What Happens If Bush Is Impeached Before Nov ?

I know it's thinking the unthinkable but what happens if Bush is forced not to stand in November's Presidential Elections ?

If the situation deteriorates further in Iraq and he is personally held responsible and is forced to stand down what happens ?

Who would stand against Kerry?

Would it be Cheney or an as yet announced running mate of Bush or would the Republicans hold snap elections?

Is there a constitutional solution or any historical precedent for this eventuality?

I would say that Cheney as Vice President would take over and not have a chance against Kerry.

Interesting point, Cheney as VP would take over, then I think it would depend on if it was before or after the convention and how much time the Republicans would have to scramble around and get a ticket to run. The backlash from the public would almost certainly give the win to the Democrats.

So the Republican Presidential candidate is not officially chosen until the convention ?

When is the convention ?

I just think it's going to get alot worse over the next 2 months.The hand over of sovereignty is basically a farce.

14 US military bases (I think) are being built in Iraq and only an Iraqi administration that accepts that will be acceptable to the Americans.Such an Iraqi administration will not be acceptable to Iraqis.

There will be other issues to.Who will have military command ? Not the Iraqis that's for sure.

Will occupation troops be held responsible in Iraqi courts ? Seems very unlikely.

Basically,we are looking at a puppet government which the US and the UK will try and pump up as somehow reflective of Iraqi feeling.

Iraqi public opinion won't change it will just get worse as they realise that they still have no power in their own country.

Plus ,of course, more photographs and even videos released.

How can it get better? I just can't.

Bush is frantically treading water just to keep his head above the flood.He may push Rumsfeld under first in an effort to keep up but it looks like the floodwater is still rising.

I'd say August would be the tell tale month.

Is that too late for the Republicans ? Would they be forced to run with a candidate that would so obviously lose under those circumstances ?

It seems to me that the Iraqis are going to be allowed to be the face of the new administration without having any actual power.

I think they will be allowed to be police and tax collectors, judges, perhaps even an army under the US supervision, etc. But the real power will be with the US for the near and not so distant future.

The sad conclusion of this is continuing attacks on the international presence in the country.

I can't see a conclusion to this anywhere in the future. I suppose it will eventually go quiet on the news front, while the attacks carry on, like in Afghanistan.

As for Bush. I can't see him being empeached. I think the people behind him have enough power that it will never happen.


[Edited on 9-5-2004 by Zzub]

It's usualy a forgone conclusion that the incumbent will get the party nomination but the offical party candidate is choosen at the convention. The convention is Aug. 30 thru Sept.2 in NYC. Yeah the next few months are going to be nasty, the new pictures should start showing up in the next few weeks.

I don't think there is any chance that Bush will be impeached. However there is a good chance he could lose the election.

No matter who wins, or what the ultimate outcome of the election is. We will be in Iraq as a military force for a long long time.

Maybe some see it now as having American targets in the middle east for the terrorists to attack so they will leave us alone here at home.

The truth is Bush has no reason to step down, like him or hate him, he has done nothing legally wrong as president, that we know of or can prove.

He still has impressive support in the USA in spite of all recent events... I was thinking he'd lose all of his support after the Bush admin. was forced to admit that they acted in Iraq on bad infromation... But his poll numbers have stayed around 45% to 50% through all of this.

Now if Bush loses the election and Kerry is indeed elected President of the USA, I think very little will change at first.

I think Kerry will try to focus on a domestic agenda, but will be drawn into international conflicts and have to deal with terror attacks and the war on terrorism, all while trying to fix the problems in Iraq and get the hell out.

I do not envy John Kerry if he wins, Or Bush either, who the hell in their right mind would really want that job now anyway?

Gazz

Bush's impeachment is roughly 60 days behind schedule for reasons only the man behind the curtain could tell you. The "president" is a broken man, who may take a leaf from Richard Nixon's book.

And he did abuse the US intelligence services in several fashions worse than Nixon ever did, amongst other things.

Next point: what happens to all the generous campaign donations supporting this pathological liar?

This is a great thread for Bush haters to fantasize about stringing Bush up....but

What criteria would you site in order to get Bush impeached?

So far none of the supposed "lies" have been leagely actionable, so what then?

Faulty intelligence to start a war?
Cant pin the president down for info supplied to him.
How was he to know that info wasnt the best we could get?

To get Bush on an impeachment, you would have to have IRON CLAD evidence linking him to criminal activity or possibly a severe ethical violation, but one for which there is a widespread consensus on the ethics involved.

So, whayt are the impeachable charges?

Or is this all just mental fantabation.

Search ATS, including a thread on the Bush impeachment process, for plenty of answers to your important queries. And try to follow the motto of ATS.

as quoted by Masked Avatar
And try to follow the motto of ATS.

Your refering to what exactly when you apply the ever-misused "motto of ATS"?
Because those who don't agree with your assumptions, your way of thinking? Because, as according to you and others, the so-called evidences and proofs, are staring everyone in the eye and yet only a 'select' few are listening or heeding this?

Please, what did you mean when you grabbed that 'big stick' called "Deny Ignorance" and wielded it to further make what you say sound as truth?

As to Bush's impeachment process, I do recall that a member made a 'claim' that Bush would be gone, or something to that degree, by April, what has changed other than the "man behind that curtain" that seems to be running "60 days" behind schedule?

Those impeachment threads that have been referenced by some haven't been updated since when, maybe June of last year? If that so-called impeachment process was moving along as some mention and assert, pray tell, how far has this process gone and/or stands currently, and at what juncture of will it be fulfilled?



seekerof

[Edited on 10-5-2004 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
Those impeachment threads that have been referenced by some haven't been updated since when, maybe June of last year? If that so-called impeachment process was moving along as some mention and assert, pray tell, how far has this process has went, is currently, and at what juncture of will it be fulfilled?

seekerof

Check your grammar, and I promise to return to answer your questions when I understand them.

April was indeed a big month for conspiracy enthusiasts and for history. Bush is a spent force. I remember saying it would be a big month, and it was for me.

What is going on for the Bush administration might best be illustrated by a complex force field analysis, with some forces totally unseen by me. On those things I will plead ignorance, but not deny it.

Originally posted by UM_Gazz
I don't think there is any chance that Bush will be impeached. However there is a good chance he could lose the election.

No matter who wins, or what the ultimate outcome of the election is. We will be in Iraq as a military force for a long long time.

I concur.

There's nothing short about the impeachment process in the US. By the time they actually got up some charges and got enough of a vote to bring the impeachment against Bush, it would be November and there's little chance of an impeachment going forward.

Furthermore, there's really nothing much they can bring against him in the way of *proveable* charges ... except, perhaps, stupidity.

Thanks for the gentle hint SO.

I interpret my assignment as:

1. What progress has been made by Bush impeachment lawyers?

2. Are there any reasons why such activity has been delayed?

3. What is the indicative timeline for future progress on this vital issue?

I will respond with quality information, within seven days.



Sorry Seekerof, let me know if there is anything else so it can be questioned and presented.

That will work for me.
Much appreciated, though certainly not warranted.


seekerof

[Edited on 10-5-2004 by Seekerof]

Only one observation:
( Could Bush be impeach) Ask yourself this, how many presidents has been impeach since the history of USA? and for what reason? Will that answer the question? Bush will loose the elections but he will not be impeach.

Originally posted by John bull 1
So the Republican Presidential candidate is not officially chosen until the convention ?

When is the convention ?


I'd say August would be the tell tale month.

Technically the convention has to pick the official party representative. But it is obvious that the president is it.
The convention is August 30th - Sept 2...in NYC... funny that you make mention of August being the tell tale month.

Originally posted by marg6043
Ask yourself this, how many presidents has been impeach since the history of USA? and for what reason?

Three, including the Clinton case about a blowjob as described by Sen. Feingold here:

www.washingtonpost.com...

This is an interesting analysis of the grounds for impeachment around the Nixon trial. Bush's abuses of power have been far worse than those of Nixon:

THE SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL
(From the law of presidential impeachment by the Committe On Federal Legislation)


The most significant constitutional question about impeachment and removal is what the appropriate grounds for those actions are; in other words, defining the proper scope of the phrase in Article II: "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." "Treason" and "Bribery" are terms of relatively precise meaning, with the former being defined in the Constitution itself (Article III, Section 3). The phrase "other high Crimes and Misdemeanors," however, raises a number of questions. Is that phrase limited to acts which would be indictable as criminal offenses, or was it intended to reach abuses of office or breaches of trust not constituting criminal acts? If impeachment and removal may properly rest on activities which do not constitute crimes, are there any limits in principle on the type of conduct which can be the basis for impeachment and removal, or should the exercise of these powers be governed solely by the free play of our political system?

We believe the intention of the Framers of the Constitution, the history of the actual use of impeachment and removal, and considerations of sound public policy all strongly support construction of "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" as not limited to offenses under the ordinary criminal law. But considerations of original intention, historical usage, and sound public policy likewise caution against a wholly unrestricted reading of the phrase. The concept of "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" should not be taken to mean anything and everything around which political expediency might momentarily organize a majority in the House and two-thirds in the Senate.

We submit that Congress may properly impeach and remove a President only for conduct amounting to a gross breach of trust or serious abuse of power, and only if it would be prepared to take the same action against any President who engaged in comparable conduct in similar circumstances. Although the responsibility for giving content to the constitutional grounds for impeachment is, in our opinion, solely that of Congress, our conclusion is that Congress should exercise these powers subject to a firm sense of constitutional restraint.

It has been argued, especially by persons facing. impeachment charges. that criminal acts alone justify resort to the unusual processes of impeachment and removal. The main support for this position lies in the terminology employed in the Constitution, in particular that the words "Crimes", and "Misdemeanors" are terms of art in legal usage, referring to criminal acts. Since treason and bribery are both traditional criminal offenses, proponents of this view contend that the modifier "other" describes acts of the same criminal character. As further support for this interpretation, proponents of the view that "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" encompasses only indictable offenses point out that references to impeachment in the pardon and jury-trial provisions suggest that for other purposes "Cases of Impeachment" are within the criminal categories of "Offenses against the United States" and "all Crimes," respectively.

While the constitutional text thus gives some support to the view that only indictable offenses can be "high Crimes and Misdemeanors," it also contains provisions inconsistent with so narrow an interpretation. Such provisions, together with historical evidence and precedents in the few impeachment proceedings which have taken place, all point toward the conclusion that the grounds for impeachment are not limited to indictable offenses.




[Edited on 10-5-2004 by MaskedAvatar]

1)Gross deriliction of duty that caused American lives.
2)Transparent forwarding of the Military Industrial Complex.

It's all detailed very well HERE

Avatar cites this (From the law of presidential impeachment by the Committe On Federal Legislation)

"While the constitutional text thus gives some support to the view that only indictable offenses can be "high Crimes and Misdemeanors," it also contains provisions inconsistent with so narrow an interpretation. Such provisions, together with historical evidence and precedents in the few impeachment proceedings which have taken place, all point toward the conclusion that the grounds for impeachment are not limited to indictable offenses."

Pay close attention to the phrase "point toward the conclusion"....This means that this idea is NOT set in stone or law, making the use of impeachment for anything not "inditable" a difficult task at best.

Hence my previous observation that in order to impeach along these lines, you would have to have a MAJORITY and CLEAR CUT agreement on the "ethical" violations in question. (obviously, Clinton getting a bj wasnt enough, and lying about it wasnt worth much more.)

Bout time would like to convict based on;
1)Gross deriliction of duty that caused American lives.
2)Transparent forwarding of the Military Industrial Complex.

1)specifically which duty? The Article you linked to blamed the media mostly for not giving this issue more coverage (pre 9-11).

Besides, its not law for any administration to have to take ANY committee's recomendations on any topic. In fact they formed their own committee to examine this issue....even if they came to the same conclusions much later, so what? Any administration taking office would no doubght review ALL of the previous administration policies.