# A Word, Shodan **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 18, 2009, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-shodan/510537 "2009-09-18T02:44:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2009, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-shodan/510537/81 "2009-09-18T20:03:23Z")
Hard to say. Do you smell galangal? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2009, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-shodan/510537/82 "2009-09-18T20:39:50Z")
> [@El\_Kabong](#): > > Jeeziz, people, have I wandered into a thread or a Bangkok whorehouse? A thread --Bangkok whorehouses have standards. :rolleyes: Now… as to why I asked the question: 1. Clearly, Mr. Bush, like any other U.S. citizen, cannot be deprived of such rights and privileges as he may be entitled to by law without first being convicted of a crime. (Felony, I believe, but let’s use the more general term.) Now, like all ex-Presidents except Mr. Nixon, Mr. Bush holds title to his Presidential papers and is legally entitled to “play the national security card” whenever in his opinion, the country might be endangered by revelation of the contents of such papers in open court. (And it’s become clear that Presidents of both parties are quite willing to use that claim to cover issues that the average sixth grader would consider uinrelated to national security.) There is also the question of confidentiality of advice, about which I don’t consider myself qualified to comment. Proving our hypothetical Mr. Bush guilty of any crimes for which he might be indicted without the use of documents he classified as secret owing to national security while President, might be extraordinarily difficult. Nor can the handful pf personal privileges accorded to ex-Presidents be taken away from him without such a conviction. Joseph Heller had an excellent term for the above. My question was, knowing the limits of the effect of (conviction after) impeachment on a President, would there _nonetheless_ be rationale for an impeachment of a man who had left office in superseding the impediments to a conviction by first ‘removing him from office’ – even though that would have no pracxtical effect – enabling the subpoenaing of material that a non-impeached President would have the prerogative of claiming national security or confidentiality about. In addition, paying this hypothetical crook a pension, allowing him to hold public office, etc., might be worthwhile reasons. Those were my reasons, insofar as I know not engaged in copulation, for asking the question. Oh, and despite being a registered Democrat, I can read the Constitution – unlike some of the idiots your party supports, the ones who think that forcing schoolkids to kowtow to their brand of evangelical Protestantism is perfectly acceptable because it’s not explicitly spelled out that they can’t, and they should be backed in violating the kids’ free exercise rights because they constitute part of the “core” and compelling kids to do such is, somehow, “family values.” Rephrased, my GQ was, "Given the fact that the Constitution limits the effects of conviction after impeachment to removal from office and, optionally, barring from any future office, are there **still** effects deriving from the removal tha might give grounds why someone who has left office might be impeached and convicted.. I thought, abd still think, that it is a fair question to ask.. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2009, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-shodan/510537/83 "2009-09-18T20:47:09Z")
on preview - Fuck it. **Shodan** ’s Law - If they didn’t read it the first time, they won’t read it the second either. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2009, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-shodan/510537/84 "2009-09-18T21:05:35Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Cheers, **Lib**! 😛 Yo, cuz! Sapmin? How’s Kayla? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2009, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-shodan/510537/85 "2009-09-18T21:10:11Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > I think someone else is doing it too, is not a defense at all. When A is allowed to “do it” and B is not, it is a perfectly good defense for B. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2009, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-shodan/510537/86 "2009-09-18T21:12:12Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > The fucking Constitution fucking says that the only fucking penalties fucking Congress may fucking impose at the fucking conclusion of a fucking impeachment are fucking removing the malfeasor from fucking office, and fucking forbidding him from holding fucking further public fucking office. > > Bush is not in fucking office, you fucking idiot. So he can’t fucking be removed from fucking office. He can’t be fucking forbidden to run for President again - the fucking 22nd Amendment already fucking says that. This here is the passionate and intelligent argument that I’d like to see more often from **Shodan**. That must be why I agree with him. There is no evidence that impeachment and trial may occur solely for “disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.” No such trial has occurred in American history. In fact, at least two impeachment trials have been ended due to the resignation of the impeachee. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2009, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-shodan/510537/87 "2009-09-19T00:08:58Z")
> [@bup](#): > > edited to remove everything \*but \*fucking, and synonyms. Well, it certainly illustrates the diversity of the word. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2009, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-shodan/510537/88 "2009-09-19T00:20:42Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Now, like all ex-Presidents except Mr. Nixon, Mr. Bush holds title to his Presidential papers and is legally entitled to “play the national security card” whenever in his opinion, the country might be endangered by revelation of the contents of such papers in open court. First point, [the Nixon papers were owned by President Nixon/his estate](http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2000/June/336civ.htm) Second point, executive privilege is different from “I own this and I’m not letting you see it.” Third point, executive privilege doesn’t work that way, and I don’t believe it survives the president’s term. President Bush no longer has a right to claim executive privilege, and it’s up to the Obama administration to do so or not do so. > [@](#): > > Nor can the handful pf personal privileges accorded to ex-Presidents be taken away from him without such a conviction. Fourth point, I don’t believe that’s true either. Congress could take away President Bush’s secret service protection, they could strip him of his pension, or whatever, without impeachment and conviction, and even if he were impeached and convicted, it wouldn’t take away any of those things. It wouldn’t do anything. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2009, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-shodan/510537/89 "2009-09-19T00:55:26Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > on preview - > > Fuck it. **Shodan** ’s Law - If they didn’t read it the first time, they won’t read it the second either. > > Regards, > Shodan You fucking coward. I not only read it, I quoted it back to you. Now, answer the fucking question, Claire. Would impeachment of a prior office holder not have the practical effect of preventing any future office holding as well? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2009, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-shodan/510537/90 "2009-09-19T01:05:53Z")
To be ruthlessly fair, there is a lot of possible mischief hidden in that word, “practical”. We might well hope that such a disgraced pol could not rise again to such heights, but the people decide things like that, and the people are as crazy as we are. Which is to say, maybe it ought to be impossible for him to be elected to something, but I doubt that legality is a bar. If he ran to be Governor of Texas, he would probably have about half a chance, maybe better. Texas Governors are a colorful lot. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2009, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-shodan/510537/91 "2009-09-19T01:28:19Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > To be ruthlessly fair, there is a lot of possible mischief hidden in that word, “practical”. We might well hope that such a disgraced pol could not rise again to such heights, but the people decide things like that, and the people are as crazy as we are. > > Which is to say, maybe it ought to be impossible for him to be elected to something, but I doubt that legality is a bar. If he ran to be Governor of Texas, he would probably have about half a chance, maybe better. Texas Governors are a colorful lot. He wouldn’t be barred from being Governor of Texas by an impeachment conviction which including barring him from offices of the United States. Congressman, yes; Cabinet officer, yes; Supreme Court Justice, yes; Customs Inspector at Port Lavaca, yes. Governor of Texas; no. It’s very rare for the barring from office to even occurr - see Alcee Hastings. I’m bewildered. I really am. Even if I give that this is a hypothetical and blue sky speculation, an impeachment solely for the purpose of barring future office holding has never occurred in this country, and history makes it clear that it has never even been contemplated. It is so hypothetical that it’s kind of like asking, “Should Lincoln have been impeached for declaring war against South Carolina?” Really, it’s that out there. Perhaps if my workplace didn’t require drug tests, I’d understand it better. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2009, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-shodan/510537/92 "2009-09-19T02:02:44Z")
Nonetheless, some of the extremists on the left had suggested it. Therefore I wanted to know, hence the GQ, if there any reasonable _use_ to doing it. While I get **Shodan** ’s and **Frank** ’s points on the constitutional limitations of what impeachment may accomplish, given the circumstances I outlined above, I saw possible effects that might justify it (presuming there were sufficient grounds – hence the hypothetical nature of the GQ OP). I got my answer, clearly, in “fucking” detail. Let it ride. But, and here’s why I asked **Shodan** to make himself clear, and put it where call=outs go, the Pit: It was not, in intent, a partisan dig – I used Mr. Bush’s presidency as a real-world example of a controversial recent presidency, and added hypotheticals to make impeaching him something that reasonable people of both parties would see impeachment as reasonable, indeed the only reasonable course (for a man in office, that is). This set up the situation I wanted to ask about – in such a case, would there be reasons to proceed with imnpeachment even though he’s left office? The answer, as given in depth here in the Pit, appears to be no – any of the things I thought the existence of conviction after impeachment might affect, it would not… ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2009, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-shodan/510537/93 "2009-09-19T02:23:17Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Nonetheless, some of the **extremists** on the left had suggested it. Holding someone accountable for their crimes is an extremist position? Don’t cave to assholes. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2009, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-shodan/510537/94 "2009-09-19T02:32:28Z")
I’m an extremist! And so is Spartacus! ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2009, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-shodan/510537/95 "2009-09-19T02:48:42Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > Holding someone accountable for their crimes is an extremist position? > > Don’t cave to assholes. Impeaching somebody who’s not in office anymore is kind of extremist, yes. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2009, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-shodan/510537/96 "2009-09-19T02:54:45Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > When A is allowed to “do it” and B is not, it is a perfectly good defense for B. Not it at all. When we are discussing A ,saying B did it is not responsive. Whether B did it becomes the discussion. Then we have to debate whether B actually got away with it. Then we have to decide whether they really are the same. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2009, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-shodan/510537/97 "2009-09-19T03:05:41Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Why not just create a forum where people can post until they prove to our satisfaction that they’re on our side? That’s how Stormfront does it. And the two recent SDMB splinter boards have initiated similar forums. All three call their relegates “trolls”. You’re not helping your argument comparing us to _Stormfront_, of all places. I for one, find that highly offensive and disgusting. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > Shodan is one of those posters who put links in their posts, but never quotes anything from the link that actually backs up his assertions. It’s a waste of time to debate with him. He’s a thread shitter and a partisan hack. You forgot the persecution complex. “Usual Suspects” indeed. :rolleyes: That’s what disgusts me the most. “Everyone hates conservatives here”. It’s been pointed out to him that people like **Bricker** \*, **Jodi** , **Airman Doors** , **Ivylass** , **Sarahfeena** , etc don’t get the kind of shit he does. You never hear a response. As for Bush, he may not be able to be impeached, but he CAN be charged with crimes, can he not? I thought that was the whole reason Ford pardoned Nixon, right? Wouldn’t Nixon have been put on trial, even though he had resigned? Just curious. (I mean, through some OTHER procedure) \ ***Bricker** ’s only fault seems to be his inability to turn off the lawyer-persona at times. Other than that, he’s a cool guy. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2009, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-shodan/510537/98 "2009-09-19T03:08:54Z")
> [@Orbifold](#): > > I’ve noticed examples lately of posters taking **Shodan** seriously. I can’t really fathom why. I find him to be not much more than a thin veneer of affected civility wrapped around a sneer. They’ve been doing that forever. They also act shocked every time little **Bricker** shows himself to be an amoral asshole - which is really surprising since it happens every couple months. No, it doesn’t make sense. -Joe ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2009, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-shodan/510537/99 "2009-09-19T03:17:30Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > …\ ***Bricker** ’s only fault seems to be his inability to turn off the lawyer-persona at times. Other than that, he’s a cool guy. 😉 “Well, that aside, Mrs. Lincoln, how’d you like the play?” ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2009, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-shodan/510537/100 "2009-09-19T03:21:30Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Impeaching somebody who’s not in office anymore is kind of extremist, yes. Holding someone accountable for their crimes is an extremist position? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-shodan/510537.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-shodan/510537.md?page=6)