Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

May 28, 2010

IS IMPEACHMENT ON THE TABLE FOR THE GOP?.... It's too soon to know if Republicans will re-take the House majority, but it's probably a good time to consider the consequences of a GOP majority. The obvious outcome is gridlock, with Republicans passing right-wing legislation, which would either be blocked by the Senate or vetoed at the White House.

But Jonathan Bernstein argues that we can also expect a GOP majority to at least try to impeach President Obama.

I continue to believe that if Obama sits in the White House for six years with a GOP majority in the House of Representatives that the odds are very good -- better than 50 percent -- that he'll be impeached. Not convicted, of course, but impeached, forcing a Senate trial. [...]

In fact, impeachment talk moved [Wednesday] from Tea Party rallies to at least one Republican Member of the House, Darrell Issa. And Issa's not an obscure backbencher; he's the ranking Republican on Oversight and Government Reform, and he also sits on the Judiciary Committee.

The incentives all run to impeachment, as far as I can tell. The leaders of such an effort would find it easy to cash in (literally, I mean) with books and appearances on the conservative lecture circuit. It's hard to believe that Rush, Beck and the rest of the gang wouldn't be tripping over each other to wear the crown of the Host Who Brought Down the socialist gangster president. And we've seen the ability, or I should say the lack thereof, of rank-and-file GOP pols to stand up to the talk show yakkers. Besides, it's not as if a new Republican majority would have a full agenda of legislative items to pass, and what they did have would face an Obama veto (and most likely death in the Senate at any rate). Against all that is the collective preference of the Republican Party not to have a reputation as a pack of loons, but that doesn't seem to be much of a constraint in practice.

It's tempting to think of impeachment as a far-fetched, silly idea, barring actual impeachable offenses. But the more I think about it, the more I remember this is the House Republican caucus we're dealing with. They're a creative bunch, with no real appreciation for norms or limits.

For that matter, the GOP base would welcome the development -- in February, a national Research 2000 poll found that a plurality of rank-and-file Republicans wants to see President Obama impeached. About what? It didn't matter.

With the base and at least one GOP lawmaker already talking about this, it seems more than fair to ask Republican candidates to go on the record on this.

Throughout 2006, when Republicans realized that Democrats had a very good shot at reclaiming the congressional majority, one of the single most common GOP attacks before the elections was that Dems would try to impeach Bush and/or Cheney if they were in the majority. (The party had no policy platform or accomplishments to point to, so this became their campaign message.)

The talk was so common that Democratic leaders, much to the chagrin for the party's base, declared unequivocally before the election that impeachment was "off the table."

So, are Republicans prepared to also take impeachment off the table in advance of these midterm elections? There's no reason for the GOP to avoid the question -- they're the ones who brought it up.

Steve Benen 10:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (52)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

We will never take the peaches off the party table .
In my best memory of
Gilda Radner's , Roseanne Roseannadanna

Posted by: FRP on May 28, 2010 at 10:55 AM | PERMALINK

Bush all be admits he violated federal law with the warrantless wiretapping program. He lies us into war. All this was know in 2006 when Democrats retook the House. And the first thing Pelosi did was take impeachment off the table.

Posted by: thorin-1 on May 28, 2010 at 10:59 AM | PERMALINK
  • 1998: GOP tries to undo the results of the 1996 election by impeaching a president for a transgression that wasn't an impeachable offense.
  • 2000: GOP wants so badly to reclaim the White House that it steals an election.
  • 2010s: GOP apparently wants to overturn the results of another presidential election by impeaching another president not for impeachable offenses but for policy differences, or policy differences based in fantasy (at best). Oh, and apparently they wouldn't mind being seen as not only partisan serial impeachers but impeachers of the first black president.
Yeah, that'll work.

Posted by: navamske on May 28, 2010 at 11:02 AM | PERMALINK

"The incentives all run to impeachment, as far as I can tell. The leaders of such an effort would find it easy to cash in (literally, I mean) with books and appearances on the conservative lecture circuit. It's hard to believe that Rush, Beck and the rest of the gang wouldn't be tripping over each other to wear the crown of the Host Who Brought Down the socialist gangster president. And we've seen the ability, or I should say the lack thereof, of rank-and-file GOP pols to stand up to the talk show yakkers. "

Fox News/Limbaugh - the poisons that keep on giving. I have to wonder, will there ever come a time when a majority of the country will be so sick of their 24/7 dangerous, seditious nonsense that a way will be found to constitutionally and legally detox them of our system?

Posted by: June on May 28, 2010 at 11:04 AM | PERMALINK

This is incredible. What chutzpah! Bush lies us into war and authorizes torture, not to mention politicization of the Justice Department and every other government department, but out of some misguided sense that impeachment would be bad for the country Democrats sit on their hands and whistle.

It was insane to believe that Republicans wouldn't attempt to impeach the next Democratic president on any small pretext.

I would not bet against them doing exactly that if/when they gain majorities in the House and Senate.

Posted by: karen marie on May 28, 2010 at 11:04 AM | PERMALINK

"... better than 50 percent -- that he'll be impeached."
If the R's gain the majority, I think there will be a 1% chance that they won't try to impeach.
It'll provide them with great face-time on all the gasbag shows, it'll fatten up their coffers from the dimwitted people who can't stand the Kenyan usurper and the coroporate money will flow faster than the leak in the Gulf. The corporate master hate Obama. Why? I dont really know. He's done nothing escept keep them from being drawn and quartered.
What'll it be about? They don't know yet. Maybe it's bacause he likes his toilet tissue hanging over the top rather than under the bottom - hey, Ann Landers spent more years on this issue than we spent on the Manhattan Project.
It won't matter if it's ligit, or if it'll work. They'll do it for ONE reason alone - THEY CAN!

Posted by: c u n d gulag on May 28, 2010 at 11:07 AM | PERMALINK

Impeach him for what? Being a secret Muslim? Not producing a birth certificate? Well, OK, not producing his REAL birth certificate, the Kenyan one? Are you kidding me?

While they're rejigging laws and policies all over the place, they should change the one that says you can't fire members of the Senate or the House in the middle of their terms, for deliberately impeding the progress of the government in support of the voters.

Posted by: Mark on May 28, 2010 at 11:08 AM | PERMALINK

Mark, they would impeach him for not being Republican. And probably for not being white, if they could get away with it.

Posted by: Rochester on May 28, 2010 at 11:15 AM | PERMALINK

Democrats in '06 were wrong for taking impeachment off the table. Politics aside, it is the DUTY of the Congress to bring impeachment charges when the President has committed an impeachable offense.

Republicans are clamoring for a special prosecutor to look into possible wrong doing associated with the WH offering Sestak a job in return for him not running against Specter in the PA Dem primary. Of course they will attempt to bring impeach charges against Obama if they retake the House in '10.

Posted by: EricB on May 28, 2010 at 11:15 AM | PERMALINK

If I remember right, the last impeachment initiated by the GOP didn't work out as well for them as they had hoped, either as a caucus or individually.

I'd be more concerned about another Whitewater-scale fishing expedition costing the taxpayer millions upon millions of dollars to possibly drag up some trivial and irrelevant example of a personal failing from twenty years ago.

Posted by: Jon on May 28, 2010 at 11:17 AM | PERMALINK

The thing is, Obama is at least as guilty as Bush was of violating the Constitution with regard to the Gitmo prisoners and probably the Geneva Conventions because of the CIA drone strikes.

But they're not actually going to impeach him for that, they're going to do it for something stupid, like the birth certificate thing.

Posted by: mnpundit on May 28, 2010 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINK

"1998: GOP tries to undo the results of the 1996 election by impeaching a president for a transgression that wasn't an impeachable offense."

A felony is not an impeachable offense?

Posted by: johnnj on May 28, 2010 at 11:21 AM | PERMALINK

Steve, you're missing the obvious point that this is a fundraising gimmick. The GOP promises the impossible as a way of giving themselves credibility with the angry rubes. It's just like what they did with abortion and flag-burning amendments for 30 years: they never delivered, always had their hand out for more. In addition, it's the type of story that gets its own publicity from the MSM and blogs like yours.

They know perfectly well it's both stupid and impossible. But the people who watch Fox and listen to talk radio will write them plenty of checks for it, especially in a year when the GOP is dominated by small donors.

Posted by: Rathskeller on May 28, 2010 at 11:22 AM | PERMALINK

Throughout 2006, when Republicans realized that Democrats had a very good shot at reclaiming the congressional majority, one of the single most common GOP attacks before the elections was that Dems would try to impeach Bush and/or Cheney

... because that's what the Republicans would have done if positions were reversed.

"Projection". One can often gauge a Republican's darkest wishes by examining the nefarious intents that he imputes to Democrats.

Posted by: joel hanes on May 28, 2010 at 11:24 AM | PERMALINK

All the more reason to break the filibuster in the Senate now-- and pass real reforms of health, finance, etc now. At best, it improves the chances of the Dems in 2010 and 2012. At worst, it gives the Repubs valid ideological reasons (in their view) for impeachment.

Posted by: gdb on May 28, 2010 at 11:27 AM | PERMALINK

How 'bout Obama, Tim Kaine, Pelosi, Reid, the DCCC, and DSCC all WAKE UP and realize the consequences of losing are unacceptable, and start fighting for every seat like they did when Howard Dean was running the show?
If this possibility isn't enough to light a fire under their butts, I don't know what is.
They can still win anywhere, as the recent Pa. special election proved, and they could actually pick up Senate seats in states like Kentucky, NC, and even Florida with an Indie caucusing with the Dems.
My prediction is that if the Repubs somehow retake the House and actually waste time impeaching Obama on frivolous charges, the voter backlash will be so intense that 2006 and 2008 will look like Repub victories by comparison.
But I don't think Repub control of the House would even last beyond 2012, when more Dems will get swept in with an Obama reelection.

Posted by: Allan Snyder on May 28, 2010 at 11:28 AM | PERMALINK

Once again, we're back to Newt Gingrich's Total Political War. This is like playing football without refs; instead the fans get to decide the penalties.

I suspect the era of history we inhabit doesn't echo Weimar so much as it does Botha's South Africa. We see a declining demographic battling for its privileges as a demographic. They're loud, obnoxious and doomed.

Posted by: walt on May 28, 2010 at 11:28 AM | PERMALINK

Of course they will bring a motion to impeach. The GOP has no ideas to run on, so their tactic is to embarrass the Dems. "Since we can't look better than them, we'll make them look worse than us!"

Your modern GOP.

Posted by: Stetson Kennedy on May 28, 2010 at 11:30 AM | PERMALINK

As I stated in another venue (subject was basically the same, republicans), the political system in the US is completely broken. We didn't have a violent overthrow of the government, the republicans simply shit on it so much that it broke. Full Stop.

Posted by: rbe1 on May 28, 2010 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

...and they will likely recall Jerry Brown after he becomes CA Gov.
Not that JB is worth cold snot, but if elected he should be at least sworn in before they start collecting recall sigs.

Posted by: cwolf on May 28, 2010 at 11:34 AM | PERMALINK

If dems starting asking repukes about impeachment the media will make it seem like Obama has done something to deserve to be impeached. "Why are we talkig about it if he didn;t do anything?" it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's a horrible idea to bring it up. Remember the double standard for Dem's.

Posted by: Cal on May 28, 2010 at 11:34 AM | PERMALINK

The REpublican ideologures Smear the air with their misinformation and filthy froth that is unessential.The Right wing Billionaires have control of corporations and de regulated finance and caused the global meltdown; caused the Gulf Oil leak from removing regulation and oversight and are killing God's creations without remorse. Have made immigration for select Americans only and have denuded America's morals with their immorality, incest and demagogery. America is no longer a Super power. If the Republicans and Blue Dogs have their way, America will be a third world country in 2 years. I am ashamed of what America has become. And I will fight to prevent it from happening.

Posted by: MLJohnston on May 28, 2010 at 11:37 AM | PERMALINK

It's what they did before.
How can there be any speculation about their intent in 2010?

Posted by: Tom in Ma on May 28, 2010 at 11:38 AM | PERMALINK

If dems starting asking repukes about impeachment the media will make it seem like Obama has done something to deserve to be impeached. "Why are we talkig about it if he didn;t do anything?" it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's a horrible idea to bring it up. Remember the double standard for Dem's.

Posted by: Cal on May 28, 2010 at 11:40 AM | PERMALINK

I'm with Rathskeller; talking about impeachment may bring them some air time and financial rewards, while actually doing will make them look like idiots, except to their base.

Posted by: qwerty on May 28, 2010 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINK

I hope this story gets lots of press. Obama'z base of black voters is not highly motivated, and is unlikely to turn out for the November elections--unless they think Obama may be in trouble. Fact or fiction, it doesn't matter. Make it appear a big deal. If the Thugs go for it, it will boost the Dem turnout. If they deny it and say it won't happen, perhaps we can have two years without all the horrific wasted political energy on character assassination of the president.

Posted by: candideinnc on May 28, 2010 at 11:44 AM | PERMALINK

IIRC, Clinton maintained approval ratings in the low-to-mid 60% range all during his impeachment, while Republicans came out of the whole thing rating about as popular as crotch lice with Democrats adding seats in the 98 midterms. Maybe this would be a blessing in disguise?

Posted by: jonas on May 28, 2010 at 11:44 AM | PERMALINK

Honestly, if they openly talk about impeachment and pursue it as an election ploy they'll be doomed. The country (besides their weird base) would have no interest, desire or patience in an ugly folly like that. None.

November is still a long way off. The Republicans won't get a single African American vote and they've kissed the hispanic vote good-bye. They'll make gains in November, but I think they're vastly over estimating their potential....and every day they're giving blacks, hispanics, gays more and more reasons to show up and vote.

Posted by: SaintZak on May 28, 2010 at 11:49 AM | PERMALINK

For that matter, the GOP base would welcome the development -- in February, a national Research 2000 poll found that a plurality of rank-and-file Republicans wants to see President Obama impeached. About what? It didn't matter.

The Republican base has cheapened the "in case of emergency" Constitutional check of impeachment to where it is now just another kind of recall referendum (yet they don't seem to think Ahnold worked out so well. . .) and tool of disruption of the other side's agenda. So what if the Founders expressly tried to insulate government from mob rule and shifting partisan passions?

Posted by: zeitgeist on May 28, 2010 at 11:54 AM | PERMALINK

"The talk was so common that Democratic leaders, much to the chagrin for the party's base, declared unequivocally before the election that impeachment was "off the table."

Sorry Steve, but it wasn't just the "base" that wanted impeachment investigations/hearings. I seem to remember polls that found a majority of Americans favored at least impeachment investigations if there was credible evidence of criminal wrongdoing by Bush/Cheney.

Posted by: Simon on May 28, 2010 at 12:19 PM | PERMALINK

Like I just said:

By a margin of 52% to 43%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge's approval, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

The poll was conducted by Zogby International, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,216 U.S. adults from January 9-12.

The poll found that 52% agreed with the statement:

"If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."

Posted by: Simon on May 28, 2010 at 12:21 PM | PERMALINK

The republicans prove over and over, each day, that they do not believe in government. At the core, they are royalists, not democrats. They believed in democracy until someone pointed out the fact that not many people agreed with their world view.

Posted by: rbe1 on May 28, 2010 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINK

@johnnj: "A felony is not an impeachable offense?"

Clinton's transgression, the one they tried to hang the impeachment on, was not being fully truthful -- or lying, if you prefer -- in his deposition in the Paula Jones case. There was much debate in 1998, as in 1974, as to what constituted an impeachable offense, as the Constitution is not very specific. I'm not a lawyer or a Constitutional scholar, but I look at it this way: Suppose the president assaulted someone. It's a crime, but it has nothing to do with his role as president, so I'm thinking it's not impeachable. Suppose there's a crisis in the federal government and the president fails to act. It's not a crime, but I think it would be impeachable. YMMV.

Posted by: navamske on May 28, 2010 at 12:35 PM | PERMALINK

If Obama is impeached, it will be for policies introduced by Bush that expanded executive power and infringed on civil liberties in unconstitutional ways, and which Republicans wholeheartedly supported and defended. Just as the BP spill is Bush's Katrina (again), Obama will be impeached for the crimes of his predecessor.

Posted by: Rabbit on May 28, 2010 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

This is yet another indication of how Democrats look like pussies and lose the respect of their own base as well as of their enemies.

Posted by: Delver on May 28, 2010 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

@Simon -- It's not surprising that people are still unaware that Americans wanted Congress to "consider impeaching President Bush if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge's approval". Our Nation's Greatest Professional Journalists™ ignored the poll so scrupulously and so uniformly that Dan Froomkin (then at the Post) led his story with that instead of with the poll itself.

But they have ethics codes, so it's all good.

Posted by: Fleas correct the era on May 28, 2010 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

If the GOP takes back Congress, they WILL impeach Obama - that's a gold-plated guarantee.

Consider this. Today's GOP is whole orders of magnitude crazier than the GOP of the 90s. And the GOP of the 90s held HEARINGS about the president's daughter's cat's fan club.

Oh, yeah. They'd impeach. You can take that to the bank.

Posted by: JoyceH on May 28, 2010 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK

Is impeachment on the table for the GOP? asks Benen.

Is a bear catholic?
Does the pope crap in the woods?
=====================
BTW Clinton wouldn't have been impeached and wouldn't have committed a felony (while in office) if not for an erroneous Federal Court decision (sorry, no cites) that said he had to be deposed in Paula Jones' civil suit that involved events which happened before he was elected. The blue-dress blowjob was a later development.
[A decision, BTW, that the supremes later reversed in another case involving - guess what! a republican defendant.]

Posted by: efgoldman on May 28, 2010 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

The Democrats in Congress will lose in the fall because they are focussed on partisan BS like trying to spin impeachment talk - rather than the real issues.

Democrats continue to waste taxpayer money with stupid budget bills, throwing away money we don't have; they are burning the economy down with job-killing bill after job-killing bill; they are incompetently sending lawyers in to do a engineer's job (oh and only figure that out after disaster hits - Heck of a job, Birnbaum!), selling out USA on international stage (RPNK kills Koreans and we beg China to help - weak!), having creepy walkbalks of practically every promise made to undo Bush GWOT policies that undermined civil liberties ( 'winning' court cases Obama criticized prior).

Oh, and Obamacare - it bites, it's not affordable, it has gaping holes that drives people off private insurance and onto Govt cattle-care, doctors are screwed in it, death panels - oops it's real, mandates are unconstitutional, and it was written so horribly, there are so many cockroaches crawling out now of unintended consequences it will HAVE to be rewritten. Or better yet, the Republicans come in and will repeal the piece of junk. AND THEY ARE RIGHT TO DO SO.

Meanwhile the recovery? Stalled out. Economic misery continues with more long-term unemployed 10% unemployment. Feeble Q2 numbers and Q1 revised DOWN.

Obamunism is a FAIL. Pelosi/Reid Democrats have been a complete and utter fail. And all the Dems have in their partisan quiver is name-calling (teabaggers? please!) and Bush-bashing. LAME.

And impeachment politics wont save them now like it did in 1998.

If Obama broke the law, it is the duty of every patriotic citizen to support removing him from office. If he's done nothing illegal, he's not going anywhere; critics should stand down, and those that don't will just embarrass themselves.

Yet impeachment might have a silver lining for Democrats: because Obama is doing such a stellar job at becoming a one-termer, it could be the Democrats best hope to recover by 2012.

Posted by: Patrick on May 28, 2010 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK

Bribery is listed by name in the Constitution as an impeachable offense alongside treason.

Posted by: anon on May 28, 2010 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, guys!

A new troll!!!

Let's all say "Hi" to Patrick!!!

:::group, from the distance::: "HI, PATRICK!!"

Posted by: efgoldman on May 28, 2010 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK

In view of Prez Zero's general competence, honesty and mad skillz in handling the nation's business at home and abroad, impeachment sounds like a pretty good idea to counteract what was an electoral mistake.

We all know that Obama didn't actually 'win' the Democratic nomination - he was handed it by th eparty insiders (AKA 'super delegates')to hang on to the monolithic black vote, the party's far left activists and George Soros' money.

And him beating McCain - a candidate most of the GOP base couldn't stand - by six points with the media shilling for him and McCain's people running probably the most inept campaign in my memory is like the Yankees bragging about shutting down a triple A farm team.

Plenty of basis too aside from Sestak-Gate...there's his illegal deal with Big Pharma over the ObamaCare bill and a number of other questionable allocations of government funds and appointments.

Our two party system is important to the way our government functions, because it keeps both sides at least somewhat honest.

Obama is an incompetent, self-involved out-of-control loser who's in over his head and will drag the Democrats down with him for years.

Democrats should be praying for the GOP to take over Congress and impeach him.It's the best thing they could hope for.

Regards,
Rob

Posted by: Rob Miller on May 28, 2010 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINK

I wonder when all the pro-democracy people left the GOP. The ones that remain talk a lot about democracy and freedom, but they seem to think that democracy really means that their side always wins, and any loss is illegitimate. Perhaps they think presidential politics is like pro wrestling.

I wish I could argue with a grown-up on the other side.

Posted by: Rathskeller on May 28, 2010 at 3:38 PM | PERMALINK

I seem to recall a "Patrick from Anoka" here before. Same Patrick, Patrick?

Posted by: Paul on May 28, 2010 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK

Another farcical attempted impeachment would actually fit the GOP's needs better.

The purpose of impeaching Clinton wasn't to get him removed from office, it was to make presidential impeachment itself permanently not-serious -- and that's why the Senate GOP showed no follow-through, and left the House GOP in the lurch -- it was supposed to fail. If they had gotten Clinton to resign, that would have been lagniappe.

Recall that since Reconstruction impeachment had used against Nixon (Republican), threatened and withdrawn against Reagan (Republican) and probably also warranted in the case of his VP, (Bush I, Republican). Impeachment represents a clear danger to just about any Republican president, because of how the GOP feels about the office -- as an elected dictatorship. And Bush II went right out and proved it.

But after Clinton, the Serious People in Washington officially declared the impeachment process either a)silly, or b.)unthinkable, by the on the grounds that it was always just partisan spite. Impeachment was reduced to a joke, although it took down with it its guiding light, Speaker Gingrich. And it was reduced to a joke just in the nick of time. When it was needed against Bush II, on grave and merited grounds, it was pre-emptively branded a non-starter.

Impeachment needs to be again turned into a laughing-stock now, or shown to be a brainless exercise in partisan tit-for-tat now -- which one doesn't matter -- before another GOP president takes office.

Sending in the clown squad of Bachmann and Co. is just the ticket.

Posted by: Davis X. Machina on May 28, 2010 at 3:49 PM | PERMALINK

I think I see now, Davis.

Obstruction of justice and perjury are perfectly okay in a sitting president...provided you agree with the perp's politics.

Thanks for the clarity.

Posted by: Rob Miller on May 28, 2010 at 3:56 PM | PERMALINK

And be stuck with BIDEN ?

Posted by: howdyfromTexas on May 28, 2010 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINK
Obstruction of justice and perjury are perfectly okay in a sitting president...provided you agree with the perp's politics.

I don't remember Pres. Clinton being convicted on either count.

Posted by: Davis X. Machina on May 28, 2010 at 5:11 PM | PERMALINK

The repocons were already planing to impeach Clinton before he was even sworn in. I happened to hear a talk show where it was discussed at length. They considered his very politics to be and impeachable offense.

The same discussions were being put forward in the same manner before Obama was sworn in so I think we can look for it to come.

I expect that after the Clinton debacle it will be harder to pursuade the public as a whole that anything short of a true act of treason would be worth what they put the country through with Clinton just to end up empty handed.

Posted by: Marnie on May 28, 2010 at 8:49 PM | PERMALINK

This really, REALLY pisses me off. If any President in the last 100 years deserved to be impeached, it was GWB, even over Nixon.

Nixons crimes were misdemeanors, high or not. But Bush LIED us into a WAR. He is a friggin' MURDERER!

Posted by: Sarah Palin IS the ANTIchrist on May 29, 2010 at 3:52 AM | PERMALINK

""1998: GOP tries to undo the results of the 1996 election by impeaching a president for a transgression that wasn't an impeachable offense."

A felony is not an impeachable offense?"

OK, I'm going to say this ONE MORE TIME. I'll try to type S L O W L Y so you can understand.

Not all lying under oath is perjury.

Your lie must be as to a MATERIAL matter.

The judge in the Paula Jones lawsuit detemined that whether Clinton did or did not have an affair with Monica Lewinsky was NOT MATERIAL to the Jones lawsuit.

Thus Clinton did NOT commit PERJURY.

Lied? Yes. But NOT a felony, not a crime at all.

Just stupid.

Posted by: Cal Gal on May 29, 2010 at 3:59 AM | PERMALINK

That was Emily Latella, not Rosanne Rosannadanna.

Posted by: quisp on May 30, 2010 at 1:57 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly