A comment on late impeachment

[docstrange]

holzman and rmjwell conversed on the need to vote out those who stalled on impeachment after running on it as a platform, and then of course about impeaching the administration personnel after they leave office; viz holzman's comment in his journal:

Just because a President has left office doesn't mean he -- and his whole damn gang -- can't be impeached. Nor is it an

Comments

[holzman]

In the interests of clarity, I point out that I certainly do not view impeachment (during or after tenure in office) as an alternative to criminal prosecution. I am also under the impression that those who have served in the administration under Bush can be impeached, preventing them from coming into public position again -- running for Congress, for example, or being appointed to a(nother) cabinet position.

[docstrange]

In theory, any appointed public official is subject to impeachment.

The rest is fully answered in the long piece above.

[ilcylic]

I think booting those who ran on a platform of impeachment and then backed out should be booted from office. In the case of Pelosi, who has been a Rep for 20 years, that seems improbable.

I think the practice of bringing former Presidents up on criminal charges will have unintended consequences which vastly outweigh the benefits of bringing a criminal to justice. What better way to convince a sitting president that he should not relinquish the office than to tell him he's going to be put on trial after he leaves?

[docstrange]

I agree that using the political process to bring ex-presidents to "trial" sets a bad precedent. I don't agree that immunity should in effect be part of the job. If the act rises to criminal justice levels, then let the indictment, trial, appeal, etc. processes handle it. It worked for the governor of IL. If the act doesn't rise to the criminal (a "misdemeanor" in the meaning of the clause), then I rather strongly object to using impeachment as a way around the limits of criminal process once the person is already out of office.

[marsgov]

The spectre of politically-motivated trials of Bush officials fills me with dread.

[rmjwell]

Okay, I was mistaken then about the nature of the ability to bring criminal charges that stemmed from activities conducted by a sitting Federal executive. I had the idea that the liability shield (apologies if that is the incorrect term) that the Federal executives enjoy was based on when the act was committed rather than ending upon their exit from office. In my interpretation impeachment would have been the tool used to remove the shield and allow for criminal prosecution to go forward.

[docstrange]

Immunity within the exec branch is yet another complicated matter.

[also_huey]

I agree that those who ran on an impeachment platform, then said it was "off the table" or dragged their feet, need to be voted out as lying sacks of political baggage. Note that includes the Speaker of the House among others.

No. As a campaign issue, anyone running for office in 2006 could have done so (and some did!) in good faith with the assumption that the Democrats would take both the House and the Senate with a convincing majority. However, once that election ended a half-dozen Senate seats shy of a filibuster-stopping majority, it became a moot point, as no serious attempt at impeachment would have made any sense or had any chance at success so long as the remaining Senate Republicans could have effectively killed it.

Almost two years have passed. How is it possible that you do not know this?

[docstrange]

"No" right back at you. Impeachment happens in the House. The Senate has no ability to block that process.

The trial of any articles that are passed then happens in the Senate.

If the purpose of a late-term impeachment is political, not removal, what does it matter whether they force the Republican Senators to filibuster? That would only help draw up a list of who was willing to block the investigation.

If the strength of their political convictions depended on an assumption about winning a super-majority, they could have said so. If the strength of their convictions only extends to easy victories, then they don't warrant the public trust.

[also_huey]

So what you're hoping for is an impeachment similar to the one Clinton got, a political tap with the coup-counting stick that is otherwise meaningless in any real sense?

Well, geez, that sure taught Clinton a lesson. I bet it works on Bush in just the same way.

This is why the Democrats took impeachment off of the table. Instead of a meaningless circus of CPSAN-wankery, they're trying to get some useful shit done. And you fault them for it. Taste the awesome!

[docstrange]

Actually, no.

I think you have not read what I wrote in the main post. Maybe you should do that?

[also_huey]

I have, and I'm still not seeing any scenarios in which this would play out with even so much as that warm fuzzy feeling like pissin' on yerself, much less anything approaching 'justice'.

If politics is a game, George W. Bush has won two rounds, and pretty much everybody else in the USA has lost, and there is no point in arguing calls with the referees. The game's over. We've lost. And it's time for the next game.

[docstrange]

Again, it sounds like you think I am in favor of impeachment at this stage, when I clearly state that I am not, and then I do state what if any approach I am in favor of.

I think you have an axe to grind, but you've come to the wrong grindstone.