Were impeachment trials of Clinton frivolous? Did it make congress leary of impeaching Bush?

Question

Seriously, If you don't think Bush has broken any laws, don't bother to answer. I've outlined it for you so there's no confusion:
1) Blatant disregard for our international treaty obligations under the United Nations Charter and the Geneva Conventions - ie invading Iraq without the support of UN, and torture.

2) Growing evidence that the President deliberately misled the country into the war in Iraq.

3) Wiretapping of hundreds, possibly thousands, of Americans, in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) -- without a warrant.

The framers of our Constitution feared executive power run amok and provided the remedy of impeachment to protect against it. While impeachment is a last resort, and must never be lightly undertaken or used frivolously.

So was Clinton's impeachment frivolous? Did it make impeachment such a joke that congress is afraid to utilitze this tool when really nessesary?

Answer 1

The Clinton impeachment trial was frivolous. It was a wast of time and millions of tax payer money.

To impeach Bush would be as silly. Not that he hasn't done anything wrong, he has. There are too many Republicans in the Congress to make it worthwhile. It would take time and money. The corruption and mistakes of the Bush Adminstration work well to use against the GOP in the 2008 elections.

Answer 2

I think we should always be cautious when talking about impeaching a President. Impeachment is not a remedy for overuse of executive power, the checks and balances within the Constitution provide that both Congress and the Court can check the power of the Executive. The Court has already done so (look at the military tribunals and wiretapping). Impeachment is to remove a dangerous criminal from office. It is clearly stated that a President can be removed by impeachment as a result of "high crimes". To this date, President Bush has not been charged with any serious crime, so impeachment should not be an option.

Unfortunately, every time impeachment has been used, it has been for political reasons. President Andrew Johnson was impeached twice. The first was basically a collection of complaints about Johnson's overuse of power and the second was a result of Johnson violating the Tenure of Office Act (later found to be unconstitutional) which prevented him from removing cabinet members without the consent of the Senate. The underlying issue is Johnson's desire to reconcile with the South and allow the South back into the Union as an equal to the North, which many Representatives and Senators did not want. We all know the reasons why President Clinton was impeached. If that wasn't a political witch hunt, I don't know what is.

Until the President has been charged with a high crime, impeachment is nothing more than a frivolous political move.

Answer 3

Careful now, if you try to silence the opposition you are just as bad. Yes, the Clinton impeachment was a frivolous partisan affair, especially compared with the far more serious problems we have now. But though there is a slim Democratic majority, they are not a unified front like the republicans were during the Clinton years. Democrats need to seize the initiative and put the country back on course, but I doubt they will.

Answer 4

Yes, they were frivolous. The republicans spent $70 million taxpayer dollars to go on a six year witch hunt because they hated President Clinton and the best that they could come up with was to set him up to lie in court about something that had nothing to do with the case he was there to testify about.

Answer 5

Clinton's impeachment became right into a gross misuse of government funds to capture him in a lie that did no longer have any bearing on the State of our usa. Bush lied promptly previously Congress asserting he "knew" there have been weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He has by no skill been held to account for that lie. Please notice the conceited tone of the responses from so-referred to as Conservatives in this Y!A string- specifically "rukidding".

Answer 6

Everything about Bill was frivolous, but that's why we loved him.
Bush, on the other hand, is seriously evil. That's why the neo- (Nazi) -cons love him. Torture? Complete disregard for justice? Gotta love him!

Answer 7

It doesn't matter, Bush wouldn't let anyone impeach him. He is the "decider" and he is "deciding" to stay just were he is...

What ever happened to Alberto Gonzalas? That isn't even talked about anymore.