Thread: Tough questions about impeachment as an option

dont impeach !!!!
the aclu will say :
all americans rights are in harms way

Besides that does anyone realy believe or think the current VP would be beter for the last few mounths this admin is in office.

Why impeach make him do his job so we all get our $$$$ worth !!!!

Greg, I have got great news for you. I belong to a local group called Knitters Against Illegal Immigration. We have 30 or so members, depending on who is at the doctor and what have you. Well according to our treasurer, we have enough money to put up at least one billboard in several major cities. We nominated great Americans, just like yourself, to be the poster child for our campaign, and I chose you!!!!!! We had something like 347 nominees and we have it narrowed down to 200 and you are still in the running! What we'll have is a gigantic picture of you (or whomever we choose) with one hand on your hip so it looks like you mean business, and then your foot looking like it is stomping out a cigarette, but it will actually be a flag from a country that does not respect our laws. And then in the other hand, you'll have your palm facing upward holding a ball of yarn because we are spending a lot of money on these ads, and we'll want to promote knitting too. Then I thought we could use your patriotic saw blade in the background as a symbolic gesture to cut down on illegal immigration. And then, I thought me and all of my friends could stand behind you with our knitting needles, acting tough. I am not sure how many people that we will be able to fit in because a lot of us have Rascal scooters and walkers and things. But the best part is that you will become famous like Taylor Hicks....a household name. Our slogan will be Knitters and Great Americans stomping out illegal immigration. Check with your city on permits and stuff in case you win. We are picking three, so keep your fingers crossed. Just imagine, every person in your town will know that you are a great American!!! I can't wait.

what color is the yarn ?

CG,

I agree, it would be very difficult to impeach the president. I thought the whole Clinton attempt was a worthless waste of time and money.

The following is exactly why I am against it. Unless there is a clearly defined Constitutional charge and an absolute and verifiable reason, I'm not going for it. (Yes, I was being a sarcastic smart ass earlier.) Desiring for someone to get the worst possible punishment is like you said, an emotional reacton.

Has Bush been a bad president? Hell yes. Can we impeach him for it? Very doubtful. Can we ever find resolve in that? Only in the history books.

My personal preference is to spend our tax dollars to build a fence and hire some more immigration officers, instead of waste money on a witch hunt.

However, I am intrigued by guidelines of impeachable offences and the speculation of Bush nearing the threshold of an offense.

http://www.ardemgaz.com/prev/clinton/A1dstarr2.html

Starr spent $7 million investigating Clinton during impeachment period

KAREN GULLO
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Copyright © 1999 Associated Press.
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

WASHINGTON -- Independent counsel Kenneth Starr spent $7.2 million investigating President Clinton during the six-month period that included the Senate impeachment trial.

That brings expenses so far for Starr's five-year investigation of the president, first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton and their associates to $47 million. More than a quarter of that was spent during the Monica Lewinsky investigation and the impeachment.

With the investigation continuing, Starr is on the brink of becoming the most expensive independent counsel ever.

Independent counsel Lawrence Walsh spent $48.5 million on a six-year investigation of whether the Reagan administration attempted arms-for-hostages deals with Iran and assisted Contra rebels fighting Nicaragua's leftist government.

Starr's expenses for the six-month period ending March 31 included $5.7 million for salaries, travel and rent and $1.5 million for costs of U.S. Marshals Service, FBI and Justice Department employees detailed to Starr's office, the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, said in a report released Thursday.

Clinton's impeachment trial in the Senate began the first week of January and ended in acquittal on Feb. 12.

In 1994, Starr began investigating 1980s Arkansas land deals involving the Clintons. In January 1998, Starr's investigation expanded to include Clinton's relationship with Lewinsky, a former White House intern.

Starr spent more than $13 million during the year that covered most of the Lewinsky investigation and the impeachment, the office's figures show.

Though the law creating the independent counsel post expired June 30, investigations already under way are allowed to continue.

Starr plans to leave the job soon, and several of his deputies have interviewed with a three-judge panel to take his place, courthouse employees have said.

The General Accounting Office report, updated every six months, showed that seven other special investigations -- five active and two closed -- spent a combined $7.3 million during the period:

Carol Elder Bruce, appointed to investigate allegations that Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt lied to Congress, spent $2.4 million. Babbitt has not been charged.

Donald C. Smaltz, independent counsel investigating former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy, spent $1.8 million. Espy was acquitted.

Independent Counsel David M. Barrett's inquiry of allegations that Henry Cisneros, the former secretary of Housing and Urban Development, lied to the FBI about payments to a former mistress cost $1.6 million. Cisneros pleaded guilty Sept. 7 to a misdemeanor.

Ralph I. Lancaster Jr.'s investigation of allegations that Labor Secretary Alexis Herman engaged in influence peddling and solicited illegal campaign contributions spent $1.1 million. The investigation continues.

An investigation by prosecutors Arlin M. Adams and Larry D. Thompson of Reagan administration-era corruption at the Department of Housing and Urban Development spent $382,043.

Daniel S. Pearson, whose investigation of financial dealings of the late Commerce Secretary Ron Brown ended when Brown died in an April 1996 plane crash, spent $42,381.

Curtis E. von Kann, who investigated and cleared a former Clinton White House official, Eli J. Segal, of conflict-of-interest allegations, spent $22,632.


This article was published on Saturday, October 2, 1999

Originally Posted by Neese

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by Neese

Personally, if I were going to impeach the President, I would probably use bribery as my case for impeachment. There is always something marginal going on in politics. Between Jeb's plan to attract Scripps or the Jack Abramoff deal, that is probably the better way to go.This whole Mexico thing is getting interesting. Maybe they can also use the eminenet domain issue or something related to the NAU...mismanagement perhaps(?)I could probably gain the support of Cynthia McKinney, Keith Ellison, Jerrold Nadler, Barbara Boxer and John Conyers. Pelosi would have been helpful until she became Speaker. Now she is sitting pretty and waiting for the bigger plane, so I think that she will sit tight. As we already know, I don't support the impeachment effort because there won't be any time left in the current Presidency and the successors would not be any more helpful, and if it got to Pelosi, I believe things could be much worse. For sure, amnesty would get passed. For those that do want to impeach, a recall election would have come in handy if it were allowed at a federal level, but it isn't. Sure, I am talking out of my butt, but this is the best that I could come up with. Any other takers?

Bribery is one of the hardest charges to prove, because there must be an unambiguous quid pro quo or else and actual piece of direct evidence such as a recorded conversation, letter or electronic memo that specifies the quid pro quo. That a person accused of bribery eventually benefitted from a suggested quid pro quo after donations were made is generally insufficient.

How about high crimes? There are no definitions for it, and it is up to the Senate to decide.

As far as "quid pro quo"...I know what "squid" is and I know what the "high pro glow" is from the dogfood commercials. Mrs Johnson said I'd never 'mount to much if I didn't finish the fourth grade... and I'll be darned if she wasn't right. I laugh...ha!!

Quid pro quo means "something for something." It is the legal term used to define a verifiable arrangement in which an official or company officer accepts something (payment, property, etc.) in exchange for a specific action or favor. The term is generally only applicable when the person accepting payment does so in breach of fiduciary responsibility or oath. In other words, it applies to cases of bribery, defining specifically what was given in exchange for what.

Originally Posted by Dixie

CG,

I agree, it would be very difficult to impeach the president. I thought the whole Clinton attempt was a worthless waste of time and money.

The following is exactly why I am against it. Unless there is a clearly defined Constitutional charge and an absolute and verifiable reason, I'm not going for it. (Yes, I was being a sarcastic smart ass earlier.) Desiring for someone to get the worst possible punishment is like you said, an emotional reacton.

Has Bush been a bad president? Hell yes. Can we impeach him for it? Very doubtful. Can we ever find resolve in that? Only in the history books.

My personal preference is to spend our tax dollars to build a fence and hire some more immigration officers, instead of waste money on a witch hunt.

However, I am intrigued by guidelines of impeachable offences and the speculation of Bush nearing the threshold of an offense.

http://www.ardemgaz.com/prev/clinton/A1dstarr2.html

Starr spent $7 million investigating Clinton during impeachment period

KAREN GULLO
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Copyright © 1999 Associated Press.
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

WASHINGTON -- Independent counsel Kenneth Starr spent $7.2 million investigating President Clinton during the six-month period that included the Senate impeachment trial.

That brings expenses so far for Starr's five-year investigation of the president, first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton and their associates to $47 million. More than a quarter of that was spent during the Monica Lewinsky investigation and the impeachment.

With the investigation continuing, Starr is on the brink of becoming the most expensive independent counsel ever.

Independent counsel Lawrence Walsh spent $48.5 million on a six-year investigation of whether the Reagan administration attempted arms-for-hostages deals with Iran and assisted Contra rebels fighting Nicaragua's leftist government.

Starr's expenses for the six-month period ending March 31 included $5.7 million for salaries, travel and rent and $1.5 million for costs of U.S. Marshals Service, FBI and Justice Department employees detailed to Starr's office, the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, said in a report released Thursday.

Clinton's impeachment trial in the Senate began the first week of January and ended in acquittal on Feb. 12.

In 1994, Starr began investigating 1980s Arkansas land deals involving the Clintons. In January 1998, Starr's investigation expanded to include Clinton's relationship with Lewinsky, a former White House intern.

Starr spent more than $13 million during the year that covered most of the Lewinsky investigation and the impeachment, the office's figures show.

Though the law creating the independent counsel post expired June 30, investigations already under way are allowed to continue.

Starr plans to leave the job soon, and several of his deputies have interviewed with a three-judge panel to take his place, courthouse employees have said.

The General Accounting Office report, updated every six months, showed that seven other special investigations -- five active and two closed -- spent a combined $7.3 million during the period:

Carol Elder Bruce, appointed to investigate allegations that Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt lied to Congress, spent $2.4 million. Babbitt has not been charged.

Donald C. Smaltz, independent counsel investigating former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy, spent $1.8 million. Espy was acquitted.

Independent Counsel David M. Barrett's inquiry of allegations that Henry Cisneros, the former secretary of Housing and Urban Development, lied to the FBI about payments to a former mistress cost $1.6 million. Cisneros pleaded guilty Sept. 7 to a misdemeanor.

Ralph I. Lancaster Jr.'s investigation of allegations that Labor Secretary Alexis Herman engaged in influence peddling and solicited illegal campaign contributions spent $1.1 million. The investigation continues.

An investigation by prosecutors Arlin M. Adams and Larry D. Thompson of Reagan administration-era corruption at the Department of Housing and Urban Development spent $382,043.

Daniel S. Pearson, whose investigation of financial dealings of the late Commerce Secretary Ron Brown ended when Brown died in an April 1996 plane crash, spent $42,381.

Curtis E. von Kann, who investigated and cleared a former Clinton White House official, Eli J. Segal, of conflict-of-interest allegations, spent $22,632.


This article was published on Saturday, October 2, 1999

It appears that you understand my argument precisely.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

It appears that you understand my argument precisely.

Yes sir I sure do.

I also agree that bribery is very hard to prove because it is easily masked as a business transaction or a gift. Even if one party comes forward, it is usually the one that got the lesser end of the deal so it appears to be nothing but a disgruntled participant of a bad deal. Also, it’s little more than a he said she said scenario and the testimony cancels itself out.

Dixie

CG, can you explain "moral turpitute", which is a term I've heard used in talk show discussions about impeachment?

Originally Posted by gofer

CG, can you explain "moral turpitute", which is a term I've heard used in talk show discussions about impeachment?

Well, moral turpitude is a concept that arises under the common law, though it may also be employed in contractual law as a condition of performance. While most crimes under the common law are required to have a specific victim, an injured party, moral turpitude violations involve what are called "crimes against nature." Now the term "nature" as used here does not emply the modern definition, but rather is rooted in the idea of the God of Nature or Creator so often referenced in this nation's founding documents. Nature, in this context, is the dominion of the Creator, and crimes against nature are crimes against the moral codes established by the Creator. In the days in which the nation was founded, those codes were believed to have been recorded in the Holy Bible. They were also described by several of the founders as the Judeo-Christian ethic.

Laws that fell under the heading of moral turpitude laws included laws prohibiting sodomy and polygamy, and the so-called "blue laws" that prohibited commerce on the Sabbath. In terms of contractual uses of the concept of moral turpitude, that could include any specified immoral behavior that could be injurious to the contracting parties or the image of the contracting parties. A prime example would be the moral turpitude clauses employed by most beauty pageants by which a winner or contestant forfeits her title and prizes if she engages in certain immoral or illicit behavior, as when Vanessa Williams posed for Playboy.

Because most of this nation is no longer being administered under the common law or substantive due process, but rather under an international mercantile jurisdiction, moral turpitude codes have little meaning in criminal law. Most of the old moral turpitude laws, such as the blue laws, laws prohibiting sodomy, etc., have been or are being stricken from local and state code (which is administrative in nature).

As relates to the Presidency, there are no specific moral turpitude clauses for the office. There is an oath of office, but again there is little to do with moral turpitude contained therein. Because the federal government is and has for some time been administered under a commercial and administrative jurisdiction, there is no longer any general appliction of the concept of moral turpitude. If you are aware of any statutory provisions that contain specific applicable moral turpitude clauses, I would be interested in hearing about them. Barring that, I would say that using moral turpitude as a means of impeachment is pretty archaic.

Was it ever suggested in impeachments of earlier days?