The impeachment process: Do you understand that a crime has to be committed and proven in order to impeach?

Question

adam33079: And indictments just magically appear on the doorstep, do they?

To everyone claiming that "Clinton committed a crime," you are wrong. Clinton was accused of a crime, of which he was eventually acquitted. Under the law, he is not guilty of perjury or obstruction of justice.

Answer 1

Some people don't seem to understand that , or they don't understand what a crime is. They seem to think they can impeach someone just because they disagree with him.

Answer 2

Well, no, that's not strictly true.

Impeachment is the equivalent of an indictment. You don't have to prove "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that a crime occurred. This is done by the House which must pass "articles of impeachment" by a simple majority.

After that the Senate must try the accused, and must convict by a 2/3rds majority. If a member of the legislature is the accused, the trial is presided over by the President Pro Tempore of the Senate (The VP). If the accused is the president, the Chief Justice of the supreme court presides. So if you are asking if "I" understnad the impeachment process, the answer is yes.

You, however, clearly do not.

Answer 3

Sure, but that's not the relevant question.

Your statement is really nothing more than a tautology, because it's true in EVERY criminal procedure that the crime must be sufficiently proven before punitive action can be taken against the person charged. So frankly, you've made nothing more than a self-evident statement of truth in this instance.

The relevant question is, is there prima facie evidence that would support an indictment and articles of impeachment?

In case you didn't know, it's just like the criminal judicial process. An indictment is handed down by prosecutorial agents who believe that they can make a prima facie case (i.e., they possess evidence to support each and every essential element of the crime) against the person indicted.

A criminal indictment DOESN'T mean that the party in question will ultimately be found guilty of the crime, just like articles of impeachment DON'T mean that the person sought to be impeached will actually end up being removed from office even if the impeachment process is undertaken.

The person indicted MAY possess affirmative defenses to the charges he faces, but that is HIS burden to prove. Just because a person may possess a valid affirmative defense to the crime charged DOESN'T mean that a prima facie case (again, that simply means there is sufficient evidence to support a finding of guilt on each and every element of the crime-it says nothing about the actual outcome of the criminal charge in question) cannot be made.

So in this instance, the question SHOULD be "Can a prima facie case be made that Bush has committed a crime warranting impeachment?".

I submit that in this case it can, and that articles of impeachment should be issued. Bush's authorization of the warrantless wiretapping program is prima facie violative of FISA.

Bush may or may not possess a valid affirmative defense under a reading of the Patriot Act or other Constitutional authority, but that is HIS burden to assert.

Assuming that a prima facie case of Bush's violation of FISA CAN be made, anyone claiming that articles of impeachment aren't warranted because a crime hasn't yet been proven is actually subverting rather than supporting the true legal process in doing so.

Answer 4

Impeachment process is first you have to be charged with a crime.
Than you have a trail or impeachment.
If found guilty than you are removed from office.

To date there hasn't been any crimes charge against Bush beside liberals don't like him and that is not a crime.

Clinton was disbar and not allow to practice in front of the Supreme Court.

For the truth seeker: Monica wasn't relevant to White Water but she was very relevant to the sexual harassment case brought up by Paula Jones. We found out the N.O.W. does support that kind of activity in the work place by their defense of Clinton.

Answer 5

Yes, I understand that.

Two crimes that spring to mind are invading a country with no cause, and torture.

They haven't been proven in a court of law, but a girl can dream, can't she?

Whether BushCo is impeached or not, I do want it (the whole criminal lot of them, from Ashcroft to Wolfowitz) to stand trial for Crimes Against Humanity -- which is what they all are, I mean, have committed.

Not that they haven't committed other crimes, but to me, those are the biggies.

Answer 6

Certainly. Anyone calling for the impeachment of President Bush clearly does not. President Clinton violated the law by committing the crime of perjury (lying under oath) which is a felony. While his lie really was unimportant, it is still a crime to lie under oath to a court of law. Personally, I would not have voted for the impeachment of President Clinton and would not vote for the impeachment of President Bush.

Answer 7

One does not necessarily have to be "proven" to have committed a crime in order for the impeachment process to start. Bill Clinton is a perfect example of that. What crime did he commit. Many will answer perjury to that. However , in order for perjury to exist, it must be "pertinent" to the case. Monica was NOT pertinent to the Whitewater case, therefore Clinton did not perjure himself in that case.

Answer 8

Yes, I do. The problem with impeachment process is that it is so political and it would probably end up like Clinton's - impeachment, but no removal from office, therefore why do it in the first place? Right now, what we have is a dictator as a president. He and the rest of our elected officials seem to not understand that they must do what the people elected them to do. They will keep us in a war we have no business being in, they will pass this amnesty bill that more than 80% of the people disapprove of, and they will continue to take away our civil rights with every bill they pass. What other option is there and how can we begin that process?

Answer 9

Shh....What are you trying to do here?...actually make sense. Now that is over the line son and you must be stopped. Spreading that drivel about what is or is not an impeachable offense. Why the democrats ought to take you out back behind the woodshed and give you a major beating. Oh wait, that would actually take conviction to principles or a backbone, or at least the knowledge with which to argue your point. Oh well then, spew on my friend as no one will come to stop your coherent and intelligent thought process.

Answer 10

Of course. In Clinton's case, the crime was lying under oath -- a felony. Those calling for Bush's impeachment are clueless; no crime has been committed.