But impeachment (that is, impeachment by the House followed by trial and conviction in the Senate) is not a criminal conviction and carries no criminal penalties; it just means you’re removed from office.
It doesn’t even mean that. Clinton was impeached but not removed.
It’s not much, but Scooter Libby is already facing charges related to the Valerie Plame thing. He’s been cooperative, so he may not suffer much punishment.
Fair enough re: impeachment not equalling criminal charges. But what I thought the clause means is that if Cheney (or whomever) were impeached and then criminal charges were sought against him, Bush would not be able to pardon him. I’m probably reading that incorrectly though.
It’s never been tested AFAIK, but I think you’re misconstruing the phrase, “except in cases of impeachment.”
Oops. Sorry, BrainGlutton. I missed this part when I read your post before. :smack:
To answer the OP I’d have to know what is meant by “Bush Admin.” That isn’t a phrase with a clear definition.
I’m comfortable in saying no one at the Cabinet-level or above, meaning Cabinet Secretaries, Vice President Cheney, and President Bush himself, will ever be prosecuted or charged for Government actions taken while in office.
Let’s say, anyone who would be a major character if The West Wing were a reality show; plus the Cabinet secretaries and deputy secretaries (who, for some reason, rarely emerge as major characters on that show).
Well, the West Wing featured characters like Donna Moss and Mrs. Landingham who are performing roles no different from that of an office secretary, just for very important men and in a very high pressure environment. There are tons of such people in the White House at any given time. And the President’s personal aide, Charlie Young, was also a major character. The real world equivalent of Young would probably be Blake Gottesman, for all we know he could have been running a gambling ring out of the White House.
So I think the criteria is so wide and includes so many hundreds of people no one can intelligently make any guesses about whether or not any of these people will be charged with a crime at some point in the future.
And if any of those – or their RL analogues in the Bush WH – were to face criminal charges, that would matter, not only legally or personally, but politically.
On that note – do you remember Rose Mary Woods? 
I agree it would matter and yes I do remember Ms. Woods. However as I said, I don’t think we can intelligently predict whether or not any person in the Bush Admin. (as we’ve defined it here) will be charged with a crime. Which leaves me wondering if this is actually a debate, speculation isn’t a debate, even if it is fun and even if it is intelligently structured.
Oh, it’s a debate, all right, and an extremely important one. The issue is whether or not, in America in 2006, the political/economic/social clout of a given suspect or that suspect’s boss/patron can be sufficient to shield that suspect from criminal prosecution.
Ford set the table for releasing the likely guilty. The national nightmare will have to be avoided. Somehow the good of the country is served by letting high level crooks go.
What about charges overseas or in the Internation Criminal Court? The US is not a party to the ICC so even if warrents are issued against Americans they won’t be arrested, as long as they stay in the US. What would the the federal government actually do if a retired cabinet secretary or general is arrested while on vacation overseas? What if it happened in a country that’s a major ally otherwise (UK, Canada, Japan, etc)? Would they go so far as to actually invade the Netherlands?
What about charges overseas or in the International Criminal Court? The US is not a party to the ICC so even if warrents are issued against Americans they won’t be arrested, as long as they stay in the US. What would the the federal government actually do if a retired cabinet secretary or general is arrested while on vacation overseas? What if it happened in a country that’s a major ally otherwise (UK, Canada, Japan, etc)? Would they go so far as to actually invade the Netherlands?
I dunno, but I really, really hope we’ll find out! Soon! 
This would never happen, to be quite honest. Most of the attempts to levy charges against U.S. officials based on the ludicrous notion of “universal jurisdiction” have been thrown out in the courts of these other countries themselves.
Cites?
I’ll amend my statement, and change “most” from “several.”
Because I have no idea the total number of instances in which some random lawyer in Europe has filed charges against Donald Rumsfeld nor the total of those cases which have subsequently be thrown out.
In 2004, in Germany, a case was disposed of which sought charges against Rumsfeld link.