A thread that bears repeating: Bush/Cheney can be IMPEACHED AFTER THEY LEAVE OFFICE!

[robertpaulsen]

It seems that with the recent events of contempt charges passed against Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten (perhaps Rove will be joining them soon?), our Democratic Representatives, especially John Conyers, are finally listening to the progressive voices raining down their phone lines demanding the administration-at-large be brought to justice. Is it too late for impeachment to be put back "on the table"? For those who think, with only 340 days left before they leave, that it is too late, I'd like to resurrect this nugget of wisdom I bookmarked from kpete:

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Thu Jul-26-07 07:04 PM
Original message
ITS NEVER TOO LATE TO IMPEACH THEM ALL!-You can't impeach after they've left office?-OH YES YOU CAN!

Edited on Thu Jul-26-07 07:14 PM by kpete
IMPEACHMENT IS NOT A WASTE OF TIME


IF BUSH IS TRYING TO RUN OUT THE CLOCK - HE WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO RUN FAST ENOUGH

Forget those who say there are more important things to do OR there simply aren't enough days in the calendar.

You can't impeach after they've left office? - OH YES YOU CAN


- Folks - its never too late, do not listen to those who say there is not enough time. We are complicit when we do nothing. Congress needs to take action. Subpoenas and special prosecutors will hopefully help get to the truth (the truth that you and I have known for years). They want time - I am in no hurry, as long as in the end, this criminal administration pays for the atrocities they have committed. kpete

Conyers mentioned this in San Diego - I believe he called it "retroactive impeachment" I have been trying to research it since last week - found this today:


A Second Impeachment?

During his first impeachment and trial, Clinton defenders argued that only public acts of a constitutional proportion could give rise to impeachment removal. The pardon controversies appear to meet that very high test. And that's significant – for even ex-Presidents can be impeached.

While contemporary impeachment actions have targeted only sitting officials, the history and text of the Constitution, as well as early constitutional practice, envision and allow impeachments that occur even after an official leaves office. Indeed, certain early state constitutions followed longstanding English practice by only allowing post-officeholding impeachments.

In 1787, for example, the English Parliament began its famed impeachment action against Warren Hastings for misconduct occurring while he was governor-general of India – two years after Hastings left that post. During the same year, in Philadelphia, delegates to the Constitutional Convention debated whether to allowed impeachment during the official's tenure in office, or only afterwards. The Framers decided to allow both. And Congress has explicitly affirmed its jurisdiction to institute impeachment proceeding against an ex-official.

http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/commentary/20010227_williams.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1443261

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

So keep up the good work everyone! Keep those letters, phone calls and emails coming!

[niyad]

1. after they leave office, I want the entire admin charged with war crimes and crimes

against humanity, and spend the rest of their worthless, misbegotten lives in prison, where, 24/7, at completely random intervals, they will be subjected to the sights and sounds of the dead, dying and wounded in afghanistan and iraq and our gulf states. oh--and the people get to throw rotten vegetables at them.

[gateley]

2. I'm less concerned with impeachment after office, than about prosecution.

And hanging. nt

[jtrockville]

3. If you REALLY want impeachment...

Everyone in the new adminstration will want to look forward, not backward.

If you really want impeachment, support the poll David Swanson spoke of yesterday:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_david_sw_080213_a_new_national_poll_.htm

[robertpaulsen]

5. THANKS!

I had not seen that yet. Since MSM is too chickenshit to ask, this National poll might really help!

[jtrockville]

6. The fund indicator hasn't moved all day. Maybe it's only updated once/day?

[Uncle Joe]

4. This seems a bit like executing someone after they're dead to me.

Some might argue this will stain Bush/Cheney's place in history, but I don't believe they give a rat's ass about their place in history.

[robertpaulsen]

Impeachment will lead to prosecution.

I don't care about their place in history, that's secure. I care about which cell block they're incarcerated in, and for how long.

[Wizard777]

11. After they leave office impeachment is not needed for prosecution. n/t

[robertpaulsen]

17. As far as I understand

It is only through a conviction by the Senate that a President could be held liable to prosecution for the crimes and/or misdemeanors that brought about the impeachment. Not to mention how the impeachment process makes the prosecution's case that much stronger.

[Crabby Appleton]

26. Not true

[Me.]

9. I See It As A Deterrent

To any who might contemplate following in their footsteps

[Uncle Joe]

14. I see some merit in your viewpoint, however I also believe

anyone considering following in their footsteps, doesn't have a conscious and just as a serial killer isn't deterred by historical punishments of other killers, I view the ultimate deterrent effect as minimal, although I also sympathize with your feelings.

[Me.]

16. While I Respect Your Point Of View

I hold the opinion that if Nixon hadn't been let off and if Reagan's feet had been held to the fire for Iran/Contra we wouldn't necessarily be facing a Cheney presidency this time around. A jail cell or worse has a very sobering effect. They are only careless when it comes to other people's lives.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

18. I have to step in and agree that, had this former Nixon cabal been confronted,...

,...as they, in all honesty, SHOULD have been,...they would not be sucking the oxygen out of this country.

Moreover, how many here actually BELIEVE this cabal will suffer any consequences if the abuse of power and crimes and truly malignant activities they have already engaged aren't pursued right now? They are even MORE embrazoned because they have gotten away with absolutely EVERYTHING they have done to date. That makes them even more dangerous and they know damn well they can intimidate others OUT OF prosecutorial confrontation.

Let us get real about the people we are dealing with, here. They are anti-social. They are sociopaths in the worst order.

[canadianbeaver]

7. Paraguay?................

if they run there....can you still get em?

[rosesaylavee]

20. If I have to, I will go drag them outta there if need be.

They WILL pay for their crimes or stay holed up like fugitives the rest of their lives. The way South America is going right now, I don't think they would be welcomed even in Paraguay.

They can run ... but certainly not hide. The whole world hates these guys. And who knows, maybe where they run, we will find Kenny Boy hiding out and we have a twofer then.

[IntravenousDemilo]

8. I think the nicest thing would be...

...if the new Congress in January 2009 impeached and then summarily removed both Bush and Cheney from office two days before they intended to, with two straight up-and-down votes, just because they can. And then you'd have President "Whoever the Speaker of the House Is at That Point" for 48 hours until the new person moved in.

EDITED TO ADD: All right, maybe it wouldn't be "nice", but it would sure as hell be fun and more than a little bit cathartic.

[blues90]

10. They will walk away free

No one will or is willing to go after them , this country is in the move forward mode . The past is always forgotten .

[solara]

12. One can only hope

Kickety :kick:



INVESTIGATE IMPEACH INDICT IMPRECATE INCARCERATE :patriot:

[orleans]

13. my fear is that if obama is prez he'll just want to get along with

everyone and let bygones be bygones

and if hill is prez she won't go for it either because it will look too much like a revenge thing because of bill.

i don't want to wait.

[robertpaulsen]

23. Whoever it is, we've got to hold their feet to the flame.

Let them know that ignoring impeachment is APPEASING THE REAL TERRORISTS.

[Individualist]

15. They should have been impeached long before now.

[Orsino]

19. Not this Congress. Not the next one, either.

They've ignored the */Cheney crimes for seven years, and next year they will have other, more important duties to, uh, ignore.

[pat_k]

21. A mirror of "in absentia" judgment in court

If a subsequent Congress decides to impeach "in absentia" (or even posthumously) there is nothing to stop them.

Just as they could impeach and pass judgment on the felonious five for Bush v. Gore (i.e., a posthumous judgment of Rehnquist; in absentia judgment of O'Connor; and removal of Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas.)

All that it requires is the political will. And if the 110th can't muster the political will, we go after the 111th. We mount primary challenges for those who block efforts.

Pelosi et al think they can just "wait it out." That if they can just make it to the end of the session without impeaching we'll stop "pestering" them.

The notion that we are likely to keep at them could change their perspective. Might as well "get it over with" then have to keep defending their immoral position -- and perhaps their seats -- for years to come.

Absence of precedent is no argument against it. If they do it, they set the precedent. (There would be no precedents if officials refused to do anything that hadn't been done before.) The rules of one Congress are not even binding on the next. Each body typically starts by adopting the rules of the previous Congress, but if they have the will to do so as a body, they can start fresh.

Unless the act infringes on some duty or power that the Constitution clearly assigns to the executive or judiciary, Congress can pretty much do what it wants. They are not a "co-equal" branch. Impeachment is their trump card. They are the police -- of themselves and of the other branches. If officials in the executive or judiciary attempt to stop Congress from doing something they reserve as their exclusive prerogative, they can impeach the person/people. And if we conclude that their action runs afoul of our intent, we vote them out in the next election.

When it comes to impeachment, there is no appeal. Members of Congress render their verdict with their votes, and then it is up to us to judge what they do with our votes.

And as long as they refuse to impeach, they are denying us our rightful opportunity to weigh in.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[lonestarnot]

24. I want the war mongers convicted!

[diane in sf]

25. Indict them all after they can't grant each other pardons--sounds good

ed typo

[KharmaTrain]

27. Our Job...Make It Happen...Make 'Em ALL Accountable

After 1-20-09, we hope this regime is evicted from the White House and with it goes their "executive privilidge" politicizing of every part of the government, including the Justice Department. While history is sure to judge booooosh as the worst resident ever, we still have some unfinished business...making this shitbag and his accomplices held responsible in as many ways as possible.

As I've long said, I will not be satisfied until I see all these goons...down to Bolton, Meiers, Rove, Gonzalez and Rummy in the dock along with booooshie and crashcart in the Hague. Also, it is the duty of a new, larger Democratic controlled House & Senate along with a Democratic President to follow through on all the investigations currently underway and if those result in criminal charges against boooooosh and/or cheney, then we not only have the goods to impeach, we have the imperitive to do so.

Right now there's smoke, no fire...we won't get the smoking guns needed until this regime's stench is gone...where they can't pardon or obstruct. Once the dark cloud of the past 7 years is lifted, there will be a different attitude in this country...and there will be millions of us, including Repugnicans, who will want the crimes of this regime addressed...including the defacto impeachment...and from what I see, Congressman Conyers is all on board for this.

In the end, I not only want a successful Impeachment in the House, I want a conviction in the Senate. Our job is to get the larger marjorities that will make this happen and never let up (like we're doing now) in demanding the political crimes of this regime are addressed...then off to a REAL court of law to prosecute the criminality of this regime.

[Laelth]

28. Um ... I don't think so.

Only a sitting official can be impeached.

After they leave office, however, they can be criminally prosecuted (and that's WAY better than impeaching them). Personally, I want to see Bush and Cheney impeached, but if they're not, they can still be prosecuted for their crimes after they leave office. They just won't be impeached.

-Laelth