Has President Bush done anything that is a technically Impeachable Offense?

Answer 1

Yes, when he was sworn in he took the oath of office and his failure to uphold that oath is an impeachable offense. With the patriot act he signed into law he fractured the constitutional right to privacy. His authorization of warrentless wire taps is another impeachable offense. The military act also took our right to due process and this is also a constitutional right that has been infringed. Both of these things he has violated his oath to uphold and defend the constitution of the U.S.

Answer 2

Congress is having hearings on many things Bush and associates have been doing. The American Bar Association has done a study on his signing statements and came to the conclusion that they are unconstitutional. Considering his sworn duty is to uphold the Constitution, I would think he may have a problem there.

I don't think this Congress has any intention of impeaching Bush. I think they are going to try to limit his power as much as possible. He has usurped way too much power.

Answer 3

There are no causes for impeachment that are formally defined. It's certainly understood that any violation of statutory law would qualify, but it's also, more importantly, the case that impeachment can be initiated for any perceived dereliction or violation of the public or national good.

In the case of George Bush, it would be reasonable to hold him accountable, through impeachment, for deliberately falsifying intelligence and creating false cause for invading Iraq at great monetary and human expense.

I would also add abuse of Executive authority by way of excessive use of signing statements that are contrary to legislative intent.

In all these instances, Andrew Johnson and certainly Bill Clinton were both impeached for far less.

So quitcher belly-achin'.

[added] To all those saying that the lack of impeachment to date is proof that he hasn't done anything impeachable, either read my answer again, read the Constitution on impeachment, read the Federalist Papers on impeachment and checks and balances, and/or read the abundant scholarly content addressing impeachment. You are willfully ignorant if you don't.

Just because he isn't impeached doesn't mean grounds don't exist. Reagan knew he faced impeachment for Iran-Contra - he was only saved because Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill tamped those fires. Doesn't mean there weren't grounds.

Answer 4

Not in my opinion. It can be hard to sort out the politics and I am concerned at the low level of discourse that now passes for political comment. I worry that future presidents will have to deal with increasingly nasty comments that are more outrageous each passing day.

Making mistakes and being a weak public speaker are not impeachable. We have elections to bring about that change. Bush was elected twice.

Answer 5

There's no evidence--if there were, you'd be hearing about impeachment hearings, not fired attorneys.

But if any of this is true and could be proven it is impeachable:

1) If the oval office influenced CIA reports leading Congress to believe that Iraq was developing WMD's.
2) If he is tried for war crimes relating to holding, torturing, and suspending rights for whatever he calls POWs in the war on terror and found guilty.
3) If he broke federal contracting rules to give no-bid contracts to companies he favors.

But as Clinton discovered, perjury can be the easiest thing to impeach someone on--probably the biggest reason they want to have the attorney-firing discussions held without being under oath. If Bush never says anything under oath, he can't perjure himself. Even if he lies in the state of the union address.

Answer 6

At the very least, violations of 18 USC 2511 and 18 USC 2441, both of which he has publicly admitted and both of which have already been confirmed by federal courts, the latter by the Supreme Court.

It's sad to see many people issue blanket denials, who have never even bothered to read the laws or the court cases involved. For those who are willing to actually read the laws before forming their opinion, see the summary linked below.

Answer 7

It isn't a technical matter. It is entirely up to the whims of the majority of the House of Representatives.

They can claim anything they want is a "high crime or misdemeanor."

It will never fly in the Senate though.

Answer 8

YES, he has taken us to war under false pretense,
He has given the GREEN light for torture....and worst of all he has changed the rules of war for us that have served and still serve...we used to have the Geneva convention rules of engagement...and even though many countries still bombed hospitals and did bizarre torture...we as the United States said if we have to go to war ...this is what we expect of our military...the more we torture the wider the flood gates are for US military personnel to be tortured as well as for US citizens to be tortured or captured while we are in other countries...
Baby Bush didn't full fill his military contract.... he doesn't care about what happens to our SERVICE PERSONS...AND HE DOWN RIGHT IS TRYING TO KILL VETERANS....
GO TO SOME VA HOSPITALS...TALK TO SOME SERVICE PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN TAKEN HOSTAGE...IF THEY STILL CAN TALK....
since he has given the GREEN light to act like savages we will end up being more hated thru out the world........

Answer 9

No, if he had, he would be impeached. I mean the democrats own the house and senate why not impeach him if they have a seriouse reason, other than they dont like him or they think republicans suck.

Answer 10

NO!!!!
(However, Democrats believe that Bush should be impeached for fighting the terrorists.)