Clinton was NOT impeached
on what grounds would you try to IMPEACH Bush
look up impeach he was accused. But not removed hence IMPEACHMENT
further babble we cannot impeach a president then try again and say oh thi sis impeachment also...no...ti impeach a president is to remove that president...period..I have been on student government.
2006-10-17 10:29:33
·
answer #1
·
answered by Xae 6
·
3⤊
4⤋
Look at how much time and effort was spent in the Clinton trial. If the democrats decide to impeach Bush they need to have compelling evidence that he violated his oath of office and the law. If not, if it turns into a political witch hunt, then the Democrats are no better than the republicans who impeached Clinton for political reasons.
By the way. After looking at some other answers I see there needs to be some definitions provided. An impeachment is the same as an indictment. It's a formal accusation, not a conviction. Clinton was impeached, formally accused, but he was not convicted in the trial in the senate.
2006-10-17 10:32:39
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The Republicans had no real reason to bring impeachment proceedings against Clinton. What he did does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. Frankly, the Republicans hounded him until they forced him to do something illegal so that they could bring proceeding againt him. Like taking a guy to a bar, pouring him drinks all night, then giving him the keys to the car just so you can arrest him for DUI.
Unfortunately, Bush has also done nothing impeachable. Everything he did, he had the authority to do and the approval of Congress. Nothing he did violated U.S. law, though invading Iraq might be seen as violating International law. (Which would explain why Bush is against joining the International Criminal Court - he knows he would be its first victim.)
2006-10-17 10:37:10
·
answer #3
·
answered by Chredon 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
There's certainly enough out there for Bush to be impeached, although the War is likely not the place for it. There really isn't a legal case to be made against him for Iraq, unless you could prove that he personally authorized Abu Ghraib or something like that.
The far better case would be the illegal wire taps that caused such a stir a few months back. In that case, he and his administration have given a defense that the Constitution gives the Executive Branch the implicit authority to invade privacy in the name of National Security during war time. In essence, they are saying "We broke the law requiring us to go to the FISA courts because it was in the country's best interest, and if challenged, the Courts would find that the law does not apply to executive decisions made by the President." In other words, that the FISA courts are an Unconstitutional limitation on Presidential power. This argument is legally shaky at best, and would be the best grounds for impeachment given that there is a statute on the books that the administration has already admitted to breaking.
It's a political waste of time, just like the Clinton impeachment, because there aren't enough (any) Senate Republicans who would convict.
2006-10-17 10:36:45
·
answer #4
·
answered by Robert 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
a million. Clinton replace into impeached he replace into no longer bumped off. comparable element happed to Andrew Johnson. 2. The Republicans weren't in any respect going to question Bush (that would desire to advise going up against incredibly considered one of their very very own, and each physique comprehend that isn't in any respect ensue) and the Democrates and to chicken to do the main effectual suited element. 3. i wouldn't in any respect impeach incredibly everyone different than i even have the votes to get rid of him besides. Having impeachment hearings only wastes somewhat some tax payer money (because of the certainty the Republicans comprehend). So i would not decide for for impeachment till at last i comprehend that i even have what it takes to get rid of that categorical. The Democrates knows they have not got that magical extensive form, so what's the element. The Republicans additionally knew (in the process the time of Clinton) that they did no longer have the votes yet only out of spite, and without the will of the human beings, they wasted money. Fiscally accountable, precise.
2016-12-13 10:07:34
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Clinton was impeached. An impeachment is the equivalent of an indictment. He wasn't convicted and removed from office, though. How would you impeach Bush for high crimes and misdemeanors that were authorized and funded by Congress?
2006-10-17 10:39:11
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
People just don't remember! Clinton was impeached by the House Of Representatives. The yellow senate turned him loose. Bush has done nothing wrong. He is trying to protect your sorry a** from terrorists over here. He likes you regardless of your hate for him.
2006-10-17 10:34:54
·
answer #7
·
answered by sumrtanman 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
Clinton got impeached for f****** one person, while Bush has f***** a whole country and participated in killing 655000 Innocent Iraqi!
You do not have to impeach G Bush, just drop him in Baghdad city center just for 5 minutes!
2006-10-17 10:50:30
·
answer #8
·
answered by Abularaby 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
Yes, it's possible if the democrats win control of congress. However I don't think they will got that far unless one of their investigations turns up some really bad stuff. The republicans have whitewashed or ignored many of the legally questionable activities of the administration but when the democrats win a majority in the house and have subpoena power then you're gonna hear some stuff that will blow you away.
XAE, what country do you live in, Clinton WAS impeached. Look up impeachment again.
2006-10-17 10:31:08
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
3⤋
Clinton was not impeached....at least fully...he was not remove from office...and he was for lying to a grand jury, which is a crime....
As far a bush goes....False pretense...do you know that for sure....do you think the gov. releases everything it knows....I dought it....So there are no grouds for impeachment....like him or not...I am will to bet we know only a fraction of what has really been found and what the real reasons were.
2006-10-17 10:32:42
·
answer #10
·
answered by yetti 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
Ask this question again in late november. A Republican House isn't likely to impeach a Republican president, no matter how egregious the breach of his duty as president has been. Besides Iraq, the energy scandals, the cover ups, the relationships to Abromoff, and probably most illegal are the government contracts his administration has given away, all might make impeachment possible.
2006-10-17 10:31:48
·
answer #11
·
answered by J C 1
·
1⤊
2⤋