ITS NEVER TOO LATE TO IMPEACH THEM ALL!-You can't impeach after they've left office?-OH YES YOU CAN!

[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

[mmonk]

1. Thanks kpete.

[ray of light]

2. retroactive impeachment does not save us from the damage

they're doing daily.

Let's call them out on impeachment NOW.

Even the conservatives want impeachment now.

[emlev]

4. It's not an argument against impeaching now,

it's an argument against failing to begin impeachment proceedings now by those who say there isn't time to impeach because * is so near the end of his term.

I wonder, if he were impeached after leaving office (assuming that happens!) would he have significantly less access to obstruct the process?

[kpete]

5. thanks emlev

what I am saying - is that I WANT JUSTICE - no matter if I have to wait, kp

[Guaranteed]

19. Only a conviction would save us from the damage. 67 senators.

Do we have that?

That IS the bottom line.

[Mme. Defarge]

3. So,

if they are impeached retroactively, can they still be convicted? Is removal from office the only available punishment?

[Land Shark]

6. Not to impeach suggests not only are they above law, but even above attempts to subject them to law

K&R #5

[realbluesky]

7. Anyone who thinks anything will happen after the election is naive.

Any new president, from whatever party, is going to want to "protect the people" by not getting bogged down in criminal prosecutions. They're going to want to just forget about the past and move on. They will let the criminals run free and collect their pensions all through the rest of their long lives. The only chance we have of justice is if the international community brings war crimes charges against these lowlife scumbags. Democrats have shown they have no backbone to go after these criminals.

[cynatnite]

8. I read this on wiki...

thanks for confirming it. :)

[Mabus]

9. This is interesting: Spector wanted to retroactively impeach Clinton for the pardons

Forget Clinton: It's time to move on

By W. James Antle III
web posted February 19, 2001

You have to hand it to Arlen Specter. In 1999, when Bill Clinton had been impeached by the House of Representatives for his perjury and obstruction of justice, a Senate trial afforded those who found such conduct unbecoming of the nation's chief law enforcement officer an opportunity to remove him from office. Sen. Specter instead made a bizarre reference to Scottish jurisprudence in voting "not proven" to avoid said removal and in doing so deprived impeachment proponents even a symbolic Senate majority in favor of conviction.

Now that Clinton is out of office, Specter is publicly talking about the possibility of impeaching Clinton retroactively for his pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich and his business partner Pincus Green. The reasoning is that abusing the presidential pardoning power in order to accept a bribe would be an impeachable offense which, if proven, would still require punishment. Since Clinton still draws a presidential pension and benefits from Secret Service protection, a retroactive impeachment makes sense to Pennsylvania's senior senator.

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0201forgetclinton.htm

[Zywiec]

10. What new administration wants to start off with this?

If it doesn't happen before he leaves office, it will never happen.

And of course, if the Republicans win in 2008, that will seal the deal.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

11. I want them ALL behind bars!!! ...K&R

:kick:

[AndreaCG]

12. If convicted, what would the punishment be?

[mzmolly]

13. Very good to know. Interesting thought.

Thanks.

[EFerrari]

14. But the motivation to impeach after these felons have left office

won't be there. Hell, Congress barely keeps up with its workload now.

[Major Hogwash]

15. Impeachment - sheeshment! Try these guys for treason! Nothing more, nothing less!

I didn't serve in the military in order for a fuckin' liar like Bush to be put into office by the bought-and-paid-for Supreme Court.

Bush is a figurehead.
Or a figurine, your choice.

He doesn't do anything he isn't told to do by Cheney and the rest of the PNAC staff that his dad hand-picked for him to appoint to cabinet level positions.

Starting a war in Iraq when there were no WMD's in Iraq, spying on Americans without going to the FISA court, and the attempt to manipulate elections by getting Bush-appointed US attorneys to investigate Democratic candidates in the US attorney scandal.

That's enough for me.

You guys can scream impeachment all you want to have him removed from office, it ain't going to happen.

I want him prosecuted under the law.

[pat_k]

16. Darn right -- judging "in absentia" has a long tradition. . .

Check out the reference at the bottom of http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9475(198922)110%3A2%3C264%3AIATCOC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Q">this page

[damntexdem]

17. It's just that it's not generally necessary --

since ex-officers, such as an ex-prez, can be indicted and tried.

[Qutzupalotl]

18. Great find!