Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Impeachment: Could lack of votes in Senate legally immunize BushCo from being indicted post 1/20/09?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
99th_Monkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-13-08 01:09 AM
Original message
Impeachment: Could lack of votes in Senate legally immunize BushCo from being indicted post 1/20/09?
One of the arguments against Impeachment I've seen numerous times on DU is that conventional
wisdom deems that Dems "just don't have the votes" (esp. in the Senate) to successfully complete the
impeachment process with a finding of "guilty as charged" ... so opponents claim impeachment would
not only fail to remove Bush/Cheney from office, but (it is implied that) it would most likely result
in an "acquittal" by the Senate, which would in turn effectively immunize Bush/Cheney from any future
criminal charges being brought against them after they leave office.

But wait a minute? .. is this true? :shrug:

Do any of you DU legal wonks know if -- at the end of the day -- the Dems still FAIL to muster all
the necessary votes in the Senate to seal the impeachment deal and remove these criminals from office,
would THAT amount to giving Bush/Cheney a "Get our of Jail Free" card to immunize themselves from any
future prosecution for the crimes included in the articles of impeachment?

I'd love to know the answer to this ... Especially since the prosecutor who convicted Manson is saying
he'll not rest until he sees Bush and Cheney behind bars for the crime of murder, even after they leave
office.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-13-08 01:10 AM
Response to Original message
1. bush can't pardon himself
Edited on Fri Jun-13-08 01:12 AM by seemslikeadream
The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder





http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=printer_friendly&forum=389&topic_id=3436369&mesg_id=3436369


The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder
Posted by seemslikeadream on Thu Jun-12-08 11:34 AM

Prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi talks about his book, "The Prosecution Of George W. Bush for Murder"

Stephanie Miller Show
http://www.stephaniemiller.com/files/mp3/2008_0609_bugliosi.mp3


http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/1644

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Vincent Bugliosi


(Editor's Note: The following is an excerpt from the book The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder by Vincent Bugliosi)

How has George Bush reacted to the hell he created in Iraq, to the thousands of lives that have been lost in the war, and to the enormous and endless suffering that the survivors of the victims -- their loved ones -- have had to endure?

I've always felt that impressions are very important in life, and other than "first impressions," they are usually right. Why? Because impressions, we know, are formed over a period of time. They are the accumulation of many words and incidents, many or most of which one has forgotten, but which are nonetheless assimilated into the observer's subconscious and thus make their mark. In other words, you forgot the incident, but it added to the impression. "How do you feel about David? Do you feel he's an honest person?" "Yeah, I do." "Why do you say that about him? Can you give me any examples that would cause you to say he's honest?" "No, not really, at least not off the top of my head. But I've known David for over ten years, and my sense is that he's an honest person."

I have a very distinct impression that with the exception of a vagrant tear that may have fallen if he was swept up, in the moment, at an emotional public ceremony for American soldiers who have died in the war, George Bush hasn't suffered at all over the monumental suffering, death, and horror he has caused by plunging this nation into the darkness of the Iraq war, probably never losing a wink of sleep over it. Sure, we often hear from Bush administration sources, or his family, or from Bush himself, about how much he suffers over the loss of American lives in Iraq. But that dog won't run. How do we just about know this is nonsense? Not only because the words he has uttered could never have escaped from his lips if he were suffering, but because no matter how many American soldiers have died on a given day in Iraq (averaging well over two every day), he is always seen with a big smile on his face that same day or the next, and is in good spirits. How would that be possible if he was suffering? For example, the November 3, 2003, morning New York Times front-page headline story was that the previous day in Fallouja, Iraq, insurgents "shot down an American helicopter just outside the city in a bold assault that killed 16 soldiers and wounded 20 others. It was the deadliest attack on American troops since the United States invaded Iraq in March." Yet later in that same day when Bush arrived for a fund-raiser in Birmingham, Alabama, he was smiling broadly, and Mike Allen of the Washington Post wrote that "the President appeared to be in a fabulous mood." This is merely one of hundreds of such observations made about Bush while the brutal war continued in Iraq.

And even when Bush is off camera, we have consistently heard from those who have observed him up close how much he seems to be enjoying himself. When Bush gave up his miles of running several times a week because of knee problems, he took up biking. "He's turned into a bike maniac," said Mark McKinnon in March of 2005, right in the middle of the war. McKinnon, a biking friend of Bush's who was Bush's chief media strategist in his 2004 reelection campaign, also told the New York Times's Elisabeth Bumiller about Bush: "He's as calm and relaxed and confident and happy as I've ever seen him." Happy? Under the horrible circumstances of the war, where Bush's own soldiers are dying violent deaths, how is that even possible?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
99th_Monkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-13-08 01:34 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Thanks for posting this. I heard Bugliosi on Mike Malloy tonight. Nice to see more detail.
.. And that was exactly why I asked my question about "acquittal" by Senate if Rethugs don't come around in the
face of all the evidence under the spotlights and still block impeachment, could THAT immunize Bush/Cheney in
any way from future prosecution for their crimes?

Do you know the answer to this? It's a different question than the pardon thing, even though I don't mind being
reminded that Bush can't pardon himself.

Or asked another way, if impeachment failed to bring conviction in Senate, would that amount to a defacto pardon,
not by Bush, but by the Senate, and immunize Bush in ANY way from future prosecution?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-13-08 01:28 AM
Response to Original message
2. Apples And Oranges, Sir
Impeachment by the House and trial in the Senate is wholly different from indictment by grand jury and trial in Federal criminal court: no outcome in either affects the other. People can be impeached and convicted for a crime they have been acquitted of in court, and so could be tried in court for a crime that underlay an article of Impeachment on which the Senate had voted to acquit. 'Double jeopardy' no more applies than it does to separate trials in federal and state courts where an act that is a crime under both sets of laws is charged.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
99th_Monkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-13-08 01:39 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Nice to know .. Thanks.
Next time one of those Anti-Impeachment trolls tries to make that argument I'll pass this along..

and tell them "hey, if they don't believe me, just ask The Magistrate, and he/she'll set you straight
in a NY minute."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
global1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-13-08 02:11 AM
Response to Original message
5. If *CO Isn't Charged With Any Wrongdoing Before 1-20-09.....
they can't be pardoned.

If * can't give his administration a 'get out of jail free card' - they essentially go out of office with the potential for them to be charged when they are no longer in power.

Perhaps this is why impeachment is off the table. The Dems know if they push for impeachment - they won't get the votes. The investigations might turn up wrongdoing on the likes of Rove, Cheney, the WHIG group, etc. And if any of these people get charged with a crime - GWB can pardon them before he leaves office and they can go on to strike again.

If we wait until they leave office and then begin the investigations - when they do get charged with a crime - with a Dem president - no chance for pardons.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PuppyBismark Donating Member (200 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-13-08 08:38 AM
Response to Original message
6. However, Bushco can pardon anyone else before he leaves office.
Buschco can very easily pardon any and all repubs for all anything and everything before he leaves office. It is very much like what Ford did for Nixon. Pardons cannot be appealed. This list of those pardons would come from the US Gov executive phone book.

He cannot pardon himself, so he can be sent to trial, but he could see to it that everyone else goes free. The only thing that would hold him back is his seemingly increasing concern about how history judged him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-13-08 08:40 AM
Response to Original message
7. People who don't stand up to tyranny cannot be depended on
prosecuting it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC