View the Articles of Impeachment,drafted by Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark
Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General during the Johnson Administration has drafted articles of impeachment setting forth high crimes and misdemeanors by President Bush and other civil officers of his administration.
Mr. Clark has also prepared historical notes on the power of impeachment, for consideration in the impeachment of President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and Attorney General Ashcroft.
If the impeachment power is limited to serious felony crimes only, it may fail to protect against usurpations and abuses of power that threaten constitutional government, but are not crimes.
Based on what's come out so far, no, technically, Pesident Bush did not lie in his SOTUS. He attributed the comments about the uranium to British sources and that was true. But we need to look at the big picture.
From CBS News:
Excerpt from the article:
Before the speech was delivered, the portions dealing with Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were checked with the CIA for accuracy, reports CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin. CIA officials warned members of the President's National Security Council staff the intelligence was not good enough to make the flat statement Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa.
The White House officials responded that a paper issued by the British government contained the unequivocal assertion: "Iraq has ... sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." As long as the statement was attributed to British Intelligence, the White House officials argued, it would be factually accurate. The CIA officials dropped their objections and that's how it was delivered.
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," Mr. Bush said. The statement was technically correct, since it accurately reflected the British paper. But the bottom line is the White House knowingly included in a presidential address information its own CIA had explicitly warned might not be true.
So I don't think the question is "Did Bush Lie?" He didn't. The question is, "Did he abuse his powers as President to mislead the country?" I think he did. You can mislead someone without actually lying to them.
The article goes on to say:
But eight days after the State of the Union, when Powell addressed the U.N., he deliberately left out any reference to Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa.
"I didn't use the uranium at that point because I didn't think that was sufficiently strong as evidence to present before the world," Powell said.
That is exactly what CIA officials told the White House before the State of the Union.
So my question is why was this information deemed important enough to be presented as evidence to the American public, but not deemed important enough to be presented to the U. N. eight days later? What happened during those 8 days to diminish its importance/strength as evidence? If, in those 8 days, new information came to light about this issue, why was it not presented to the American public sometime before we actually went to war some 6 weeks later?
Going back to the history of impeachment, this is the other thing that caught my eye:
President Bill Clinton was impeached in December 1998 on three Articles of Impeachment by votes ranging from 229-205 to 221-212. The votes were highly partisan with only five Democrats voting for impeachment. The charges were for perjury, false and misleading testimony and obstruction of justice, all committed in legal proceedings involving allegations of extra-marital sexual conduct. The charges were less serious to Constitutional government than allegations against most previous Presidents.
So now the questions we need to ask ourselves are
1. What if anything is President Bush actually guilty of?
2. Are these alleged crimes more serious to Constitutional government than Clinton's were?
If not, we don't necessarily impeach, but we certainly do hold some sort of public hearings. At the very least the American taxpayers who are paying for all of this deserve some answers to their questions. There has been far too much secrecy in this Administration, IMHO, all in the name of "security."
If we do think that President Bush's alleged crimes are a more serious threat to Contitutional government than Clinton's crimes were, then we must impeach. If he's found not guilty by the required 2/3 majority he stays in office. If found guilty, he's out of office (at the very least.)
That's just my take on the situation.
Impeachment is an indictment by the House and the Senate must then conduct a trial and a 2/3 majority is needed for conviction.
Yes, that much is true.
The only penalty for conviction is removal from office.
As they say in the Hertz commercials... "Not Exactly." Some excerpts from the Constitution regarding impeachment:
Article I, Section 3, Paragraph 7 Provides:
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."
And if President Bush is impeached and later found guilty, you can forget about there being any pardons, because:
Article II, Which Creates The Executive Branch, In Section 2 Provides The President:"...shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."
Nixon was able to be pardoned, because he was never impeached. He resigned before it came to that. If impeachment were to seem likely, I wonder if President Bush would go ahead and resign (he could then at least be pardoned) or if he would take his chances and hope he wasn't found guilty.
It makes a lot of the same points you just did.