Can a president be impeached for lying to Congress ?

[kentuck]

When that lie takes us to war? Or does it have to be proven that it was intentional? Is that what Pat Roberts and the Repubs are trying to hide from the Democrats and the American public? Can it be proven that Bush lied to Congress? Is that impeachable?

[existentialist]

1. good questions, but a quibble.

A lie is not a lie unless it is intentional. A mere mistakenly false misrepresentation is only an error, and is not a lie.

I believe the Bush Administration did lie to Congress as well as the American people, but if we're setting the terms of the debate, let's get them correct.

[savemefromdumbya]

5. they intentionally lied

they were determined to use the faulty info to make the case for war - therefore impeachable. No GOP congressman is going to impeach their Fuerer

[stevietheman]

2. I think they knew the truth re: what everyone was mistaken about...

and they created lies to go on top of that.

The Bush administration knew the case for WMDs in Iraq was weak. Why else would they have felt the need to "pad the case"?

[LuCifer]

3. I don't see why not, after all...

...Bill Clinton was nearly impeached for lying about a PRIVATE MATTER. So let's hold these bastards to the SAME STANDARD. Oh wait, I forgot, if you got that MAGIC "R" after your name, it's your "DO WHATEVER AND GET AWAY WITH IT" card, kinda like a GET OUT OF JAIL FREE card. :sarcasm:
And, speaking of double standards, I thought the rethugliKKKons were the PARTY THAT WANTS TO KEEP THE GOV'T OUT OF YOUR PRIVATE LIFE, oh HAHAHAHA! Gut laugh time...

Lu
http://www.LU13.TK

[SammyWinstonJack]

6. The way it has been described by some on DU, is that Clinton didn't

lie, he was following the definition of what sex was, as put forth by Ken Starr? Is that right? Since Clinton was/is a lawyer, it stands to reason that he would know what defines perjury and therefore would not commit it. Right?

[LuCifer]

7. Even if he DID lie...

...under oath, ok, fine, whatever, what did it have to do with RUNNING THE COUNTRY! Last time I checked, no one died cuz he said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

Lu Cifer, rememeber, everything bad that's ever happened to BUSHitlter is the fault of Clinton's penis :sarcasm:

[SammyWinstonJack]

11. Made no never mind to me! I thought and think he was a great President!

I love Clinton! Impeaching him for what the repugs couldn't accomplish is what they did! So jealous of him is what they were. Channeling Yoda! :evilgrin:

[jobycom]

13. Clinton was impeached for perjury before the grand jury

not for perjury over Paula Jones. The question during the Paula Jones case was a long, convoluted question about Clinton's relationship with Lewinsky, and went something like "Did you ever have sex with Monica Lewinski, or did you ever have sexual relations with Ms. Lewinski, and by sexual relations, we mean did you ever touch her genetalia, either through her clothing or under her clothing, or her breasts, yadayadayada, with the intention of creating arousal or sexual gratification." Something roughly like that. Clinton said no. And he later claimed under oath that his answer was technically true, but it was meant to mislead. He would never explain that, and didn't have to explain that (fifth amendment, burden of proof on prosecutor, etc).

I suspect the quibble was over his intention while touching her, but I don't know.

The goofy thing was, Clinton's attorney protested the question, saying it was so convoluted it could be interpreted a number of ways, and asked the judge instead to ask each individual element as a separate question. "Did you touch her here? Did you try to arouse her here? etc." The plaintiff's attorneys wouldn't hear of it--they wanted there convoluted trap.

Anyway, Clinton was not impeached for lying to that question, contrary to popular opinion. He was impeached for lying to the grand jury when he said he didn't lie to that question. So, Congress couldn't prove he lied to the Paula Jones question, but impeached him for lying when he said he didn't lie to the Paula Jones question. Historians are going to laugh their asses off explaining that one to undergraduates.

Anyway, what's forgotten in all of this, is that Clinton was cleared by the Senate of the charges, so even the Senate didn't think it was proven that he had lied.

[jobycom]

14. dupe

[jobycom]

10. A few technical points

The Constitution doesn't exactly say that a president can only be impeached for treason, bribery, etc, it says that he can only be removed from office if impeached and convicted of those crimes. He can be impeached for any misuse of his office, but the impeachment wouldn't carry any penalty except in the case of the crimes listed.

Second, Clinton was impeached, but not convicted.

Third, Clinton was impeached for lying before a grand jury and for obstruction of justice for allegedly persuading others to lie for him. The perjury before the grand jury was for saying he didn't lie during the Paula Jones trial.

So technically, he wasn't impeached for lying about a personal matter. The charge was bogus, anyway. They claimed Clinton lied during his grand jury testimony when he said he had not lied during the Paula Jones case. Yet they didn't impeach him for lying in the Paula Jones case itself because there was not enough evidence to prove he had lied. It was made even more bogus, since Clinton's opening statement to the grand jury was "I gave misleading statements in the Paula Jones case but I tried to keep the statements legally accurate," so Clinton essentially told the truth to the grand jury.

But you're right: the heart of the perjury charge against Clinton was an evasive answer to a personal question in the evidentiary phase of a civil case thrown out as having no merit to a question later ruled irrelevant to the trial. The heart of the charge against Bush is that he lied to murder 100K innocent people.

For the record, one reason they may not have impeached him for the Paula Jones trial was because if they had, Clinton could have called witnesses to prove that Ken Starr knew about Monica Lewinski and was in cahoots with her lawyers, so that the whole Paula Jones trial was a setup to trap Clinton into the perjury. The Repubs didn't want to open up that can of worms.

[mtpWriter]

16. Great summary. One of the best I've seen

[jobycom]

18. Thanks. Proof that I spend too much time worrying about politics! nt

[jobycom]

4. Could be

Treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors.

High crimes and misdemeanors was a legal phrase meaning "Distinctly political crimes against the state." In other words, a crime that directly attacks the state or the government of the state, like treason or bribery, and probably crimes like embezzling of government funds, etc. They wanted to be sure that a president couldn't be removed for personal or petty crimes, and that a president couldn't be removed for basic policy disagreements. It had to be a charge that the president was betraying the government, not just managing it poorly, or worse, managing it in a way that his opponents didn't like. Sadly, the two times presidents have been impeached, that's exactly why they were impeached, anyway.

Simple perjury wouldn't be impeachable (well, technically, punishable). But lying to Congress to convince them to misuse our military might be, if it can be shown that Bush intended to defraud the government, or to wage war for non-security reasons.

Bush's defense would be something like "We did lie about why we were going to war, but we had to in order to keep classified information from becoming public. Our true purpose was still national defense." That would make it hard to impeach. Our biggest problem is we really don't know what Bush was thinking, and unless he wrote it down somewhere, we probably can't prove that national defense wasn't at the heart of it.

But I'm not a lawyer, there are a lot of nuances I'm sure I've missed. Heck, I'm probably completely wrong from top to bottom, as always.

[Mind_your_head]

9. Is the 'classified information' "we're running out of oil boys and girls"

Let's learn to deal with this new problem ~ actually we've only been oil dependent the last 100 or so years (less really).

I guess businesses and corporations will REALLY be upset - some of them won't SURVIVE (and they won't be 'bought out' either). tsk...tsk.....

Business has forgotten that they depend on being OF SERVICE to PEOPLE....once business remembers this fact, they'll develop 'just fine'. (that's a HUGE undeserved 'tip' to business on my part, but hey if it gets them to 'get with the program'.....)

[jobycom]

17. I hadn't thought of that. Interesting possibility.

First, I'm not saying Bush would be telling the truth by claiming he was hiding classified information, just that he would use that as his defense.

But that's an intriguing question. I wonder how the nation would react if Bush said "We invaded to steal their oil because we are running out of oil and they were going to sell it all to China, and that would have destroyed America."

If it came to an impeachment trial, Bush would be more worried about saving his job than his approval numbers, so an answer like that could make people hate him but at the same time kill the impeachment by showing that his real purpose was national security.

Hell, it might even be true.

[Yupster]

8. The President can be impeached for anything

that 50 + % of the House of Representatives want to impeach him for. It's really that simple. Thre are no standards.

[mtpWriter]

15. There are standards.

And lying to Congress qualifies.

Read Federalist 47 (I think that's the right one)

[jobycom]

19. Impeached, yes. Convicted and removed, no

Also, remember that Congress would have to face the voters in, at most, two years, so they'd be unlikely to impeach for jaywalking.

But once impeached, it's unlikely that two-thirds of the Senate would agree to remove a president for crimes that weren't in the Constitution as eligible for removal, and in addition the Chief Justice presides over the Senate hearing to interpret the Constitutionality of the conviction.

But you're right, they can impeach him for anything, really. There is no oversight to the impeachment process, only to the actual conviction.

[librechik]

12. only if the Clenis is involved

[Justice Is Comin]

20. We won't have to worry about that.

When the black curtain is removed once and for all on this bastard, the entire US population will see the strings. There is a smoking gun somewhere, either a person or a document and it will be found. The outrage will be beyond anything we've ever seen.

The headline news shows will be all over it. His own congress will have to condemn him. He will resign in huge fear of the consequences. He will be like a leper.

The pyramid is being built right now stone by stone.

[wiggs]

21. Yes, according to John Dean and as established during Nixon era. nt