Can Bush be tried, convicted and jailed without impeaching him?

[niceypoo]

Since Pelosi doesn't want Bush to pay for his crimes against humanity by being impeached, can't we just charge him with felonies in a court of law and toss him in jail? Seems to me having him make a state of the union speech in a prison uniform and shackles would send a message to any future wannabe dictators with ambitions in the GOP. If Bush is allowed to get away with everything he has done against humanity and this country, they will just do it again in the future. Making him pay for his crimes with hard time is the only thing that will deter them.

[BeachBuckeye]

1. I don't think so

A sitting president may not be tried for a crime.

[Gregory_Wonderwheel]

2. Yes but only after he leaves office.

In fact, under impeachment by the House and conviction at trial in the Senate the only best penalty is removal from office. Then Bush would still need to be tried in criminal court for his deserved jail time.

[originalpckelly]

3. Yes, just not when he's President.

Impeachment is supposed to remove him from his office, and I assume to prepare for some criminal prosecution.

[librechik]

4. That would be my preference, but we have to wait til he's out of office.

At least, I don't think we can get anybody to so it til them and probably not after either. This country treats its president like a Deity/King--especially the Republican ones. Sickening. These people ahould know better, but everybosy in Washington is a cocktail buddy, so they close ranks and protect the bad ones rather than let them take their Constitutional medicine.

[niceypoo]

5. I think the democrats should test this and find out.....file criminal charges in a court of law

Then they can let the cards fall where they may. I just cannot fathom allowing this guy to get away with all he has done. If he isn't punished for it some future republican will just repeat it and we will have to go through this all over again.

[Gregory_Wonderwheel]

10. Only a prosecutor can file criminal charges, not a party.

A prosecutor like a county district attorney or a federal prosecutor can file charges, not the "Democrats" as a party.

In Whitewater, Clinton asked AG Reno to appoint a special federal prosecutor to investigate the filing of charges against Clinton himself. Fiske was replaced by Starr when the Independent Counsel was readopted by Republicans so they could go after Clinton (ironic, no?). Now under the law the president doesn't get to appoint the special prosecutor and a three-judge panel would do so like Ken Starr was appointed. I doubt that Bush would authorize an independent counsel to be appointed, don't you?

Just to bring up bad memories, here's a Wikipedia entry on the Whitewater investigation:
Kenneth Starr's successor, Robert Ray, released a report in September of 2000 that stated "This office determined that the evidence was insufficient to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that either President or Mrs. Clinton knowingly participated in any criminal conduct."<5> Ray's report effectively ended the Whitewater investigation, with a total cost to American taxpayers of nearly $80 million dollars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewater_scandal

It probabally wouldn't take more than 80 thousand dollars (that is 1000 times less) to work up the criminal case against Bush. Even at $800,000 for an investigation that would be 100 times less than Whitewater cost.

Could Congress appoint a special committee to investigate for criminal charges? They can apopoint a committee to do special investigations, but I think the only criminal charges they can bring are for perjury to the committee itself. Perhaps others can answer that question. But since impeachment is the usual process to investigate the crimes of a president for removal from office, that is the only option Congress is likely to take if they want to investigate at all.

If you want impeachment, then you have to hound your Congressperson and Pelosi's office with emails, faxes, letters, or phonecalls.

In Praise of Impeachment

[niceypoo]

14. Then we should approach a prosecutor and pressure them to file charges

[Totallybushed]

11. And it might work.

However, sometimes I despair of my fellow Democrats. If we do it, it is now an accepted weapon in the political wars, and will be used against us, too. You can count on it. Do we want that?

If so, let's get the SOB. If not, let's see how Congress performs its responsibilities.

[niceypoo]

15. Let them use it against us

I welcome it.

[Warpy]

6. No. He has to be impeached and removed formally

before he can be thrown into prison.

He can be sued, however.

[FogerRox]

7. Answer the subpoena

Just like Clinton did.

[elocs]

8. Plus, if you answer a subpoena and lie under oath,

that really gets you in trouble. Bush is probably smart enough to never allow himself to be put under oath. Or, more likely, somebody is smart enough for him.

[FogerRox]

13. Bingo, we have a winner >/snark< . . LOL !

[elocs]

9. How do you know that Pelosi does not want Bush to pay for his crimes?

Impeachment does not make Bush pay for his crimes and unlike many, Pelosi knows how to count and realizes that there are not 67 votes in the Senate to convict. You could not be sure that all of the Democratic senators would vote to convict. This is real life. In real life do those who are guilty of crimes always pay? With 2 years left in his term and no current ongoing investigations it is highly unlikely that Bush will ever be impeached AND convicted, and he will never be put in shackles. So indulge in fantasies, but come back to reality because that is where things really get done.

[niceypoo]

16. So dont even try? Why are democrats such defeatists?

[elocs]

17. Is your assumption that Pelosi is a fool? She is not. n/t

[Ghost in the Machine]

22. It's not being a defeatist, it's called being a REALIST...

We're dealing with real life here, not fantasy. Everything runs on FACTS.

Fact #1: They can't get the 67 votes required. That's what's real...

Fact #2: The time they spend on a futile effort to impeach could be better spent on investigations and opening up the volumes of crimes from this misadministration..... That's what's real...

Now, I'd LOVE to see the Chimperor hauled off in shackles & cuffs, impeached, disgraced & imprisoned, but I'm finally starting to understand the logic behind "impeachment is off the table"... Impeachment, at this point in time would be akin to throwing spears at airplanes. A very grand and noble gesture, but futile as well. And that's whats real....

PEACE!

Ghost

edited because my keyboard can't spell :rofl:

[alfredo]

12. Impeachment means nothing to a billionaire. It's not

real punishment, it is being fired from a job. Whoopie shit.

Investigate, build a case for prosecution after he leaves office. It will be essential that we have a Democratic president. A republican will pardon him just like Ford did for Nixon.

[Arugula Latte]

18. We consider him an enemy combatant. We can do whatever we want.

Put him in Guantanamo for years on end. We don't need to justify a damn thing. That's what Bushco says. what's good for the goose must be good for the gander, right? :shrug:

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sparkly]

20. Holy Crap!

:eyes:

[MrSlayer]

21. Oh I don't know. Constitutional crimes perhaps?

Little things like treason, severe abuse of power, crimes against humanity and the like. There's probably a hundred things he could be impeached and imprisoned for.