This stupid twit said: “Our goal has to be the White House in 2008 and 60 seats, then we can think about an impeachment,”

Here’s my analysis.

Point 1: They will have EXACTLY 15 days to impeach and remove President Bush. The New Congress starts January 5, 2009, the next president is sworn in on Jan 20, 2009.

It won’t happen, because there simply is not enough time. And America would probably ask, “what’s the point? The guy is leaving office on in 2 weeks ANYWAY!”

Point 2: In Clinton v. Jones, the US Supreme Court stated that the actions of the President that relate to his job as President, HAVE IMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. So they can’t “go after Bush” after he leaves office unless they can prove he committed a crime that wasn’t related to the presidency. That would include, of course, treason, bribery, as well as any felony, and any criminal misdemeanor that arose from behavior outside of the Presidency.

Now, try as hard as I can, I can’t see any evidence that George W. Bush committed any CRIMES punishable by the United States code in the first place while President. And give the fact that the media HATES Bush, you know damn well if that there was any evidence (like lying before a Grand Jury), they’d be all over it like white on rice. And it would lead EVERY newscast between now and Jan 20, 2009, and be above the fold in every daily paper as well.

This fantasy of theirs that Bush is a “criminal” will go nowhere. And there won’t be any post-term prosecution. Oh, they may have “hearings” but nothing will come of it.

Note, this is unlike what happened with Bill CLinton’s perjury charge.

Clinton’s act of perjury was in reponse to a civil suit against him for behavior BEFORE he became president. Hence, he could have been charged with the crime of perjury and/or obstruction of justice, because he wasn’t lying under oath as a requirement of being President. This is why he signed a plea agreement and an apology on Jan 19, 2001, one day before he left office. In exchange for not being charged, he would give up his law license, voluntarily, pay the fine, and apologoze to the nation.

Prediction:

If they try any of this, I predict that every Democratic Party official, at every level of government in the “Red States,” especially, will face the wrath of the American people.

I don’t think the traitors at MoveOn.org realize where this will lead if they try. They are so blinded by BDS that they cannot conceive that they are just a loud, though vocal, minority that would be swallowed up if they pushed the country into the revolution they so desperately want.

georgej on October 18, 2007 at 2:05 PM

Zorro: “Impeachment after he leaves office might be possible.”

Nope. Impeachment isn’t possible for a president who has stepped down at the end of his term. Civil suits against him based upon behavior, yes. Criminal prosecution for acts not covered by immunity, yes.

Post-term impeachment? No.

Further, Congress (even one run by Democrats) wouldn’t consider touching any former President’s retirement benefits or secret service protection, even a disgraced former President like Nixon.

Clinton signed the plea agreement (it is not a “consent decree” as some have opined) to avoid prosecution after he left office. In Clinton v. Jones, the USSC says that the acts of the President that are based upon the role of the president are immune from criminal prosecution and that the only remedy is impeachment. Clinton’s perjury was a result of a civil suit for behavior before he became President. Lying under oath in a civil suit is NOT a normal duty of the President of the United States. Hence, he could have been prosecuted for the felony after he left office.

By signing the plea agreement, the special prosecutor took criminal prosecution off the table.

georgej on October 18, 2007 at 3:29 PM

“There is no precedent or specific rule of law preventing impeachment after a president leaves office.”

Other than the words of the Constitution and the intentions of the founders, you mean. Specifically: “Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office,…” [Article 1, Section 3, Paragraph 7]

How do you “impeach” when one is no longer in office, when the Constitution LIMITS the punishment for impeachment to removal from office?

Paragraph 7 goes on to say: “…the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.”

Which leads to the second point: Impeachment requires that a PUNISHABLE offense be committed. Article 2, section 4 lists these: “…treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

The concept of impeachment goes back to English law, which The Founders were well aware of, where the standard for impeachment was whether an act which was punishable was committed. An act committed, that had no punishment associated with it, was neither indictable nor impeachable.

By listing two specific crimes against the state, AND extending it to criminal acts (felonies and misdemeanors) committed, by using specific language, the Constitution PREVENTS Congress from treating it as a routine political process. Anti-Federalist George Mason wanted to include language that included maladministration, but this did not end up in the final draft of the document and was not adopted because otherwise, the President would be SUBORDINATE to the will of the Senate, instead of an equal.

In every impeachment case I have reviewed (17 of them), including Andrew Johnson’s, there has been an accusation of a CRIMINAL charge, i.e., an indictable offense. One of the charges against Johnson was that personally profited from his presidency (the “Bribery” provision), for example. You could ask Rep. Alcee Hastings about this, he WAS impeached and removed for bribery.

“Denial of political office and pension would be the result of a conviction whether in office or out.”

Impeachment is not necessary for this, if this is the kind of pettiness that Democrats are bound and determined to engage in. A simple act of Congress to modify the statute to require any and all post-presidency benefits be approved by a majority of Congress by specific public law would cover this.

Specifically, if Congress were to modify the statute in this way (and they have the power to do so), Congress could strip any former President of Secret Service protection, of his pension (that not subject to the civil service law), of his library funding, of his transport privileges, and so on, by a simple majority “NO” vote in either House.

Impeachment is the wet dream of the moonbats. They would also like to see him assassinated either in office or out of office — unless of course, he is handed over to the Hague for a war crimes trial and condemned to death, first.

However, Congress will not impeach Bush or deny him is pension/benefits, etc., for a number of very good reasons:

1. What goes around, comes around. And payback can be a b*tch. And it WOULD happen the first chance a revenge-filled Republican majority got control of Congress, to the next Democratic President elected. And they might even do it retroactively to Bill Clinton, as well.

2. Should former a President (such as George W. Bush after 1/20/09) be assassinated for lack of a Secret Service detail, the Democrats would be ousted, and THEIR pensions would be forfeit, the incoming Republicans would see to that! Not even Democrats are that SUICIDAL. Americans would NOT TOLERATE any party that took petty revenge on any President that resulted in assassination.

So. Bush will neither be impeached, nor removed, nor indicted, nor shipped to the Hague, after his presidency ends. He will retire to his ranch, with his perks and Secret Service detail intact. He will get his presidential library, his personal secretarial staff, his transport privileges, and so on.

And there is nothing that the asshole moonbats can do about it!

Except drink more “Grape Kool-aid” and die of apoplexy.

georgej on October 18, 2007 at 4:59 PM