The following exchange is from Dialogue Group 5, Thread 26.

1. What is an impeachable offense?
Tue, Dec 8, 1998 - 6:58 PM/EST
mikerose

Forget Monica and Bill (Rule 1 for this thread -- that is the last time they can be mentioned, by name or inference).....

Let's try the basics...

The Constitution of the United States says that "The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors" (Art II, Section 4).

That's pretty vague and, as one congresscritter noted (back in the Watergate days as I recall), "An impeachable offense is what Congress says it is" (don't remember who said it or I'd offer the cite).

Somehow, I don't see us impeaching a President for littering, but where do we draw the line?

There is an interesting aspect to the question. I suspect our fundamental view of whether the Executive is there to carry out our wishes or, having been elected, is there to exercise their own best judgement affects where we draw the line.

2. Impeachable You
Tue, Dec 8, 1998 - 11:30 PM/EST
Jb

Impeach me, my sweet, impeachable you...

Hmmm I'm really oh so tired of all of it and discouraged too. How is history going to look back on all this. The first President impeached because he tried to hide having sex. I don't really want to go there.

Mr. Hamilton, one of the witnesses before the HofR this evening kept stressing that the standard for impeachment was "is this guy too dangerous to be left in the White House".

I say, no. Lying about your sex life is not treason...yet.

3. restate
Wed, Dec 9, 1998 - 3:08 AM/EST
incogNITA

See, I used a reference from an obscure play to make my point in a previous post. I am a bad analogy girl.

So, here's my thing:

I feel sorta crummy. I think that the President will not be impeached or probably even censored because America is doing relatively well. I am almost certain that if the US were in a bad way, he would be out of office already.

I don't believe it has anything to do with his character, or his lies, or the ridiculous amount of money spent on the whole stoopid Special Counsel. It's about us covering our butts.

So, I feel crummy.

4. what's impeacheable?
Wed, Dec 9, 1998 - 4:05 AM/EST
Les Ismore

Bombing Cambodia.

5. Forget the current case, please.....
Wed, Dec 9, 1998 - 9:34 AM/EST
mikerose

Jb:

I'd lay a large bet that, if the president is impeached, history will look at this one as even more ludicrous than the Andrew Johnson impeachment. Too bad Nixon resigned, or we might have had one legitimate impeachment on the national record.

Probably the "too dangerous" standard is a tad too tight. Certainly a president (or vice president -- a la Agnew) who takes bribes in office for innfluencing the selections of federal contractors is not dangerous -- so long as he picks from among qualified candidates. (Of course, the smarter office holder waits until he leaves office, then gets $2 million to deliver a speech in a Pacific Rim Country....

incogNITA:

If it's purely economic, then surely Carter should have been impeached for the botched raid to free the Iranian hostages, no?

Les:

Why "bombing Cambodia"? No specific congressional approval (eg, a declaration of war against Cambodia -- or anyone for that matter)? Basic humanitarian reasons?

Everyone:

Forget lying about sex. Suppose Reagan hadn't used the "I don't remember" defense and just said "No" when asked anything about Iran-Contra? (I won't even go into whether "I don't remember" was a lie, itself -- in Reagan's case it might well have been true.....)

I guess what I'd have liked is to see if we can set down, prospectively and objectively, something clearer than "treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors."

6. Misdemeanors.....
Wed, Dec 9, 1998 - 10:53 AM/EST
Bruce

Don't forget *that* word, even though it's included in the same phrase as "high crimes..."

I think that the founding fathers had in mind the character as well as the actions of the chief office holder. In today's vernacular, they didn't want a (pick your own derogatory adjective here) representing the country.

In other words,it was left up to Congress to decide if the man in that office was worthy, if you will, to act as the main representative of the country as a whole. Would he give a postive impression of this country to outsiders, or would he make us the laughingstock of the world?

Though spitting on the sidewalk might be going a bit far, I nevertheless believe that they included that word to cover things that, while not in and of themselves would be considered crimes per se, such as capital crimes or crimes against persons,would still bear on the representation of the nation as a whole. Of course, this then leaves the whole issue wide open to question and some rather virulent debate? It also leaves us sensitive to a side issue of character assasination as well. Are we "going after" this man's action because we don't like him or his politics, or because we believe that he's detrimental to the image of ourselves we would like to be presented to the world at large? Sticky question.

7. laughing stock
Wed, Dec 9, 1998 - 11:36 AM/EST
sndy

The US is a laughingstock for the whole world, because we are even considering impeaching a president for such silly reasons! They think we are off our rocker!

8. our forefathers
Wed, Dec 9, 1998 - 12:03 PM/EST
sndy

I love it when people talk about what our constitution writers meant regarding this matter. Have you forgotten Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings? Jefferson had one of his slaves as a mistress and they had children. Do I think he would want President Clinton impeached?????!!!!!

This president is not the first one to have sex in the White House! Give me a break!

9. Vulnerability.........
Wed, Dec 9, 1998 - 3:16 PM/EST
Bruce

Though I'm not quite sure that's exactly the right word.

You know what offends me more than anything else about this whole issue? That WJC was dumb enough to get caught up in it. Of *course* other presidents have done the same thing! But how come they never got "called" on it? They were able, through whatever means they used, to keep a lid on things, but this character hasn't, and it makes all the rest of us look like silly fools.

And as I was trying to imply earlier, the only thing this *can* be classed as is a misdemeanor, and even that's questionable.

I believe the whole question goes to capability, rather than culpability. In getting himelf ensnared in something as ridiculous as this, is he or is he not capable of handling more important issues effectively?

I personally don't care what he does behind closed doors, but what he does on this side of them. And if he can't even keep his business behind closed doors under control, as it were, then how can I trust him on matters that are public?

10. Need some clarification....:o)))
Wed, Dec 9, 1998 - 6:51 PM/EST
Pudge98

I may be wrong but isn't the Impeachment process just that a LONG process....If the House impeaches a President it is equivalent to a DA bringing charges against a citizen.

It is not the House's responsibility to determine whether the President is guilty or innocent....It is their job to bring the charge to the Senate... That is all they are doing is charging him. Not declaring guilt or innocence.

It is the Senate's responsibility to determine the guilt or innocence.

There has been a lot of talk lately of alternative methods of punishment....censure, fines, etc.

Isn't that being raised too early in the process?

For the House to "make a deal", using censure or such, at this point would be premature. The deal would actually be made prior to the charge being brought.

Now... wouldn't it be like a citizen who was stopped for speeding "making a deal" with the police officer or the ADA to stop the charge from being made?

Pudge98

11. Due process.......
Wed, Dec 9, 1998 - 10:42 PM/EST
Bruce

Pudge98,

If only people would keep that in mind, hey? We tend to lose our perception when every teensy little detail is brought out and analyzed to the nines.

You're exactly right. The HR's task at the moment is to decide if the material presented to them would constitute something on which to indict, or press charges. The case would then move to what serves as the court that actually tries the case, the Senate.

12. The impeachment process
Wed, Dec 9, 1998 - 11:13 PM/EST
mikerose

Yes. The House indicts (and prosecutes), the Senate acts as the jury at trial. Impeachment is the indictment, not the conviction. (Andrew Johnson was impeached. He was never convicted.)