According to Gingrich, Bush Should Be Impeached

So there I was - ironing my shirt and yelling at the television. It was Meet the Press and this has become standard Sunday morning activity. If I'm not yelling at the guests, it's Russert. Most Sundays it's both. Today it was Newt Gingrich and his batshit crazy views on the Iraq war, homeland security, and his legacy as a politician. Let's just say his self opinion is quite high. But when they got around to Gingrich's past behavior regarding impeachment, I damn-near burnt a hole in my shirt. If I'm not mistaken, he said that George W. Bush should be impeached.

Follow me below the fold and judge for yourself.

MR. RUSSERT: ...do you regret pressing the impeachment of President Clinton so hard?

FMR. REP. GINGRICH: President—you know, I’m—I’ve been divorced twice.

Both times I’ve been deposed. Both times I was told, "Perjury is a felony. You should tell the truth under deposition." President Clinton lied under oath as a lawyer in front of a sitting federal judge in a civil rights case. This was not about his personal behavior in the Oval Office. That’s a matter of judgment, and people can render judgment. The question is, do you want to go down the road of Nigeria and corruption and have a country in which, as long as he’s popular, he can break the law? And if Clinton gets to commit perjury on this topic, then what does the next president get to commit perjury on, and then what does the next president get to commit perjury on? This was entirely about something I knew personally. We have an obligation as citizens to tell the truth to a federal judge under oath. The president failed that.

So let me get this straight - the impeachment of Bill Clinton was done to send a message. It wasn't just about punishing Clinton for his actions, but to make sure that future presidents would know that they aren't granted immunity simply because they are well liked. In short, it was about checking the power of future office holders.

For six years, George W. Bush has skirted laws and regulations under the guise of security. And how has he gotten away with it? Because his party was more popular. They held the majority and prevented any meaningful investigations. If the Newt Gingrich rationalization was good enough for the Republicans to impeach Clinton, it should certainly apply now. If for no other reason than to check the power of any future president. Would Republicans tolerate a Democrat who circumvented the FISA court? What about one who suspended Habeas Corpus? What about one who supported torture and the violation of the Geneva Conventions? What about one who deliberatley ignored congress through hundreds of signing statements? How about one who paid journalists for favorable coverage. Or what about... Well, you get the idea and I think we all know the answers.

So if I understand Newt Gingrich correctly, and I believe I do, we need to impeach George W. Bush for his past behaviors lest we be forced to endure more egregious behavior in the future. Sounds good to me. Maybe Newt and I can agree on something after all.

•  Tips/flames

  Have at it!

  by kissfan on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 12:25:02 PM PDT

•  Yeah, I caught that too

  Unfortunately Russett didn't pursue the hypocrisy of it all and moved on to another topic. And, I'm sure the response from Newt would have been that Bush has never lied under oath.

  by bookwoman on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 12:27:35 PM PDT

  •  That's because

    Timmeh never pursues anything. I used to think it was good that he would let them make their ridiculous statements because I felt like everyone should be able to tell when it was bullshit. But over the years I've learned that isn't the case at all. A good reporter would follow up. A hack lets them spin whatever they want unquestioned.

    by kissfan on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 12:30:08 PM PDT

  •  Russert's great at doing just that. ( nt )

    by BenGoshi on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 12:36:32 PM PDT

  •  He's lied to Congress which is a federal offense

    Doesn't have to be under oath in that instance.

    by PatsBard on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 01:04:29 PM PDT

    •  Exactly right.

      Section 1001 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code makes it a federal crime.

      by occams hatchet on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 03:54:27 PM PDT

    •  Aw come on

      What a few little lies about sending 3000 Americans to their deaths?

      by litigatormom on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 05:44:19 PM PDT

•  Newt, I believe, is just spitting out

  lines and trying to figure out which ones will help get him back in the Gov. Bye Newt, we had enough of you this last time around.

  by Owllwoman on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 12:33:29 PM PDT

•  This is why I never watch the news shows.

  The interviewers are either too fearful, too partisan or too stupid to do follow-ups.

  by dov12348 on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 12:34:51 PM PDT

•  Haha kissfan

  Perfect.  You know that Newt would be the first on top of this if the partisan roles and personalities were reversed.  Fight fire with fire.

  by ActivistGuy on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 12:34:53 PM PDT

•  I believe that Bush would have to be put under

  oath first.  So far during the Republican Majority they not only refused to investigate much of anything but when they did no one was put under oath.
  I believe that GWBush is not to bright but he may find a way not to be put under oath.

  by mistletoe on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 12:35:47 PM PDT

  •  He's already committed a federal crime

    by making false statements to Congress, in his 2002 State of the Union address.

    by occams hatchet on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 03:58:06 PM PDT

•  O.K., a little background for you non-lawyers...

  Here's what it is:

  In a deposition, the side doing the deposing wants the deponent to lie.  Well, either that or admit that their side's wrong and that they're ready to throw in the towel on their case.  Since the latter never happens, then the former -- lying -- is just dandy from the deposing party's viewpoint.

  That's why, certainly, Gingrich's attorneys have, indeed, always told him to "tell the truth".  Because it's lawful and that they're all so full of integrity?  Of course not!  Because if you lie in a depo, then the other side can nail your ass to the litigation wall by "catching you in a lie".

   That's what happened to Clinton.  This sham, transparent, utter, contrived, faux-indignant, all "getting the vapors" crap by Gingrich, et mal, is nothing but farce to any attorney who's ever taken a deposition.

  No, Paula Jones' attorneys (i.e., the Rutherford Flying Monkeys/GOP) wanted Clinton to lie because (unbeknownst to Clinton) they already had the goods on him via Linda Tripp.  Had Clinton fessed-up to the Lewinsky affair, no doubt his world would've been rocked, but also (although they'd never admit it, mind you) he would've sorely disappointed Jones' lawyers and the GOP.

  BenGoshi
  __________________________________________________

  by BenGoshi on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 12:47:20 PM PDT

  •  I hate to agree with Newt instead of you

    on this narrow point.  The reason you don't lie in a deposition is that it is testimony, under oath, and lying under such circumstances is perjury.  Yes, more often you end up hurting your case by looking like a liar, because perjury is hard to prove.  But the reason you don't lie is that you are under oath.

    I tell my clients not to lie because it's an issue of integrity.  I have no reason to think otherwise of Gingrich's lawyers.

    by Joelarama on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 01:03:17 PM PDT

    •  I've been doin' 'em for 15 years.

      And I've been around and seeing Republican shennanigans for 30 years (since and early teen) and I can tell you that:

      A Of course it's "perjury", but exactly how many cases (uh, besides Clinton's!) have you ever seen where a deponent caught in a lie in a civil action get prosecuted, especially when it was not material to the case but only on a peripheral, "inflame the jury" aspect of the thing?  Me -- none.

      And, yes, of course you tell your client to tell the truth because that's the lawful and righteous thing to do (I already mentioned that above), but the heart of the matter and reason is because a deponent who lies inevitably (well, 90% of the time) gets buried by that lie, eventually.  That's the immediate concern.

      B  Gingrich and the Rutherford Trolls and the GOP and all those creeps were very, very, very, very, very happy that Clinton didn't fess-up in his deposition.  They were laying in wait for him and the trap was, indeed, sprung to diabolical perfection.  

      The point being that Gingrich and his like-minded slimey allies are, themselves, LYING when they act all, "Oh me, Oh my!" about Clinton being caught.  The only difference is that they're not "under oath".

      BenGoshi
      __________________________________________________

      by BenGoshi on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 01:16:16 PM PDT

      •  They're both lies, yes, but the "under oath" is

        an extremely important difference.  Your comment said:  

        That's why, certainly, Gingrich's attorneys have, indeed, always told him to "tell the truth".  Because it's lawful and that they're all so full of integrity?  Of course not!  Because if you lie in a depo, then the other side can nail your ass to the litigation wall by "catching you in a lie".

        Republican or Democrat, they're attorneys.  I've seen unethical ones on both sides in my 11 years of practice, very few of them.  I have no reason to believe Gingrich's lawyers don't have integrity.

        You purport to explain to the non-lawyers on this thread how our profession -- or some segment of our profession -- works.  It does not.

        by Joelarama on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 01:34:11 PM PDT

        •  You misunderstand.

          For the 3rd time, Joe, I'll say it:

          Perjury's against the law and we all tell our clients that (or should) when prepping 'em for depositions.  Do I need to do this with crayons for you?

          In the REAL world, attorneys who depose hostiles (whether parties, or witnesses) LOVE "gotcha" moments (perhaps you're unique in this and do not) and, thus LOVE catching another party or hostile witness in a lie.  And what part of that don't you get?

          If you really think Gingrich and the Rutherford Institute and the GOP were, indeed, really all sad about catching Clinton in a whopper, then heaven help you.

          Please tell me, in your 11 years how many cases of perjury have you seen prosecuted when a deponent's been caught in a whopper in a civil case?  Coupled with my 15, that makes 26 years.  I've seen zero (0) besides Clinton.  I'm absolutely sure it's happened, but it is a rare thing because and this is for all you lay people out there:

           a  if you think the criminal courts are beseiged and overcrowded with, say, drug possession cases now, imagine if every (hell, if only 1/4) of cases where someone's been caught fudging, exaggerating, being disingenuous, hedging or lying under oath in a deposition (i.e., in civil, not criminal, cases) was prosecuted criminally!

          and. . .

           b  if a party lies in a deposition (again, we're talking civil cases here:  lawsuits where someone's suing someone else, usually for $$$, or, say in a divorce matter where adultery is alleged), depend on the fact that they will be punished in proportion to the enormity of the lie -- either in terms of settlement or dismissal or something other than criminally.

           What I purport is what I've written.  If you have not experienced, or do not know about, what I've written, or don't understand what I've written, then please don't try to re-explain it as you'll only mess it up.  Thanks.

           BenGoshi
          _________________________________________________

          by BenGoshi on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 02:46:23 PM PDT

          •  Your point is made.

            If Clinton had told the truth he would not have given the Rethugs the ammunition to impeach him.  Had he admitted to the affair it would have been a titillating story for a few days but no more.  As someone who has been deposing people for more than 20 years I can't believe his lawyers didn't prep him for this and that he didn't figure it out on his own.  One small mistake led to two years of hearings and possibly eight years of the shrub misadministration.  Sad really, possibly tragic.

            by MajorFlaw on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 03:09:40 PM PDT

            •  Thanks. You definitely get it. ( nt )

              by BenGoshi on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 03:17:15 PM PDT

    •  I'm not a lawyer, but...

      my understanding is that for a lie to be considered perjury, it must materially affect the outcome of the case.  With Clinton, he was found NOT to have committed perjury, but to have misled the court.  As Clinton is a lawyer himself, I believe he gave a technical answer to Paula Jones' attorneys, but did not technically lie; he wasn't about to do his opponents' work for them.  Of course, in layman's terms he lied.

      Clinton received a $90K fine from judge Wright in the Paula Jones case, and a $25K fine with a 5 year suspension from the Arkansas board.  Ken Starr's misconduct (leaks, collusion with Paula Jones' attorneys) was arguably significantly more egregious.

      Gingrich's use of the term "perjury" I find to be a right-wing meme, and Tim Russert should have challenged it.

      by skrekk on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 04:01:51 PM PDT

•  Fact: Repubs want impeachment more than Dems

  As the casualties mount in Iraq, the GOP has little choice. Would you take a bullet for the chimp?

  disclaimer: metaphorical reference to the movie Dave.

  by seesdifferent on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 02:47:56 PM PDT

  •  Seriously?

    If so, they're hiding their desire quite well.  I can imagine some number of Republicans have finally recognized that Bush is a liability, but how could they abandon him and still remain electable?  Recall what happened in 1976, the one and only time a serious impeachment effort ended a presidency.  Republicans lost big-time.

    by gizmo59 on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 03:22:50 PM PDT

    •  they want to rid themselves of the chimpanvil

      the TRUE conservatives are rousing themselves. Newt is already calling for impeachment.

      Popcorn. Large. butter.

      by seesdifferent on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 10:39:36 PM PDT

•  Impeachment would save Republican Party

  To the American voter it would be an individual aberation, that darn W.  The Republican senate just might get on the badwagon.

  It would clense them of complicity in his actions and in 2008 they could nominate John McCain, who tried to prevent W's ever becoming president in 2000.

  Impeachment is a short term satisfying reaction to a pernitious disease.

  Pelosi is right, and the bloggers here are wrong.

  by arodb on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 03:54:58 PM PDT

  •  Only if

    a majority of Republicans get behind it.  The problem is that, while there is no question that a majority of Americans don't think the President is doing a competent job, the minority that does think he is doing well consists of the right-wing Christian base of the Republican party.  Given that thay believe that Bush was chosen by God himself, they will never abandon him.  If Congressional Republicans abandon the President, their base will never forgive them.  While Republican support for impeachment might mollify the independents, collapse of support from the base will guarantee losing primaries to more conservative challengers.

    No, I think the Republican party is pretty well screwed for a good number of years, not unlike the Tory party in Britain after John Major's Prime Ministership came to an end.  Unless Republicans broaden their base, they'll remain out of power for quite a while.

    by gizmo59 on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 04:10:54 PM PDT