So, then, what is an impeachable offense?

[JDPriestly]

I have heard some on DU and maybe Obama himself expressing or supporting the idea that Bush's crimes just aren't serious enough to merit impeachment. Torture? Guantanamo? Kidnapping and rendition? Holding accused for years without proper trials and then not allowing them to have access to the evidence being used to convict them? Violating FISA -- blatantly and knowingly violating FISA? Handing out the taxpayers' money to crooks just because they are his friends or useful to him? These are just a few of the crimes of which Bush is accused.

What is the authority on impeachment. Assuming we all know what the Constitution says about it, how is it defined?

Alexander Hamilton was a conservative who favored a pretty strong executive. Here is what he had to say about impeachment in Federalist Paper No. 65.

To the People of the State of New York:

THE remaining powers which the plan of the convention allots to the Senate, in a distinct capacity, are comprised in their participation with the executive in the appointment to offices, and in their judicial character as a court for the trial of impeachments. As in the business of appointments the executive will be the principal agent, the provisions relating to it will most properly be discussed in the examination of that department. We will, therefore, conclude this head with a view of the judicial character of the Senate.

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.

. . . .

What, it may be asked, is the true spirit of the institution itself? Is it not designed as a method of NATIONAL INQUEST into the conduct of public men? If this be the design of it, who can so properly be the inquisitors for the nation as the representatives of the nation themselves? It is not disputed that the power of originating the inquiry, or, in other words, of preferring the impeachment, ought to be lodged in the hands of one branch of the legislative body. Will not the reasons which indicate the propriety of this arrangement strongly plead for an admission of the other branch of that body to a share of the inquiry? The model from which the idea of this institution has been borrowed, pointed out that course to the convention. In Great Britain it is the province of the House of Commons to prefer the impeachment, and of the House of Lords to decide upon it. Several of the State constitutions have followed the example. As well the latter, as the former, seem to have regarded the practice of impeachments as a bridle in the hands of the legislative body upon the executive servants of the government. Is not this the true light in which it ought to be regarded?

. . . .
These considerations seem alone sufficient to authorize a conclusion, that the Supreme Court would have been an improper substitute for the Senate, as a court of impeachments. There remains a further consideration, which will not a little strengthen this conclusion. It is this: The punishment which may be the consequence of conviction upon impeachment, is not to terminate the chastisement of the offender. After having been sentenced to a perpetual ostracism from the esteem and confidence, and honors and emoluments of his country, he will still be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. Would it be proper that the persons who had disposed of his fame, and his most valuable rights as a citizen in one trial, should, in another trial, for the same offense, be also the disposers of his life and his fortune? Would there not be the greatest reason to apprehend, that error, in the first sentence, would be the parent of error in the second sentence? That the strong bias of one decision would be apt to overrule the influence of any new lights which might be brought to vary the complexion of another decision? Those who know anything of human nature, will not hesitate to answer these questions in the affirmative; and will be at no loss to perceive, that by making the same persons judges in both cases, those who might happen to be the objects of prosecution would, in a great measure, be deprived of the double security intended them by a double trial. The loss of life and estate would often be virtually included in a sentence which, in its terms, imported nothing more than dismission from a present, and disqualification for a future, office. It may be said, that the intervention of a jury, in the second instance, would obviate the danger. But juries are frequently influenced by the opinions of judges. They are sometimes induced to find special verdicts, which refer the main question to the decision of the court. Who would be willing to stake his life and his estate upon the verdict of a jury acting under the auspices of judges who had predetermined his guilt?

. . . .
PUBLIUS.

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed65.htm

The essential definition of an impeachable offense is "those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."

Do you think that Bush has committed impeachable offenses?

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. A blowjob, but only if you are a Dem

and sadly I am not shitting you

[sutz12]

27. A BJ from a woman...gay sex is OK.

:)

[Muttocracy]

2. The offenses are plenty bad, but the senate votes aren't there, sadly.

I'm still glad Kucinich read the crimes into the record, though.

[grasswire]

16. doesn't matter if the votes aren't there

The pressure of an impeachment inquiry might stop mad men from attacking Iran, or from thinking they might find a way to STAY in the White House, or from thinking they might pardon unforgiveable crimes.

And the public spectacle of an impeachment inquiry would send the message to the world that the people of the United States of America have declared they will not tolerate attacks on the Constitution.

There is no downside for democracy. This is the remedy provided by our founders.

[Muttocracy]

19. yes, I do think it's important (said in my text, not subject)

And I particularly liked hearing the constitutional lawyer on KO suggesting there are ways to go after them after they're out of office. And how important it is for the long-term record.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x145939

[Prophet 451]

21. No, but morally, it matters

Doesn't matter if it never gets further than it did today. The effort was made and morally, that's worth everything.

[Muttocracy]

28. I totally agree - should have written my subject line differently. nt

[The_Casual_Observer]

3. Knowingly telling lies at the 2003 SOTU?

[JDPriestly]

11. Thanks. The Casual Observer.

I think that also fits the definition that Hamilton gave in the Federalist Papers. it is a crime against all of us. It is a political crime.

[MonkeyFunk]

4. Whatever congress decides is an impeachable offense.

that's the short, but right, answer.

[Selatius]

5. The impeachment process is flawed, IMHO. The Senate is far too politicized a body for impartiality.

You would strike fear into the heart of a president if it was a jury of 12 random-picked citizens instead of a bunch of senators.

[cornermouse]

6. Can I volunteer?

[JDPriestly]

13. Read Federalist Paper No. 65. Hamilton explains why the

Senate was chosen.

[Selatius]

26. I don't think the Senate in his day acts the same as the Senate of today.

And I highly doubt Hamilton would be putting so much emphasis into destruction of one's reputation and the resulting disqualification for future office as he did with the last paragraph you cited if he had known about the modern era's golden parachutes and the revolving door between Wall Street jobs and seats in Congress.

Regardless, I see the logic in putting the final decision in the hands of an elected body that is still ultimately accountable to the people, as opposed to the Supreme Court or a trial by a jury of one's peers.

Still, the politics of the Senate blinding the right course of action are a major problem that likely won't be resolved in a lifetime.

[elocs]

7. Senator Obama has taught courses on constitutional law at the University of Chicago.

I am sure he does not need anybody here to lecture him on the Constitution. Impeachment is an issue here at DU where the apparent vocal majority will broker no opinion on it that differs from their own and is usually quick to label somebody a DINO who disagrees with them. Impeachment was all the rage here a year ago, but then it died down. I'm sure it will again since so few members of Congress have any interest in it during an election year. In a few weeks from now we will be on with the campaign, but we will be indignantly lectured by those who cannot understand why everybody is not falling all over themselves to impeach Bushco. (I am not saying he does not richly deserve it, just that it is not going to happen. Reality is a bitch, especially when you know how to count. Didn't we go through a long thing during the primaries about being able to count?)

[JDPriestly]

9. Leaving aside whether impeachment is appropriate at this time,

do you think if you were on a jury, would you convict if the jury instruction consisted of the definition of impeachment provided by Alexander Hamilton? I realize that no jury will be deciding this question. I'm asking you to consider your conscience and your judgment.

[Growler]

12. I agree with everything you said in your post

...and wish I had said it first!

[cornermouse]

14. Okay, if you want to go at this strictly from a political

we must win an election angle. By refusing to impeach you have reinforced the feeling that the more conservative voters have of the democratic party as not having any ethics; general lack of morals; not willing to stand up and fight for anything even when you know that it's the right thing to do and maybe newly convinced some on the left of the same thing.

You would describe standing on principles as something that was "all the rage"? You are so wrong. Principles aren't a style that you change every season. If you have them, you use as anchors for your life and sanity.

[jberryhill]

25. And if one is an extremist...

....then one uses one's principles as anchors for one's insanity.

The problem with being insane is that it's really tough to gauge whether or not you are insane.

[Breeze54]

15. I disagree. He said impeachment should be reserved for "grave breeches" and is not acceptable!

Not acceptable? Maybe he forgot that he opposed the war in Iraq and maybe he just didn't know all
about the crimes of bush before he made such a blatantly 'silly' statement. His motivations are
political because he's running for office. Same old, same old political BS speak!

Obama says despite shortcomings of Bush administration, impeachment is not acceptable

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/06/28/america/NA-POL-US-Obama-No-Impeachment.php

snip-->

"I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breeches, and intentional breeches of the president's authority," he said.

What bushCo has done isn't 'grave' enough for him?! :wow:

[grasswire]

18. I sure hope that quote is wrong.

Because if he truly said that as written, then we have an appeaser for the nominee.

When will Democrats stand up to domestic thugs and despots?

How many decades, how many attacks on the Constitution will we allow, in order to "get along to go along"?

We are simply being played for fools or cowards.

And if Obama said that, then he has in effect said "Thank you, sir, may I have another?"

We're doomed.

[slipslidingaway]

22. Thanks, I remember that statement. n/t

[az chela]

8. Start an illegal war with false statements

Be responsible for the deaths of millions and the troops wounded for oil
letting Katrina happen
Ignoring 911 warnings
etc
etc
etc

[JDPriestly]

10. I agree with you. az chela

The objections to impeachment are political or practical. I'm trying to ask people to look at the legal and moral aspects of the question. And I'm using the Hamilton definition of grounds for impeachment as the basis. Thanks for your answer. You are about the only person to really provide an intelligent answer as to whether you think there are factual grounds to impeach.

[mmonk]

17. Everything they have done just about is impeachable.

Anyone who says different is lying.

[Prophet 451]

20. Misuse of presidential resources?

I'm talking about the cigar.

[leftofthedial]

23. nothing anymore, ever again

unless a Democrat has extramarital sex

[jberryhill]

24. The two big ones in your list, IMHO

are authorizing torture and the FISA violations.

The deal with Nixon on Watergate was obstructing an investigation into illegal surveillance. People can debate whether Nixon had foreknowledge or whether one buys the "overzealous supporters" line, but there was agreement that Nixon was involved in the cover up.

Here, we have a president directly involved in illegal surveillance, and I can't for the life of me figure out why that's not more serious than the obstruction involved in Watergate.

But the definition of "what's enough" is going to have be limited by those acts for which "what enough of Congress" wasn't in the loop.

[KharmaTrain]

29. It's What A Rigged Jury Believes...Or Doesn't

It's what 33 Repugnican asshats think...the ultimate "jurors" whose votes are based purely on political allegiance and complicity. It's the life insurance plan this regime uses to continue to plunder, obstruct and trample the Constitution and civil liberties...and now to deny assistance to millions who are suffering economic hard times. It's shameless and the "shit sandwich" that frustrates us all.

The question isn't what we think if impeachable offenses were committed. I doubt there's many here on DU who would deny that. It's not our call here and that's what's frustrating. It's the incomplete job of the '06 election. That one helped slow down the runaway train...but the ultimate change won't be accomplished until a Democrat is in the White House and Democratic majorities in both Houses are enlarged. It's only then that the walls of obstruction and this regime's grip on power is removed...and its party totally discredited that we need to demand a full accounting of the crimes of the past 8 years.