U.S. Constitution - Article II, Section 4:
"The President... of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
Patrick Fitzgerald was investigating whether Bush was involved in outing Valerie Plame, which has been described as treason.
It is known that the White House was engaged in paying guys like Armstrong Williams to plant stories in the press. Many say it is a form of bribery.
Bush has admitted on national television that he engaged in electronic surveillance without getting the authorization of a court. It is considered a felony if a person intentionally "engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute".
Therefore it may be said Bush has committed Treason, Bribery and high Crimes. And Iraq...?
What do you think?
http://schapira.blogspot.com/2005/12/treason-bribery-or-other-high-crimes.html
PS - Happy Birthday, Mr. President
2006-07-06 06:23:42 · 30 answers · asked by stoptheinsanity_73 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Section 4 includes the Vice President as well. Therefore, if he was in on any of the 3 things mentioned above and we impreach him, he won't be taking over office either.
2006-07-06 06:33:29 · update #1
Removing an official from office requires two steps: (1) a formal accusation, or impeachment, by the House of Representatives, and (2) a trial and conviction by the Senate.
While Impeachment requires a majority vote of the House; conviction is more difficult, requiring a two-thirds vote by the Senate, which in such a case concerning the President, is overseen by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (instead of the VP who normally resides over the Senate)
Also:
The ocean of wrongdoing encompassed by the Constitution's stipulation of “high crimes and misdemeanors” is vast. Abuse of power and serious misconduct in office fit this category, however partisan discord does not.
2006-07-06 06:46:00 · update #2
I answer this simply because it is a poll, of sorts, and might contribute one grain of encouragement to the Senators who impeach him and a pulse of fear to those who would not.
Yes, impeach and convict while there remains some small chance of saving us all.
Incidentally, good point on the bribery charge. Paying bribes is every bit as much the crime of bribery as accepting them.
2006-07-15 15:21:28 · answer #1 · answered by d.benton_smith 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First, Valerie Plame was no longer a CIA operative at the time the information was "leaked", and the information had been declassified. Therefore, not a leak. Which means, not treason.
Second, the "wiretapping" was legal...though no one's lines were really "tapped". (It was in an article that was buried within a well-known newspaper, one of the first to release the story, BTW.) Obtaining the phone records was legal though, either way, and not unprecedented. J. Edgar Hoover did warrantless wire-tapping when he was head of the FBI, and yet despite the controversy, he wasn't taken out of office. And you never know who's involved with al-Qaida and who isn't. Remember, the guys that hijacked those planes on 9/11 had been in the country for months, and no one had a clue what they were planning.
Third, since when did he personally bribe people to plant stories? Where is the proof of this? And is it from a nonpartisan source?
No, President Bush should not be impeached. He has made decisions that people disagreed with, but were not illegal. He's only in office for less than two years more, then you can elect someone else. Get over it.
2006-07-06 06:36:34 · answer #2 · answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Laughable at best.
First, the presidency has the authority to declassify anything he chooses. That's within his inherent powers. And that includes Valerie Plame. But, she was not covert. Her cover had been blown during the Clinton administration due to an inadvertant release of information to foreign intelligence operations. So, there is no proof that this was even a crime to begin with.
As for paying for people to write positive things, that's not bribery, and that's not what is meant by bribery. That's such a stretch of the definition that it is pretty ridiculous.
As for engaging in surveillance without a warrant, that falls well within his powers when it concerns national security. The fact is that he did not break any law, and he did not abuse power in this instance.
No, you have a pitifully inadequate case, a nothing.
2006-07-06 06:41:15 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
All of this is true and to a point I believe that Bush should be impeached (tried in the Senate) and removed from office (not included in impeachment). But it is believed (and there is reason to believe it) that a successful impeachment resulting in the president's dismissal (any president, not just Bush) would result in too big a loss of power for the position. The next one would be afraid to do anything, afraid they would be forced out as well, whether they are from the same party as the former president and afraid they would be ousted as well, or from the opposite party and afraid revenge is coming for him. But Bush should at least be impeached (even unsuccessfully) to point out to him that he is still responsible to the people.
2006-07-06 06:29:30 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Don't forget gross mismanagement of public funds - the 3 largest budget deficits in US history, whiel at the same time cutting taxes on the rich and funding a luxury item (war in 2 countries).
By comparison, getting a BJ is pretty small.
But, alas, it'll never happen as long as the Greed Over Principals controls congress.
And alack, the answer is that you'll get Cheney as a replacement.
2006-07-06 06:27:25 · answer #5 · answered by Mr. October 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First of all, impeached doesn't mean removed from office; it just means indicted and tried. (Clinton was impeached but not removed.)
Secondly, at this point it would just be a waste of time and energy. Dems have to focus on elections, not on giving Bush a slap on the wrist (which is what it would amount to); plus, they wouldn't have the votes anyway.
2006-07-06 06:29:30 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I went to his first innauguration in 2000 and there were more people there to throw eggs at his car than there were supporters.
I saw that first-hand. I left early so that I wouldn't be stuck in a mob, which there were plenty of those that day. It was raining as well, I didn't want to catch cold since I already had the sniffles.
Stupid president and his rainy innauguration.. grrr....
2006-07-14 16:52:19 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
YES! He has done far more then the other impeached presidents. It's all finally just starting to come out.
2006-07-14 19:18:11 · answer #8 · answered by AleJunkie 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with the one who said let him keep playing president. He can't be in office after this term ( thank God) It would just be MORE wasting of our taxpayer dollars to impeach him and he would just buy his way out of it. ( Like he bought the last election)
2006-07-06 06:35:28 · answer #9 · answered by traci_lee66 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
narrow............i believe that Congress might want to convey mutually up the mandatory information that "W" did dedicate crimes yet there's a huge election coming up in 2008 and that i believe the Dems are extra fiscally conservative about not spending thousands and thousands of greenbacks on investigations on account that we've the optimal deficit ever immediately. people spoke in very last election..........If Bush chooses to be a Bully for his very last 2 years then it purely hurts his celebration in 2008
2016-10-14 04:36:14 · answer #10 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋