Material Witness M.D. from the Bench Mikey–no he diuuunnnnnnt never appoint one did he? Now that’s what I call a real tough, thorough, no conflict of interest investigation. Ethics out the wazoo for Mukasey DOJ. Guaranteed to find out nothing.

In Watergate, we found out most of it because there was a real investigation.

But in Mukasey Waterboardgate, you ain’t gonna find out nothin’ ’bout nothin’ because Obstructionist Material Mike Mukasey ain’t gonna let you.

But today, in Waterboardgate, we have DOJ investigating, well um DOJ. It’s self introspection city in Mukasey-land.

But wait, isn’t Mukasey the sonofabitch on the bench in the Southern District of New York who jailed scores of material witnesses who had done nothing and knew nothing and cut them off from counsel for months? You betyour ass he is. And didn’t Mukasey, whose medical expertise consists of zipping his pants, once do a medical evaluation in his courtroom of a prisoner who was severely beaten and had abdominal injries from the bench with “Look’s Okay to me.” But no one asked Mukasey where the judge did his medical training, because he didn’t. He couldn’t get into a med school or stay in one in NYC.

Isn’t Mukasey the coniving sonofabitch who is dedicated to torture and the Unitary Executive Doctrine refusing to say what waterboarding is or that it’s torture with dumb compliant Senate Judiciary waving him through with Lahey now looking like the complete idiot he is?

You betcha. The most intense, and only meaningful investigation is going to take place on the threads of blogs likeEW, and FDL not at DOJ/FBI.

Per Article II:

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

But there is a spectrum of opinions as to what that means. Does it mean that the president can’t pardon someone out of impeachment?

Definitely that…it’s pretty explicit in the Article.

Does it mean that he can’t pardon an impeached person out of criminal liability for the underlying crime?

That’s a bit trickier. Impeachment doesn’t seem to involve any penalties other than removal from office, denial of the emoluments of office, and the banning from future office-holding. If so then it’s unlikely that the Article actually blocks a pardon for criminal charges.

Does it mean that after he/she is indicted he cannot pardon anyone?

That, I hadn’t even thought about. But indictment (for crime?) isn’t a conviction for impeachment.

Does it invalidate pardons he/she has already issued?

Would it invalidate the convictions of a judge? Would it invalidate the treaties or laws signed by a President? I don’t think that these are regarded as emoluments (personal benefits of former office…like a pension). Conviction of impeachable offenses would remove one from expressing the powers in the future, but not past decisions.

And when does it become “a case of impeachment: at the beginning of the inquiry, when the House votes articles of impeachment, or upon conviction in the Senate”? All of these are untested open questions.

Good point. I suspect that it would actually be a “case of impeachment” once the House as a whole votes on, and approves, the charges advanced by the Judiciary Committee. Thus one could argue that subsequent pardons or acts could be rescinded if the conviction is upheld. But that would risk the laws passed by Congress and signed by a President. Would Clinton’s signings have been terminated IF he had been convicted for the Monica case?

After all, Congress is essentially saying that the officeholder has violated his oath. But would reversals only affect issues relative to the charges of impeachment. Would all pardons and commutations be withdrawn (even in unrelated cases?).

I’ve never heard of an instance where a judges actions, even those after they were impeached, were reversed or retried. That would be where the case law might be. But I suspect that the trials stood. But I could be wrong. But given that no President ahs been convicted it would be the impeachment trials of judges and other officials where you’d find the case law.

Why don’t you folks get it.

I get it so much I proposed it back in the summer.

The real question is whether the Congress sees a way to fit it into their schedule and whether they still think it’s pointless since Senate Repubs will just block any conviction try.

Not one more fucking judge.

I was talking with a couple of Repub acquaintances last Saturday and this topic came up. The more Righty one couldn’t believe me and laughed when I said there were more Righty judges. He got red in the face and angry and was just beside himself.

I told him there was only one district dominated by Libs (the 9th out West) and one or two were tied and the rest were all Repub. He acted like I had lost my mind.

I know the Truth is foreign to some of those folks, so I just said, “Go look it up on the Internet. I’m sorry, but it’s true”

If they don’t know the federal bench is mostly Repub, then what exactly did they think they were getting with their Repub presidents since Reagan?

Wait for it… the dick/george double-reverse backscratch.