Impeached for what? What high crime or misdemeanor would Bush have committed?
Whatever the Congress wanted. Impeachment is fundamentally a political action, not a legal one.
In the real world, however, an article of impeachment would have to have a for-real crime attached to it. If not, it would be laughed out of existence or else Congress would be staging a coup. A political impeachment is about as unlikely in the U.S. as a military takeover.
A purely political impeachment, of course. Both Johnson and Clinton were political, but in both cases the impeached had broken an actual law, which made the process possible.
Johnson broke a “law” which stated that the President could not dismiss a member of his own Cabinet without consent of Congress.
So? The Tenure of Office Act was the law of the land, albeit passed over Johnson’s veto, and not repealed until 1887. Why the quotes around “law”?
As I said, the impeachment was certainly political, especially with the wording of the law unclear. But it was the law and therefore Congress had a real incident to hang the impeachment on. Which is exactly what I said was necessary.
No, Chuck Norris can take a presidential pardon. So could Batman if he was prepared.
I’m pretty sure he’d have a heart attack.
I think that was the point of the joke, Rigamarole.
I think the joke was the treadmill being a reference to an earlier, highly debatable thread about “would an airplane fly on a treadmill*”?
*paraphrased
Well, in this hypothetical case, pardoning his Vice President for Murder may not be an actual “crime” in the sense that he can be put in prison for it, but it could rise to the level of being a political crime (and thus impeachable).
People would be extremly outraged and demand that Congress do something about it.
Fortunately, a High Crime Or Misdeameanor is whatever Congress says it is. Impeachment is unreviewable by any court.
I’ve always wondered why no state authorities pursued Nixon. Yes, most of the activities took place in DC, and thus were covered by the pardon. But, if memory serves, not all of them by a long shot. Anyone know whether it was attempted?
What illegal activities did not take place in the District of Columbia?
Is that a Zen-type question?
Seriously though, all I came up with for jurisdiction tramplings in the matter of Watergate is intra-branch concerns. I am awaiting the answer to this one.
Which crimes in which state would Nixon be charged with? The biggest charge against him was obstruction of justice and that was interfering with the Watergate investigation, which was Federal.
There were some state crimes committed by Nixon’s men, but I don’t see how Nixon could have been tied into them. It would have required a very aggressive prosecutor and a governor who really hated Nixon.
Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office was in California, but I doubt that the DA in Los Angeles County would have wanted to take on the president for some charge, especially knowing that the then governor of California, Ronald Reagan, wouldn’t just pardon Nixon like Ford did.
The break-in at Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office occurred on September 3, 1971. In California, prosecution for an offense punishable by imprisonment in the state prison (such as burglary of the second degree) must be commenced within three years after commission of the offense. By the time Nixon was pardoned on September 8, 1974, that period was over. And a strong constitutional argument can be made that a president cannot be prosecuted for criminal offenses until he has been removed from office.
As far as I know, the break-in was carried out without Nixon’s foreknowledge.
On further research, I do see that John Dean, Nixon’s former counsel, testified to the Senate Watergate Committee that Egil Krogh, assistant to the President for domestic affairs, had told him that he had received his orders for the burglary “right out of the Oval Office.”
But in a statement released after his sentencing for the break-in (six months), Krogh declared: “I received no specific instruction or authority whatsoever regarding the break-in from the President, directly or indirectly.” Dean, said Krogh, must have misunderstood him; it was the creation of the secret unit itself, not the specific burglary, that was directly authorized by Nixon.