If I follow your thinking, Bush would need to be convicted (not just indicted) of a crime, such as conspiracy to defraud the US, which would then be an impeachable offense?
Clinton lied under oath and that was his "high crime" that led to his impreachment trial. The only occurrence that I'm aware of that might relate to Bush was whether he was under oath when giving testimony to Fitzgerald and the grand jury. He would have had to knowingly make a false statement that was later proven to be false. Would that be correct?
Something still confuses me about Clinton. DNA samples and the blue dress proved that he lied under oath about "that woman," and yet the Senate did not vote to impeach. I assume that the vote was along political lines, but how does one simply ignore a proven lie? What latitude does a senator have in simply ignoring the evidence?
My head hurts.
