Yeah, I don’t think any retro-active measures would be proper, much less legally possible.
While the following is a hijack, I don’t feel too bad about it, as I think the OP has been answered. Feel free to ignore it; I just thought it might be of interest. The latest I’ve seen regarding questionable voting comes from Black Box Voting regarding the Sequoia voting machines in Florida.
Now, in an attempt to defuse the ensuing nastiness, let me say that I’m not claiming there was proven vote fraud on a large enough scale (or any scale, for that matter) to affect the election outcome, nor am I even laying blame on any particular person or party. All I’m saying is that there remain some apparent…umm…anomalies (the above, questions in Alaska, and let’s just agree not to discuss Ohio) in the last election that should be (and, it appears, are being) investigated, although not by the appropriate authorities.
Perhaps vote fraud is a constant in US elections (i.e., “no big deal, happens all the time”). If so, all I can say is that it shouldn’t ever happen and the requisite steps to stop it should be taken.
I think you misunderstand what I was saying. Let me go back for a sec. Der Trihs said the following (which I was responding too):
This implies that, even with iron clad proof of a rigged election a Republican would not be impeached…presumably because he’s a Republican, part of the dictatorship of the Kingdom of America. The other implication being if its a Democrat then any old trumped up charge would do…the guys a Democrat after all.
As you put it, ‘smoking gun proof’ certainly WOULD impeach Bush, Republican or no Republican…just as it would a Democrat in a similar position. IOW Der Trihs is pretty much either ignorant of how the US actually works, is simply talking out his/her ass, or just tossed that out for mysterious reasons I can speculate on but won’t go into here…I think the latter but it could be the first one (or the second I suppose). THATS all I was sayin…
stab me and sink me for a sea sick swab, but I have to urge the horrendous hurdle presented by a 67 to 33 senate vote for conviction, Not to mention, as long as we’re strapping on the foil and powering up the laserjets, if a miscreant prez were down to his last twenty senators, the convenient sequestration of forty senators would put him back in good jury health.
So, let me get this straight. It’s a well-established element of American criminal law that a criminal shall not be able to profit from his crimes. But in the case of crimes committed relating to the electoral process, the chief beneficiary(ies) of the crime not only are permitted to profit from it, but cannot even be charged with anything by a criminal court (in the case of the Presidency)?
The good news is that a determined congress could do the whole job in a day.
I believe the only hope may be for a cadre of brave repugs to run in primary contests as impeachment republicans, so that a pledge to impeach and convict can becom the new contract with america, as it were.
I mean, if you want to nationalize the election, why not go all the way and do it in those safely republican districts that are otherwise uncontested.
we havent even really gone into the recondite question can the prz pardon hisself in advance of indictment? inquiring minds parsed this for tricky dicky, but I don’t have access to the memos (actually, my dad was sent to Haldeman from a sort of temp agency, (consligieres are us)before the shit hit the fan.
I think the President CAN be criminally charged and prosecuted while he is president. In Clinton v. Jones the SCOTUS ruled that then president Clinton was not immune from litigation while he was president. Granted that was a civil case but I can see no reason why they would except criminal proceedings. One would hope if Congress would get around to impeaching him once the Oval Office was moved to Leavenworth.
This wouldn’t work vs. Congressional impeachement, and if he tried it anywhere else in this situation, he’d be asking for one.
Every prez supporter who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution would be in a serious bind over such an obvious and public abuse of power.
IMO, I would think that the fact that the election was not legal would invalidate the swearing in, so even if the prerequisite is being sworn it, it wouldn’t matter in such a case. (If that poorly phrased tenous thought makes sense.)
We saw what Clinton got over a blowjob, and we’ve seen what Bush has gotten away with. Short of emptying an Uzi at Congress, I don’t think Bush can do anything that will get him impeached. Less specifically, I’ve noticed that Republicans are always held to a much lower standard than everyone else, including Democrats.
Simply a lifetime’s worth of watching the Republicans loot and destroy everything they touch, and never facing any consequences for it.
I’m not sure what purpose would be served by impeaching a sitting President if it proved he won an election due to fraud he had no control over.
There’s absolutely no constitutional way to put his defeated opponent in office, it just simply could not happen. Any impeachment would just be promoting yet another person who wasn’t properly elected to the office into the position.
Uh, and I think you’re aware Presidential politics isn’t anything like the rest of society and the idea that general legal principles should apply in all situations isn’t a very good stance on the issue at hand.
Also, the general idea that you shouldn’t profit from your crimes is based on financial motives as opposed to being a principle generally applied to situations like this.
not the impeachment itself. The assumption is that seeing the impending impeachment, and considering it inevitable, Nixon was (not unreasonably) concerned lest the fix with Ford fail–ie, he gets doublecrossed.
So the issue arose, can a president pardon himself (generally, yes, for charges already brough; query what about crimes already committed but not yet charged? (maybe) what about crimes not yet committed, but to be committed in the future (pushes the envelope)
OK.
I just thought of a new issue regarding pardons. His own pardoning of himself would keep him from serving jail time, but wouldn’t keep him from being removed from office, right?
IIRC Clinton got impeached for lieing under oath…not for getting a blow job. Now, what exactly has Bush done that warrents impeachment right now? Can you list actual things he COULD be impeached for…leaving aside this fantasy OP about iron clad proof that the President rigged the election?
Please try and list things he actually could be impeached for from a legal perspective, ehe?
You must have a pretty short lifetime is all I can say…were you born just as GW became president or perhaps a year or so before? You also have an incredibly skewed perspective…but then I knew that already.
Yes, Clinton was impeached for lying to Congress about getting a blowjob. Mind you lying about a blowjob was the best Ken Starr could come up with after a (IIRC) 7 year, $40,000,000 investigation into Whitewater which itself was a dubious “scandal”.
In Bush we have:
[ul]
[li] Lying to Congress and the public about reasons for invading Iraq (lying same as Clinton albeit for MUCH bigger stakes)[/li][li] Violated international law invading a sovereign country (thus breaking treaty obligations which are defined as the supreme law of the land in the US Constitution)[/li][li] Violation of the Geneva Convention on torture of prisoners (treay obligations again)[/li][li] Illegal wiretaps (broke the law)[/li][/ul]
Not sure it is impeachable but staggering incompetence also comes to mind in the handling of hurricane Katrina. I also seem to remember something stunk about Enron and Whitehouse involvement but it has been so long I forget the particulars.
Now, I expect you will help dance the Texas-two-step around all of these claiming things like wiretaps are legal and Bush did not actually lie about Iraq as he himself was misinformed. Fine…but where are the investigators? If Clinton got hounded for 7 years over Whitewater why are there no serious, independant investiagtions into any of the above? Investigations that would then be handed to Congress who would have to make a public declaration on why the president should or should not be impeached on the basis of those investigations?
Clinton’s lie was a little poodle turd in comparison to the stinking elephant sized mound Bush has left.
Oh yeah…I wouldn’t mind a serious look into government handouts to corporations for Iraqi reconstruction. Have we gotten $9 billion (or whatever it is now) worth of work out of Halliburton (to name one in particular)?
You also have an incredibly skewed perspective…but then I knew that already.