I'll take Mark's suggestion
mgraber at GVPT.UMD.EDU
Tue Nov 28 06:56:22 PST 2000
Curiously, I'm less happy with my suggestion than Eugene. Remember the issue is not from some divine vantage point whether what happened was a riot or a demonstration that under say an ACLU standard ought to be protected, it is whether we should say in advance if a group of partisan Democrats believe there was a riot, they ought to move to impeach. We will assume the belief is in good faith, just as all things are, colored by partisanship (we can switch the story around and have Gore as president, and a GOP majority that suspects something fishy went on that Gore knew about). My first point is that if Republicans believed Clinton was impeachable, then Eugene is correct that Bush and Cheney are impeachable if you believe the factual setting. But isn't this a bad thing for politics. Surely some peace treaties have to be signed somewhere, and the sad thing about the way this election has progressed is that lines are hardening and calls for peace treaties are largely being ignored.
Mark A. Graber
mgraber at gvpt.umd.edu
>>> VOLOKH at mail.law.ucla.edu 11/28/00 01:14 AM >>>
I will be happy to take Mark's suggestion on this. If indeed there
was a "riot" -- not just a normal demonstration (of the sort that both
left-wing and right-wing organizations set up all the time), with the normal
degree of pressure that demonstrations are supposed to cause -- then it is
indeed proper for the government to investigate who is responsible for it.
If indeed Bush and Cheney intentionally helped instigate such
criminal conduct (cf., e.g., NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware for the standards
of when a political organization or an organization's leaders can be held
responsible for behavior by subordinates), then indeed they should be held
legally liable for it, and removedfrom office. If they lie under oath in
the investigation, they should be held legally liable for that, and removed
Of course, I'm not sure that there was any crime here at all; I have
no reason to think that Bush and Cheney helped instigate it, or have any
evidence that is relevant to the issue; and I have no reason to think that
they would lie under oath in the investigation. But *if* they commit
perjury, they would not be fit to be President and Vice-President.
Mark Graber wrote:
> So here is how the Democrats get the White House.
> 1. Clinton should investigate whether the Republicans instigated a riot,
> making sure to interview Bush and Cheney under oath.
> 2. The Dems then need to win the 2002 congressional election (why wait
> until 2004).
> 3. Then both Bush and Cheney are simultaneously impeached for either
> lying about what they knew or failing to give evidence about criminal
> 4. Assume you are a Democratic congressperson in 2002 and you honestly
> believe that Bush and Cheney knew of criminal behavior in 2000, but did
> not disclose. Isn't this much worse than the Lewinsky Affair. On what
> rounds might you not support impeachment?
> Mark A. Graber
> mgraber at gvpt.umd.edu
More information about the Conlawprof