Do we have any legal types who can answer this?

[ladywnch]

I have often wondered about this:

If junior is impeached and then found guilty by the Senate, that just means he gets tossed from office, right?

Can he be sentenced to jail time for his crimes? Can he be made to pay restitution for any of his crimes?

If he is impeached and convicted does there have to be an additional legal action taken for him to serve jail time (ie: civil trial, criminal trial) or would the Senate have some kind of sentencing power?

I mean, what can we realistically hope for here and how does it play out?


Also, it there anything that can be done AFTER he leaves office in 08? Can he be pursued (assuming he doesn't flee the country to Paraguay or where ever) as a private citizen?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

1. basics...

The impeachment procedure is in two steps. The House of Representatives must first pass "articles of impeachment" by a simple majority. (All fifty state legislatures as well as the District of Columbia city council may also pass articles of impeachment against their own executives). The articles of impeachment constitute the formal allegations. Upon their passage, the defendant has been "impeached."

Next, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a President, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. Otherwise, the Vice President, in his capacity as President of the Senate, or the President pro tempore of the Senate presides. This may include the impeachment of the Vice President him- or herself, although legal theories suggest that allowing a person to be the judge in the case where she or he was the defendant wouldn't be permitted. If the Vice President did not preside over an impeachment, the duties would fall to the President Pro Tempore.

In order to convict the accused, a two-thirds majority of the senators present is required. Conviction automatically removes the defendant from office. Following conviction, the Senate may vote to further punish the individual by barring them from holding future federal office (either elected or appointed). Despite a conviction by the Senate, the defendant remains liable to criminal prosecution. It is possible to impeach someone even after the accused has vacated their office in order to disqualify the person from future office or from certain emoluments of their prior office (such as a pension.) If a two-thirds majority of the senators present does not vote "Guilty" on one or more of the charges, the defendant is acquitted and no punishment is imposed.

Congress regards impeachment as a power to be used only in extreme cases; the House has initiated impeachment proceedings only 62 times since 1789 (most recently President Clinton), and only the following 17 federal officers have been impeached:

more - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment#United_States


the civil and war crimes trials would follow after...

[ladywnch]

6. thanks. I kinda remembered the basics from civics class

but didn't realize it could be done post office or about the criminal side of things. I'd hate for us to keep paying him a pension or providing him secret service details after he leaves office if we can stop it.

Again, my thanks

[H2O Man]

2. The answer

is found in the Constitution of the United States. See Article 1, Section 3, paragraphs 7 & 8.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. A sitting president can't be tried in a ciminal proceeding.

The only political remedy is impeachment and conviction (i.e., fire his ass). After that, however, he could be tried in separate proceedings just like any other crook, and, if convicted, it's off to the Big House. That's why Ford pardoned Nixon after he resigned (knowing he was about to be impeached). Otherwise Nixon would have been tried for all the shit he pulled relative to Watergate. I'm still pissed off at Ford about that.

[unblock]

5. i don't think the courts have decided that one

but i imagine it's a practical reality, if not a legal one.

some day some prosecutor from some errant state is going to try to bring down a presidency on a trumped-up charge and the supremes will prevent it.

on the other hand, they let a civil case proceed. with the current batch of supremos, it'll all depend on the parties involved....

[Fredda Weinberg]

4. There's immunity for official acts n/t

[sandnsea]

7. Thread hijack

Sorry to OP.

Did anything happen with Volusia and the Bev tapes? What were they exactly? If no federal investigation why?

[Fredda Weinberg]

10. So much for "smoking guns"

As I understand what happened, the tapes weren't offical records, but did contain discrenpancies from the signed forms. The episode made a great story, but there was nothing that proved election fraud.

[Bitwit1234]

8. Charges can be brought after he leaves office

and he can be prosecuted and jailed. AND THE IMPEACHMENT WOULD THEN STAND..I READ THAT SOMEWHERE.

[Fredda Weinberg]

9. Not for official acts, he can't n/t

[onenote]

11. what is possible and what you can realistically hope for are different things

T this point, I think that impeachment, conviction, removal from office and subsequent prosecution and punishment are not something that can be "realistically" hoped for (although that doesn't mean that they can't be hoped for).

In order to change the current reality, investigations would have to produce one or more smoking guns that would cause a bipartisan, widespread consensus to form that chimpy must be removed from office. At the moment,I don't think it is realistic to assume that such a smoking gun (or guns) will appear since, if they do exist, the more realistic assumption is that the administration will suppress their disclosure.

I'm just saying that while there should be investigations, people should be realistic about the possibility that they won't result in an impeaachment proceeding or trial. They will, however, further tarnish the administration and the repub party, imo.