MAYBE

It is 4:29 am and the fuzz is coming off along with the sleep-shut eyes.

Often, early in the morning, before my brain is cluttered with the necessities of life, I think of things that were out there lurking in the shadows, hoping to be discovered.

Today's brilliance is: "Maybe Pelozi took Impeachment off the table because she knew that Bush would pardon Cheney and/or Cheney would pardon Bush.

Oh, fantasies of the early morn...a Post-Term trial for murder and treason being ON THE TABLE!!!!

Can dreams come true???

Technorati Tags:

A President has no power of

Submitted by gazelle1929 on November 18, 2008 - 10:48pm.

A President has no power of pardon for an impeachment:

the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 2, states that the President:

"shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."

Beyond that, there is no way in hell Obama or anyone else is going to try a former President of the US. It just plain is not going to happen. I cannot begin to imagine how that would divide our country and it's exactly the opposite of what Obama is trying to do. that's not a dream you're having, it's a nightmare.

I have a question: You think Bush and/or Cheney could be guilty of treason?

Treason is the only crime defined in our Constitution:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." Constitution of the United States, Article III, Section 3.

Can you set forth any action taken by Cheney or Bush that would fit this definition? I certainly cannot think of one.

As to murder, sending people to make war has never been murder in our or any other legal system that I know of. And so far as I know Bush, unlike Cheney, has never shot anyone, though he did sign a whole damn bunch of death warrants while Governor of Texas. Don't think that counts, though.

Thanks for your insightful

Submitted by barak on November 19, 2008 - 6:03pm.

Thanks for your insightful comments.

I feel they are guilty of treason (in your cited example) because they did give aid and comfort to the people who attacked the USA on Sept 11, 2001. They removed the bin laden family members and other saudis through executive order while all other flights had been cancelled or grounded.

I feel they have given aid and comfort to Iran by starting a false war and causing oil prices to go astronomic. Sure they are down now, but they will never go down to where they were and will, in my opinion, rise substantially soon. This conjecture is, of course, not acceptable in a court of law. I feel that despite protestations, the Saudis ARE our enemies and have no desire to help the USA. Bush's claim to want to create democracy in Iraq is a false one, and he would not do something to help The Kingdom...

Sending soldiers into war is not a crime, but starting a fight and sending soldiers to do your fighting is. The action in Iraq is not a war, ergo sending soldiers there is criminal.

If someone somehow can prove the allegations (which I believe) in the video Loose Change, then both Bush and Cheney are guilty of murder of American Citizens on American soil. See the news article on Bugliosi's 'indictment' for murder. He makes the case much more eloquently than I and with legal knowledge of which I have none.

You can argue that the action in Afghanistan is also not a war, and that was started by Clinton. Go ahead. I don't mind. I like Clinton, but he did not finish the job in Afghanistan and allowed our intelligence forces to deteriorate dramatically. This is not criminal, but sending troops to murder is.

No war should mean no troops. Sadly we have not stuck to that premise for much too long.