A blindly optimistic reason why impeachment might be "off the table"

[TechBear_Seattle]

It has been very easy to dump on Pelosi for her "impeachment is off the table" stance; goodness knows I've done quite a bit of that myself. But a conversation with some friends last night has given me hope -- blind, unsupported and probably overly optimistic hope, but nowadays I'll take what I an get -- that there is a bigger picture. The thinking goes thus:

* Impeachment is a political action by its very nature. No matter how justified the high crimes of Bush and Cheney, an actual vote to impeach will be carry the mark of political opinion. In addition, impeachment and the subsequent trial in the Senate would almost certainly be extremely public and consume a great deal of media attention.

* Given the political nature and public attention, impeachment would greatly impede an actual legal trial of Bush, Cheney and the rest of the Junta for their high crimes. They could, with some justification, claim that the criminal trials are persecution, an effort to either further punish them after a successful impeachment or to punishment them in spite of an unsuccessful impeachment. Further, the publicity of an impeachment would taint any possible jury pool and automatically provide grounds for an appeal if a criminal conviction is handed down. Also, the political nature of an impeachment would likely disqualify any of the evidence supplied in the Senate trial, making a meaningful conviction much more difficult to obtain.

So my bind, unsupported and probably overly optimistic hope: That by insuring no impeachment, Pelosi has made it much, much easier to convene treason and war crime trials against the Junta once they are out of office, and to get convictions that will stick.

Thoughts?

Added: Others have pointed out, and I wanted to add, that taking impeachment off the table makes it difficult for Bush to use the power of the presidency to pardon his co-conspirators. If he is no longer president when charges are filed... no pardons.

[NightWatcher]

1. I think they think the democratic candidates will campaign in a trial by media

Obama and the others can run against all things republican and all things Bush (to include McSame) and point out the reasons that they should pick the Dems. In lieu of having the trial in the congress with members voting on the issues, they can have this debate in the public and let the voters decide what they want. As it stands today, Obama is polling 10-12 points higher than McSame right now.

[babylonsister]

2. What happens if they pardon themselves? Could they still be

tried for war crimes in the US?

[global1]

8. If They Are Not Charged With Anything They Can't Pardon .......

without a charge and conviction there can be no pardons. So if nothing is brought up on Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rice, etc until after Bush is out of power - he won't be able to pardon anyone. He can't pardon someone for something that might happen when he is no longer in power.

[babylonsister]

13. Duh! Thanks; makes perfect sense. nt

[CK_John]

17. Nixon was never charged with anything. Read text of his pardon,

"I Gerald Ford ... do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9,1974."


Note use of has and may.

[TechBear_Seattle]

20. Ford's pardon was never challenge

Since no one ever tried to charge Nixon for crimes committed while in office, it remains untested as to whether Ford's pardon was valid or just hot air.

[PRETZEL]

21. I don't necessarily think it's hot air

we know for certain that Nixon's authorization of the breakin and subsequent cover up would have been pardoned since it was a foregone conclusion (hence the resignation) that he was guilty and would have been removed from office. So the pardon for those offenses would remain valid.

As for offenses not "committed" it was probably a signal to Congress (whether they asked for it or not) that since Nixon resigned any further investigation and criminal activity found would have been pardoned by Ford as long as he was in office. Congress effectively stopped the investigation under the guise of "Nixon Resigned", that's all we asked for.

The issue was never raised, but I think Ford would have pardoned him everytime charges against Nixon would have arisen.

Edited to clarify.

[kestrel91316]

22. Not true. Unfortunately.

Reagan (or Bush 1??) pardoned all sorts of Iran-Contra criminals before they could ever be charged. Bush 2 will do the same.

[PRETZEL]

23. Weren't many of them charged with lying to Congress?

I know that there weren't charges directly related to the arms sales, but many of the crimes were for lying to Congress, which Bush 1 did indeed pardon.

At least that's my recollection of the issue.

[onenote]

25. Fact check: the Bush I Iran Contra pardons went to folks who had been indicted or convicted

They were not pardoned "before they could ever be charged."

[kestrel91316]

29. I guess I mis-remembered then. I could swear they had.

I do know that it HAS been done, to Nixon for one. And I think there have been others.

[shraby]

3. I've been thinking along those lines too.

Also Bush can't pardon impeachment but he can pardon anyone not being impeached but implicated in the crimes like his father did for Iran Contra perps. Maybe it's best to nab them after Bush is out of office and all the criminals can be put on trial for war crimes and crimes against this country.

[DinahMoeHum]

11. Yep, after January 20, 2009 - hunt 'em down and lock 'em up. . .

one by one by one. . .

:nuke:

[global1]

28. The Vision I Have In My Head Is That While Obama Is Taking The Oath Of Office......

on the Capitol steps on Jan 20, 2009 - arrests are being made around the country of all of *Co and their accomplices. Kinda - Godfather like - but without the bloodshed.

[VP505]

32. If only,

but as much as I would also like to see that, I don't have one iota of belief that there is any will to make that happen.

[TechBear_Seattle]

12. Excellent point

Taking impeachment "off the table" makes it much more difficult for Bush to use his powers to preempt criminal trials.

[ingac70]

4. I totally agree.

Repubs will fall more easily behind after he is out of office and will be angry at the damage he did to the party.

Going after Dubya after he's out of office will ensure a bi-partisan effort.

[liberal N proud]

5. I held similar thoughts as well until recently

Something hit me smack in the face the other day that made it clear to me why Pelosi will not pursue impeachment and why I don't think the regime will be held accountable for their crimes.

It has to do with a certain nation that this nation thinks it owes everything to.

[ingac70]

6. you think...

we aren't impeaching because of Israel?

[liberal N proud]

9. Just a hunch

But who am I to make a claim?

[leftofthedial]

7. blind

such a thing has never happened.

no one in authority shows the slightest signs of pursuing justice in this matter.

impeachment would not be an impediment.

[harun]

10. The biggest reason is by keeping B*sh in office it increases the chances there

will be an increase in the Dem majority in the House and Senate. The only way we can actually get real reform is with more Senators. We stay at current levels it is just a stalemate with opportunities to make the Pukes look bad (because Dem's drive the agenda). However, the trial scenario, I do think, is a secondary reason for their strategy.

[stillcool]

14. I think it would be advantageous...

to have the crimes of the Bush Administration being revealed on a daily basis due to Impeachment hearings, and then trial by Senate. How anyone could possibly see this as a down-side is beyond me. Unless of course, the intent is to cover-up and move on. Just think, we could have hearings years from now, with Bush Administration Officials testifying about all the things they didn't know about.

[rudy23]

19. People are using the Clinton precedent to say that all impeachments cause people to rally around the

impeached. It's horrendous logic. The reason people rallied around Clinton is because Americans knew the impeachment process was bogus in that case.

There's a big difference between perjury over a blow job (which many Americans are sympathetic to) and lying your way into a war to line your pockets, and the other 34 things he did (which only the hardest authoritarians would be sympathetic to, maybe 20% of the public).

Really, just horrendous logic on the Dems' part to equate the two. Either horrendous logic, or a really bad rationalization to protect their complicity?

[PRETZEL]

15. Impeachments are indeed a political procedure,

however it is a procedure that Congress must enforce. It's up to the House to start impeachment procedures against these bastards. It's the Senate's responsibility to determine the punishment of whether or not they should be removed from office.

Nothing starts without Pelosi. Unfortunately we've seen all too often Dennis Kucinich push for these assholes to be held accountable for their actions only to be sent to the back of the room and told to be a good little boy and don't interupt the adults.

As for Pelosi passing the buck to whomever once they leave office is unfortutely, in my opinion, pure and unadulterated CYA on her part.

Congress and the people have the RIGHT to oversee what our elected officials do in our interests, not theirs. We use that rights in whom we elect to serve us in Congress. We elect them to do what we cannot directly do ourselves, make sure our government is protecting us. I'm sorry, the Democratic leaders in Congress have not done that to my satisfaction.

[lame54]

16. Pelosi has some huge crystal balls...

to take impeachment off the table before she is even sworn in
How the hell can anybody say for sure what the future holds?
Their unwillingness to impeach makes me think that they will be unwilling to indict

[bean fidhleir]

27. Of course they'd be unwilling to indict.

If they're not even willing to *fire* the bastards, why would they be interested in prosecuting them?

Let's not kid ourselves. The ruling class *always* takes care of its own. We don't matter. We're just the labor pool - the two-legged donkeys whose lives are consumed for the benefit of our "betters".

[redqueen]

18. I'm with you.

No pardons!

Also, we avoid a possible 'sympathy' backlash.

Win win.

[dorkulon]

24. Horseshit.

You think it'll be easier to prosecute Bush AFTER he leaves office? I'll buy you a goddamn Lear Jet if that happens.

[bean fidhleir]

26. It's healthier not to grasp at straws. The reality is that impeachment and criminal prosecution

couldn't be more different.

Imagine a public mass-murderer being first convicted in federal court on a "violation of civil rights" charge and getting a wrist-slap, and then convicted in state court and sentenced to hang.

Who would sympathize with him apart from other mass-murderers and the terminally soft-headed?


Is there anything uglier than to see some scumbag who has bilked millions of their life savings in some stock-fraud deal get a wrist-slap because "he's already suffered enough" by being revealed as the disgusting, criminal betrayer of people's trust he is?

[proud2BlibKansan]

30. He already pardoned himself and all the other evil ones

Our best hope is for them all to be charged in international court.

[On the Road]

31. I Think They See Victory in November

and want to ride the wave of hope and optimism Obama has created. I can't blame them for that.

I don't think Obama will try to put Bush in jail. I do hope that he takes some of the more egregious violations, pursues them, and gets judgments of some kind. Iraq contracts, attorney firings, Plame investigation, illegal wiretaps, and maybe one more. That would set the right tone in retrospect.

Next time, I hope the party is more willing to go to the wall over the constitution.