An Impeachable Offense: Bush Admits to Federal Crimes

Jonathan Turley, professor at the George Washington University School of Law, is no Democratic partisan; he testified to Congress in favor of Bill Clinton’s impeachment. “Many of my Republican friends joined in that hearing and insisted that this was a matter of defending the rule of law, and had nothing to do with political antagonism,” he says. “I’m surprised that many of those same voices are silent. The crime in this case was a knowing and premeditated act. This operation violated not just the federal statute but the United States Constitution. For Republicans to suggest that this is not a legitimate question of federal crimes makes a mockery of their position during the Clinton period. For Republicans, this is the ultimate test of principle.”


Paul Hue said...

Why seek only to impeach Bush for these acts, but not Clinton, when he did the same? Or every other war-time president?

Nadir said...

The Republicans chose to impeach Clinton for receiving a blowjob instead of for committing federal crimes. It doesn't negate the fact that Bush is committed high crimes and misdemeanors.

You have not point.

Paul Hue said...

The repos did not impeach Clinton for getting a blowjob; that isn't even a crime, even in the white house.

They impeached him for perjuring himself in a legal situation that he created by supporting and promoting a law that enables a civil litigant alleging a sexual assuault to question the accused about previous sexual conduct, and for the jury or adjudicating judge to consider this conduct. Litigants alleging any other sort of crime cannot enter into the procedings any other alegations. Clinton joined with feminists in making sex allegations special, which is preposterous and immoral, and he rightly got "hoisted with his own petard." The litigant's attorney set him up to either admit to getting a blowjob from some other chick, or to deny it, and then to prove perjury. Once the attorney of Clinton's private adversary demonstrated perjury, Clinton's political opponents did *exactly* what you would want done with Bush if one of his private adveraries could trick him into committing perjery.

I ask you: since we agree that Bush is a draft-dodger, what whould you call for if in a civil case we could get him to declare that he had attended all of his required nat'l guard dates, but then authentic records proved that he had not?

Question 2: Why did you not call for impeachment of Clinton for performing these investigatory actions for which you now wish to impeach Bush?