Is Bush's deliberate spying on Americans really an impeachable offense?

[jsamuel]

Bush confessed to crimes on National Radio -- Mirandize and book him.

According to this thread, he broke the law and admitted it. Isn't this an impeachable offense? Otherwise, are we saying the the Executive Branch is not required to follow the laws it is supposed to enforce? If so, then isn't the Executive Branch therefore, superior to all other branches of our government, throwing our government into a constitutional crisis?

[fooj]

1. IMO, the proceedings should be underway...

If not NOW, when?

Peace.

[Erika]

2. Yes, Bush said he was above the law

No question on that. But since the corrupt Republicans are in power in Congress, they can choose to bury(hide) the charges.


W is being Nixonian, in saying that since he's president, everything he does is legal. Truth and law be damned.

[FreedomAngel82]

35. So does that mean

they impeached Clinton for nothing because he too was above the law? Hmm...I wonder if they're ready to say that.

[kenny blankenship]

39. Why didn't CLinton think of it?

"...when the President stains a dress, that means it's not illegal."

[AndyTiedye]

3. "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"

I think that covers illegal wiretapping one way or the other.

Never mind taking our nation to WAR on false pretenses.

[jobycom]

4. I don't see how it's impeachable, and yes, the president is somewhat

above the law.

He can be impeached for any crime, according to some interpretations, but he can only be removed for treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors, which according to law at the time means "distinctly political crimes against the state." In other words, crimes which attack the actual state. The Founders were hesitant to allow even that much of a reason to remove the president, because they were afraid of exactly what happened to Clinton--partisan bickering leading to impeachment.

Some people argue that a president could be indicted for crimes, rather than impeached, but SCOTUS has so far ruled that this would interfere with a president's ability to do his Constitutionally mandated job duties, thus it is not allowable. I doubt the current SCOTUS would overturn that precedent. So he can't be impeached for breaking most laws, and he can't be indicted while in office (once he leaves he can be, though).

Having said that, Congress and government are very flexible. They could get rid of him somehow if they wanted. There are provisions for declaring a president physically or mentally or emotionally incapable of the job. A serious enough crime could call his mental health into question. But I doubt this wire-tapping thing will do that.

There is, however, nothing to stop a criminal investigation of the president now, to determine whether he should be indicted upon leaving office. I think our best chance is to use all of these outrages to blast the Republicans out of office in 2006, then have Congress run the nation. Bush Daddy faced an angry Congress. They ignored him and passed whatever legislation they saw fit, then over-rode his vetoes. Bush had more vetoes overridden than other president. Some people will point out that the recovery had begun to improve by the time Bush left office, and thus, they claim, the recovery was Bush and Reagan's doings, not Clinton's. What they miss is that the economy turned around when the Dems in Congress began ignoring HW and running the country on their own.

I think that's our best goal to shoot for. If we take Congress, we can investigate Bush more thoroughly. There are enough hints of treason, and probably bribery, to remove Bush with a couple good investigations, once we get someone to investigate.

[jsamuel]

5. "distinctly political crimes against the state."

would illegally spying on the people of the state be considered crimes against the state though...

[jobycom]

12. No. The state means the government, or the nation as a whole.

The whole point is that the crime must somehow attack the state, like treason. "High" crimes are crimes like "high" treason, that are against the government, that in some way try to bring the government down, or betray the country. Treason in the Constitution is specifically defined as giving aid to the enemy, or something specific of that nature.

Leaking a covert CIA agent's name could easily be seen as a high crime. Lying to Congress in order to send our troops to war for personal reasons could be. Rigging an election could be.

Maybe if Bush were wiretapping Pelosi or Kerry or Reid in order to interrupt their ability to govern so that Bush could over-ride the role of Congress, we'd have an argument. Even that would be slim. He's done much worse. But we'd have to get control of Congress for it to even matter. Right now we could uncover video of Bush and Pat Robertson plotting to overthrow Congress and rule as theocratic dictators, and the Repubs in Congress would do nothing. John Cornyn would attack the newspaper who reported the story, John McCain would say this wasn't the time to be bickering amongst ourselves when there was a war going on, Tom Delay would compare the liberals who uncovered the plot to the people who murdered Jesus, and Bill Frist would go torture a cat, while the media opined about Bush's strong leadership and his surging numbers in the polls, rising from 39% approval to 39.5%.

[bigtree]

21. I wonder if we could make a stronger case if we could show that Bush

approved a wiretap or intercept for muckraking or extortion. Out of 10,000 intercepts there has to be some politicization. A scan of the names by our ranking members on the intelligence committee in Congress could do some good. They may even be included in the database.

[jobycom]

23. It's not a question of stronger or weaker, but of type, although

I would think that if there were people on the list who were clearly not threats to national security, but were rather personal threats to Bush the politician, Bush could begin to be in trouble. Bush is saying his intention was to make America safer, to save the lives of citizens (one of his stock focus-group tested phrases). He claims that he was wiretapping people who had dealings with known terrorists outside of America. That would be hard to call a crime against the state. It's more like a cop who searches without a warrant. It's illegal, but the cop isn't going to be charged, the evidence will just be thrown out.

But if it turns out Bush was approving wiretaps to win political races, or destroy political opponents, that's a very different type of intention. That would be more like a cop breaking into a home, not to search, but to interfere with an investigation of himself, or of a criminal connected to him. That's more than simply searching without a warrant. IF Bush did something like that, he could be in more trouble.

Some people argue that Nixon's greatest fault was the cover-up, that the simple crime of breaking and entering was hardly enough to justify impeachment or resignation. But the crime wasn't simply breaking and entering. Nixon's crime was using criminal means and the power of the presidency to sabotage an election. Nixon got off too easy. Bush could have problems if there is more to this than meets the eye. There may be a point where Bush crosses a line the public won't let him cross. As it stands, the Repubs will back him up. But if Bush winds up with 75% of the public screaming for impeachment, the Repubs would sacrifice him quickly.

But so far as we know now, this is not that type of crime.

[RoyGBiv]

10. Excellent post ...

Just had to say that.

There's been quite a lot of pie-in-the-sky fantasizing lately, and I am quite pleased to find a post completely devoid of it.

[jobycom]

13. It's not a post I'm happy about

After eight years of Reagan's treason, though, I don't have much hope for anything being done to Bush. Reagan was caught lying about selling weapons to a nation that had declared war on us, and no one cared. Clinton got impeached for giving an evasive answer to a question ruled irrelevant in the evidentiary phase of a civil case thrown out as having no merit. There is no justice when it comes to politics.

[RoyGBiv]

14. I understand that ...

And I agree. I'm not happy either that the state of things has come to this. I am simply pleased that there are people who recognize the realities.

When faced with such realities we have a few options: give up, pretend we live in a different world, or work around them. Taking over Congress is the "working around them" option and in my view the best one available at the moment. We can bitch and moan all we like about what should happen to Shrub, but we need to be aware of what actually will happen to him as long as all levels of government are controlled utterly by people beholden to him.

[LunaC]

25. Yet a BJ isn't a "distinctly political crime against the state"

and Clinton got hauled before Congress for impeachment proceedings. Remember the "rule of law" justification the Repugs used at the time? That being the case, then the "rule of law" argument should be applied judiciously. (I said should be, not expecting that it will be.)

[jobycom]

36. Clinton wasn't impeached for getting a blow job

Clinton was impeached for lying before a grand jury and for obstruction of justice. The Senate decided there was not enough evidence to remove him from office, and there were a number of reasons given by individual senators, from Arlen Specter, who said that the prosecutors did not prove Clinton had done either, to many senators who claimed that none of the crimes were impeachable, so even if he was guilty, he could not be removed.

The Chief Justice sat over the Senate hearing, and would have supposedly ruled if they had voted to convict and remove him. Who knows how Rehnquist would have ruled, but the proper ruling would have been that the crimes did not meet the Constitutional standard from removing Clinton from office.

[LunaC]

47. I understand exactly why Clinton was impeached.,

And the "rule of law" door swings both ways, then as it does now.

[TahitiNut]

27. It is a "distinctly political crime against the state."

Consider this - If I were to look at your email or listen in to your telephone conversation, I'd most likely be castigated. At most, I'd probably be charged with a misdemeanor. In the same sense, if I were to rip your Kerry/Edwards sign off your lawn and toss it away, it'd be a misdemeanor.

That's because I'm not prohibited from such acts at the Constitutional level. For me, such acts are solely subject to local ordinances and state statutes.

Bush, however, acted contrary to the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) in violating the (arguably Constitutional) 'due process' conditions established by FISA.

That's the highest of "political crimes." Just like a breaking and entering is normally a statutory felony, Watergate made it a high crime.

[jobycom]

33. It's not.

"High crimes and misdemeanors" is not an empty phrase. It has a specific meaning. Wiretapping citizens is not a crime that attacks the state. It violates the laws of the state, as would murder or robbery or littering. But it is not a crime that attacks the state itself. It's not a high crime.

I'm not arguing it's not a crime. It's just not impeachable.

[ddeclue]

29. WRONG!!

The President can't commit such a clear felony and get away with it. This is a violation of the FISA act which is very clear in terms of what the President is allowed and not allowed. The FISA Act already gave the President all the flexibility he needed without violating the law and in return, it was expected that he would not conduct the sorts of illegal wire taps we've previously seen against the likes of Martin Luther King, Vietnam War protesters, etc.

Read my posts elsewhere "Listening in without a warrant not just impolite, it's also a felony."

Doug De Clue
Orlando, FL

[jobycom]

32. Sorry, but you're wrong. The Constitution trumps any other law

And it's quite clear. The president can only be removed from office after impeachment for "Treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors." Any law which contradicts the Constitution cannot be valid.

Bush can't be impeached for wiretapping. The FISA act can tell the president what he can or can't do all day long, but it can't alter the Constitution.

[ddeclue]

40. Duh...sorry but you're STILL wrong

It's a felony. That's definitely a high crime for which he can definitely be impeached.

It's EXACTLY what they were preparing articles of impeachment for against Richard Nixon.

I know what I'm talking about.

[jobycom]

41. It's not "exactly what they were preparing articles" against Nixon for

http://watergate.info/impeachment/impeachment-articles.shtml

The crux of the issue with Nixon is that his obstruction and misuse of government were for his own gain, not in the performance of his job. It wasn't just that he had broken the law, it was that he had used the office of the president and all the powers at his disposal for his own political gain, rather than in the performance of his job. Much as Tom DeLay is accused of doing, and as DeLay did when he used Homeland Security to track a plane not related to terrorism.

If it turns out that Bush was wiretapping phones to spy on his own enemies, personal or political, then it's a high crime. So far all that's been alleged is that Bush authorized the illegal wiretapping of American citizens to see if they were plotting terrorist acts against the US. That's a crime against the citizens, and probably a misuse of power, and it is despicable, but it is not a crime against the state.

Bush has committed enough crimes against the state that if there were an honest Congress, he would have already been impeached. They aren't going to do it over this one.

[ddeclue]

43. It IS a crime against the state.

Wiretapping has a chilling effect on democracy. That's why they passed laws to make it illegal. It's definitely a crime against the state.

There is no "I was stopping terrorism" excuse because the FISA law gives him all the latitude he needs to perform wiretapping WITHIN the boundaries of law. Bush intentionally circumvented the law and as others have pointed out usurped powers belonging to the Judiciary to grant or refuse wire taps and ignored the limitations imposed on him by the Congress. (Yet another reason why this is a crime against the state and not merely those who were wiretapped.)

Doug De Clue
Orlando, FL

[jobycom]

44. Stormy weather has a chilling effect on democracy, but it's not

impeachable.

I know it's a bad crime, but being a bad crime doesn't make it a crime against the state. The Constitution as it was passed was even more specific, using the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors against the United States." The style committee dropped the last part because it was repetitive. "High" crimes could only be crimes against the state.

Here, maybe this will help. From Findlaw.com:

"But why did the Founders specify high crimes and misdemeanors? Professor Joseph Isenbergh's research notes the answers can be found in the treatises of Coke and Blackstone. These texts were widely read and followed by judges and lawyers of the period and recognized as authoritative sources by the Framers of the Constitution. For example, Blackstone's definition of treason was adopted verbatim in Article III, Section 3: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Blackstone explained that "high crimes" were criminal acts committed "against the king and government." Coke's treatise distinguishes "high treason" as a crime against the "royall majesty," as compared to "petit treason," a crime against "subjects and inferiors." A "high crime" was a crime against the sovereign, as opposed to garden variety crime which did not strike at the institutions of government or the life of the state.

In the first version of Article II, Section 4 adopted by the Constitutional Convention of 1787 the Founders specified "high crimes and misdemeanors against the State." The last three words were changed to "against the United States" and were later deleted in their entirety by the Committee on Style, which was charged with editing, but not altering the meaning of, the Constitution."

[TahitiNut]

45. In that sense, the "state" is "The People"

We're not in the age of Louis XIV's "l'etat, c'est moi" ... we're in the age of the "state" being THe People (not just a person). His crime against the state (The People) is in usurping power that is specifically and unambiguously denied the Executive unilaterally. In deliberately and unilaterally abrogating the Constitution (by which The People establish the state) he has committed a high crime against it.


Interestingly, here are other 'thoughts' of Louis XIV...

"It is legal because I wish it."
"Has God forgotten all I have done for Him."
"Ah, if I were not king, I should lose my temper."


If I believed in reincarnation ... :eyes:

[davekriss]

46. jobycom

I understand your earlier point that the House can impeach on just about anything. I think your point is the Senate cannot convict and thereby remove a President from office unless that President commits a crime against the State.

So, if Bush were to strangle an intern in the oval office, he could continue until his last day in office (but on that last day he could be cuffed, tried, convicted, and jailed). But if Bush lied to investigators under oath about a parking ticket, he could be impeached, convicted, and removed. Is this what you are telling us? (Actually, on the latter and as the Senate proved, the charges weren't sufficient to for conviction and removal.)

So on issuance of Executive Orders to break the laws of the nation. Isn't Bush committing crimes against the State by unconstitutionally nullifying the powers of the other branches? Wouldn't that set a destructive precedent for our republic?

[FreedomAngel82]

37. NOBODY

is above the law. He swore to uphold the Constiution. He broke that oath of office.

Link: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentiv

Amendment four: <Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. >

[jobycom]

38. It's not a question of whether he broke the law

It's a question of whether he can be removed from office for the crimes. According to the Constitution, he can only be removed after impeachment for "treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors."

He can, as I said, be indicted once he leaves office.

[proud2BlibKansan]

6. He took an oath to uphold and defend the constitution

and deliberate spying is a violation of our constitutional rights.

Seems pretty cut and dried to me.

[beam me up scottie]

7. He ordered the NSA to break the law.

They allow exceptions for emergencies if there is no time to get a warrant.

The court has only ever turned down one request for a warrant.

There is no justification for breaking this law.

He has no excuse.

None.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

16. Did the Bush Administration go around the FISA court process?

Sorry to perhaps seem ignorant about this, but that's still not clear to me. Did the Bush Administration fail to get authorization from the Secret Tribunals set up by 50 USC 1802 et seq? If he did, then his administration violated the law. But that factual issue is still not clear to me. Where did Bush admit to ordering the NSA to do surveillance WITHOUT FIRST obtaining court authorization? No one wants Bush out of office as badly as I do, but I don't think I can attribute illegal activities to him in this instance without some factual clarity. Do we even know the instances, if any, in which the NSA failed to request the rubber stamp of the secret FISA Court?

[beam me up scottie]

17. He bypassed the law passed in 1978 requiring him to get approval.

He admitted that this morning.

He never said why this was necessary but he claims that it was done to "to detect and prevent terrorist attacks" by spying only on those plotting against the US.

The question is whether or not that's true and if he can prove it.

[Swamp Rat]

8. Yes

[mechanical mandible]

9. No it isn't....

the Patriot Act made President Bush's actions legal. The only thing that can be reviewed is the constitutionality of the Patriot Act. If Bush could be impeached for this, everyone that passed that bill could be too.

[jsamuel]

11. no, from what I understand, you are wrong

he didn't only do it, he even managed to break the Patriot Act, because even in that he was required to get some approval and his declaration broke that. Maybe I am wrong.

[The2ndWheel]

15. I like that

we're all debating on the legality of what they're doing, and they just keep doing it. They rewrite laws, make new ones, tweak this and that, while we sit here and say "they can't do that."

It's exactly what the quote from a Ron Suskind article told us:

"The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'"

They create new spy agencies, consolidate them with the existing ones, and we sit here and say, "they can't do that", or, "that might not be a good thing." But by then, it's done, and won't be undone.

"Hey, they can't go to war based on false information!" But they did. Yeah, I know, the "American people" are now no longer in favor of the war, but we're still there.

"It's illegal to torture and build a secret global prison network!" But they did. It hasn't stopped, and it won't.

I wonder what will be the next "outrage" that comes to light, only to watch those in power keep on keepin' on. Oh we'll say that now is the time to impeach, or jail, or whatever, but they'll just keep doing whatever it is that they were doing.

Does anyone think it really makes a bit of difference whether the Patriot Act exists, or whether or not 1 million articles come out about domestic spying? We live in a world where it is legal for you to spy on other countries, what do you think is going to happen eventually? Obviously they'll spy domestically. They've done it before, and they'll do it again. Law or no law.

You build and sell nuclear technology, what do you think other countries will want to do?

What do you think will happen when you create agencies like DARPA?

[bigtree]

22. this is what I've been trying to get a hold of, the reasoning

got a link?

[Solly Mack]

30. Wonderfully said

The Ron Suskind quote is dead on.

[ddeclue]

18. Listening in without a warrant isn't just impolite, it's a felony.

Listening in without a warrant isn't just impolite, it's a felony.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec...

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (USC Title 50 Chapter 36 Subchapter 1) specifically prohibits the government from doing what the President has secretly ordered and it is a serious felony with major penalties.

The penalties are severe, up to 5 years and $10,000 per count. The President has admitted to reauthorizing this violation of the law 30 separate times and thousands of phone calls have been intercepted.

The President has publically confessed to this felony on national television. He ordered government agencies to engage in spying on thousands of American citizens without a warrant when the Congress made specific provisions in law to cover all circumstances, even emergency situations so that the gov't could listen in for up to 72 hours before obtaining a warrant, plenty of time to find and convince a judge.

There is no excuse for this action, yet the President has done so anyways.

That the President has colluded with others to do so, also makes this a conspiracy subject to fine and imprisonment up to 5 years per count under USC TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 19 § 371.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_se...

That he has chosen to hide it from the public, the Congress, law enforcement agencies, and the Courts through secret findings and secret orders may also be a case for obstruction of justice under USC TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 73 § 1512 paragraph (b).

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup...

Did anyone ever see the movie "The Firm"? I think we've just found the way to shut down the firm of Berndini, Lambert & Locke.

The time has come for Prosecutor Fitzgerald to step forward and finally take the gloves off.

It is time for the Congress to convene impeachment hearings.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL
[e-mail]

FISA Act:

USC Title 50 Chapter 36 Subchapter 1

§ 1809. Criminal sanctions

Release date: 2005-03-17

(a) Prohibited activities A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally—

(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute; or

(2) discloses or uses information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through electronic surveillance not authorized by statute.

(b) Defense

It is a defense to a prosecution under subsection (a) of this section that the defendant was a law enforcement or investigative officer engaged in the course of his official duties and the electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order of a court of competent jurisdiction.

(c) Penalties An offense described in this section is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.

(d) Federal jurisdiction There is Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section if the person committing the offense was an officer or employee of the United States at the time the offense was committed.

USC TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 19 § 371

§ 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 73 § 1512

§ 1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant

b)

(1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in

an official proceeding;

(2) cause or induce any person to--

(A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;

(B) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;

(C) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or

(D) be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process; or

(3) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;

[ddeclue]

19. It reminds me of Colonel Jessup in a Few Good Men.

Remember how Colonel Jessup loses his cool on the stand at the end of "A Few Good Men" and confesses. I think that's what we just saw if anyone (Prosecutor Fitzgerald, the Congress, the Senate) has the guts to go after him.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[jsamuel]

26. yeah, good reference

[Jamastiene]

20. Clinton got impeached for getting a hummer.

After that waste of taxpayer's money and time, we oughta be able to impeach any president of the republican presuasion/preference on just about any ethics violation at this point. It's payback time.

Our founding forefathers are rolling in their grave over this Patriot Act/Big Brother crap. Not to mention the people who fought and died for our rights in this country. To see them get slowly eroded over time like this has got to be a slap in the face.

[jobycom]

24. Good points, but as I'm sure you know, techically Clinton was impeached

for lying to a grand jury and obstruction of justice. He was cleared of both charges by the senate, of course.

It was all bogus, anyway. He was set up for giving an evasive answer to a complex question in a civil case. The question was long and had a lot of qualifiers and conditions, and Clinton at the end said no. He's never explained what part of the question made it a No, but he's said his answer was technically accurate. When impeachments were being voted on, Congress had the option of impeaching him for that, but they chose not to, either because it was too vague as to whether he lied, or because the Repubs were afraid that further investigation might uncover the actual setup that led to the question in the first place.

He was questioned by a grand jury to determine whether he had committed perjury during the Paula Jones case, and Congress impeached him for lying to that grand jury. It was an even more bogus charge. They claimed he lied when he said he had not lied during the Paula Jones case, yet the did not find enough evidence to charge him with lying during the Paula Jones case. Further, Clinton led of his grand jury statements by saying he had given maddeningly evasive answers meant to be misleading, but technically not perjury, and he believed he had succeeded. He gave no answers during the GJ hearings that would contradict that statement. So it was a ridiculous charge.

He was also impeached for obstruction of justice, because there were hints he had tried to coach witnesses into lying for him. That was his most serious charge, if you ask me. But they had no way to really prove it. They had witnesses like his secretary, who said Clinton asked her what might have been leading questions, such as "I was never alone with Ms. Lewinsky, right?" Clinton's defense was he was trying to see what she remembered, and that he had forgotten whether his secretary had seen them alone. It was hard to shake that defense, especially since they couldn't prove that Clinton had committed perjury.

And finally, they tried to impeach Clinton for violating his oath of office because he had not faithfully upheld and executed the laws of the land, but Congress didn't buy that charge, either.

Anyway, just a refresher. The Clinton impeachment was bogus, and while I do feel the same way you do, that I'd love to see Bush impeached for anything at all and that it would be fair turnabout against the soulless Republicans, the part of me that really wants to see America survive this current evil onslaught by these vermin wants to see America move past these petty political games. Bush has done enough that, if we had a Congressional leadership with any integrity, he could easily be investigated and impeached. The problem isn't a lack of crimes to impeach Bush over. It is a derelict media and a corrupt Congress led by a party that has become the filth of the Earth. Our best move is to purge Congress--give it an enema, in other words--of the filthy Republicans, and then we can start healing the nation. "NO Republican left in government," that's my motto.

Sorry for the ramble. I shouldn't write before I've fully woken up.

[More Than A Feeling]

28. Yes, it is.

No one is above the law, even the President.

[BenDavid]

31. HELL! This story will be

dropped by Tuesday and be a non issue, but if bush would have had a blow job and lied about that...CNN would have already hired 4 reporters, and had theme music playing...

[FreedomAngel82]

34. Yes

I believe it goes against the fourth amendment. I believe it's that amendment that states you have to have a warrant to enter someone else's home and I'd assume that means your phone, Email etc. Even though he got to the presidency illegally as well in 2000 (and 2004 I'm very sure) he swore to uphold the Constiution on a Bible and he went against that so he should be impeached. Plus, lying about war in 2003 with Saddam and Niger.

[tlsmith1963]

42. If He Broke the Law & Admitted It...

...it's a crime in my book. He spied on antiwar activists anyway, activists who have no ties to al-Qaeda, as far as I know. Impeach his ass!

Tammy