Representatives, without the Senate's confirming action in this matter, no further action was taken.
dictionary.com said:im·peach P Pronunciation Key (m-pch)
tr.v. im·peached, im·peach·ing, im·peach·es
To make an accusation against.
To charge (a public official) with improper conduct in office before a proper tribunal.
To challenge the validity of; try to discredit: impeach a witness's credibility.
please. :roll:KCConservative said:Sorry, son.
There is more here.Q. What is the role of the House of Representatives in impeachment under the Constitution?
A. Article 1, Section 2, of the Constitution specifies that "the House of Representatives...shall have the sole power of impeachment." This means that it has the power to bring charges against an official.
Q. What is the Senate's role under the Constitution?
A. Once impeached, high officials are tried by the Senate. Article 1, Section 3, specifies, "The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present."
ABA said:Q. How many impeachment proceedings have there been in our history? How many involved a president?
A. The serious nature of impeachment is reflected in the fact that the House of Representatives has only moved seriously to impeach 18 officials in the more than 200 years since the Constitution was ratified, including two presidents, one cabinet member, one senator, and 13 judges. (The trial of the senator in 1797 resulted in the judgment that a United States Senator is not subject to impeachment.) Only seven of these officers were convicted by the Senate. A president has never been removed from office through the impeachment process. Andrew Johnson, who was impeached in 1868, was not convicted by the Senate (by a margin of one vote) and Richard Nixon resigned before the House voted on the articles of impeachment recommended by the Judiciary Committee.
Delicate Dance for Bush in Depicting Spy Program as Asset
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
Published: January 23, 2006
. . .
Mr. Rove's speech on Friday to the Republican National Committee was a classic example. "Let me be as clear as I can be: President Bush believes if Al Qaeda is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interest to know who they're calling and why," Mr. Rove said. "Some important Democrats clearly disagree." . . .
"A lot of Democrats?" said one prominent Republican supporter of Mr. Bush, who did not want to be identified while being critical of a White House that famously does not brook criticism. "Democrats, Karl? Republicans, too."
David A. Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, said: "A lot of conservatives are very skeptical about it. It is not as clean-cut a political win as the administration thinks that it is."
Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, is planning hearings on the surveillance program. And in an interview on Fox News on Sunday, Senator John McCain of Arizona said he did not think the president had the legal authority for this operation, adding that the White House should seek Congressional approval to alter the 1978 provisions if it thinks they are not working now.
Mr. McCain also came to the defense of Democrats in response to Mr. Rove's suggestion that they were not committed to the nation's security. "Do I think that the president's leadership has been worthy of support of our party and our leadership?" he said. "Yes. But there's too many good Democrats over there who are as concerned about national security and work just as hard as I do."
Beyond that, one Republican analyst who is skeptical about the White House strategy said Mr. Bush's position was hardly helped by the fact that his credibility numbers have dropped along with his popularity since his re-election. Mr. Bush may find that, as some Democrats have suggested, the invocations of Sept. 11 do not have the force they once had.
Interesting. How so? When you're able to refute the staement below, get back to me.Paladin said:OK, so KCConservative and I are both wrong
You think that's sufficient. If they look into this ,and they find that the Justice Dept was convinced it was legal, but were wrong, that's enough for an impeachement? That speaks to criminal intent.Binary_Digit said:If he broke any laws, yes, otherwise no.
Paladin said:If the rep/cons hadn't such a hardon ( :3oops: ) for getting Clinton out, and hadn't hired some trollop to kiss-and-tell, Clinton wouldn't have had the opportunity to lie to a grand jury.
You're kidding, right?
In the past half-decade, meanwhile, numerous Zogby Polls for various special interests have relied on creative phrasing to give the impression of wide public support for the view that the given client is promoting. In response to a question about the wording of the Newsmax.com impeachment survey, Zogby responded, "If we had anything to do with the wording of that question, then I guess I have a problem with it."
Ignorance is not an excuse for breaking the law. They have legal experts for this reason. If it's questionable, call a Congressional hearing to decide.VoiceOfReason said:You think that's sufficient. If they look into this ,and they find that the Justice Dept was convinced it was legal, but were wrong, that's enough for an impeachement? That speaks to criminal intent.
I don't know, what if they find that 10,000 attacks were prevented and 100,000,000 lives were saved? I agree that, at some point, a line should be drawn as to where the end justifies the means. But our scenarios should be as realistic as possible. If they were terrorist suspects, why would it be so hard to get a warrant? The FISA court has approved about 99.9999% of all warrant requests since it was established, IIRC.VoiceOfReason said:And waht if they find he only tapped terrorist supect's calls< i.e., did not us ethe taps on political opponnets> , you still think he should be impeached?
For some answers to questions from reporters on this topic, see General Hayden's answers at powerlineblog.BD said:If they were terrorist suspects, why would it be so hard to get a warrant?
General Hayden said that the AG is the only one that can authorize "whats called an emergency FISA", that it isn't something the NSA can do on its own. As for the AG, Hayden said, "he must have sufficient evidence in front of him that he believes he can substantiate taht in fron of the FISA court."QUESTION: General Hayden, the FISA law says that the NSA can do intercepts as long as you go to the court within 72 hours to get a warrant.
I understood you to say that you are aggressively using FISA but selectively doing so. Why are you not able to go to FISA as the law requires in all cases? And if the law is outdated, why haven't you asked Congress to update it?
GEN. HAYDEN: Lots of questions contained there. Let me try them one at a time. First of all, I need to get a statement of fact out here, all right? NSA cannot -- under the FISA statute, NSA cannot put someone on coverage and go ahead and play for 72 hours while it gets a note saying it was okay. All right? The attorney general is the one who approves emergency FISA coverage, and the attorney general's standard for approving FISA coverage is a body of evidence equal to that which he would present to the court. So it's not like you can throw it on for 72 hours.
In the instances where this program applies, FISA does not give us the operational effect that the authorities that the president has given us give us. Look. I can't -- and I understand it's going to be an incomplete answer, and I can't give you all the fine print as to why, but let me just kind of reverse the answer just a bit. If FISA worked just as well, why wouldn't I use FISA? To save typing? No. There is an operational impact here, and I have two paths in front of me, both of them lawful, one FISA, one the presidential -- the president's authorization. And we go down this path because our operational judgment is it is much more effective. So we do it for that reason. I think I've got -- I think I've covered all the ones you raised.
In other words, the AG requires the same justification for issuing a warrant as does the actual FISA court. Seems reasonable to me. I assume the emergency provision is not in place to make it easier to get warrants, but only to speed up the process.the attorney general's standard for approving FISA coverage is a body of evidence equal to that which he would present to the court.
If I'm not mistaken, that is being disputed."I have two paths in front of me, both of them lawful, one FISA, one the presidential -- the president's authorization."
It would have been nice if he answered that question.And if the law is outdated, why haven't you asked Congress to update it?