Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

branford

(4,462 posts)
31. I'm not quite sure what you're trying to state.
Sat Jul 27, 2013, 10:50 PM
Jul 2013

First, we obviously agree that a former president would not have immunity for a current crime.

I assume from the substance of your comments that you believe that GWB should and will be prosecuted for the Bush v. Gore election issues in Florida in 2000, and that such prosecution will occur due to recent changes to the leadership of the Florida Bar Association. Whether or not morally justified, I cannot fathom such an outcome, both legally and politically. First, the election matters have been extensively litigated in both the Supreme Court of the United States and Florida's own Supreme Court. I do not recall any substantive, no less proven, allegations of criminal wrongdoing in either set of proceedings. Such allegations would have necessarily been raised due to their impact on the outcome of the litigation. Moreover, I similarly do not recall any allegations that GWB either personally ordered or directly conspired to breach any election law. Statute of limitation problems would also almost certainly prohibit any prosecution even with an admission of wrongdoing.

I also do not know how the new change in leadership of the Florida Bar Association would have any impact on whether to charge the former president with a crime. Charging decisions are solely in the discretion of the local and state prosecutors for state crimes, and the Attorney General or local United States Attorneys in Florida in connection with any federal crime. The Florida Bar Association only has jurisdiction concerning attorney discipline in Florida and other unrelated ancillary matters. To the extent that a criminal matter could legally proceed, no appointed or elected official with charging authority in either Florida or the federal government has even hinted at the suggestion that they would investigate the former president concerning any criminal matter, no less actually bring charges. I don't even think that they would be able to legally or politically extradite the president from Texas(!!!) to Florida. As the former president is not a member of the Florida bar, he is also not in any jeopardy of discipline.

If I misinterpreted any of your points, kindly clarify and I will gladly address them to the best of my non-election, non-criminal lawyer ability.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

de jure, no; de facto, yes. nt delrem Jul 2013 #1
This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #7
First answer is the correct answer. nt means no text, there's nothing in the body of the reply. n/t Egalitarian Thug Jul 2013 #18
nt or n/t = "no text". nt heh delrem Jul 2013 #20
What does 'nt heh' mean? :) - nt (heh :) HardTimes99 Jul 2013 #73
This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #2
This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #13
No, he not going to be arrested. former9thward Jul 2013 #19
I don't think so, I think so, and there's no fucking way tularetom Jul 2013 #3
This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #5
I mean no matter WTF he's guilty of, THIS administration won't do squat about it tularetom Jul 2013 #12
This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #16
perhaps he'll partake in some med maryjane elehhhhna Jul 2013 #48
This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #9
I guess that's what I mean tularetom Jul 2013 #15
This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #17
POTUS like any other LEO had limited personal immunity Recursion Jul 2013 #4
This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #6
I was taking about what he did while President Recursion Jul 2013 #8
This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #10
Well, he's rich and famous Recursion Jul 2013 #11
This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #14
G H W Bush is the only ex-President, who reads the daily briefings iemitsu Jul 2013 #51
This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #52
You have my compassion and goodwill in your fight against the powerful Bush Crime Family. iemitsu Jul 2013 #53
This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #54
Yep, I am for the "equal justice for all" policy that we so often iemitsu Jul 2013 #60
This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #61
Sounds like they have really given you the run-a-round. iemitsu Jul 2013 #66
This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #69
Thanks for the link to the evidence. iemitsu Jul 2013 #77
when the director of the cia becomes president, it can't be good spanone Jul 2013 #68
You got that one right, iemitsu Jul 2013 #70
This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #71
This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #72
This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #74
This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #76
It is very unlikely that a former president of the USA would ever face criminal prosecution. branford Jul 2013 #21
This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #22
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to state. branford Jul 2013 #31
As long as he was not given a blanket pardon for acts in office, yes to both. Agnosticsherbet Jul 2013 #23
This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #24
After Democrats took control of the House in 2006, talk about impeachment and investigations shrunk Agnosticsherbet Jul 2013 #26
This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #25
I think the "anyone" is an enormous overreach. Agnosticsherbet Jul 2013 #27
This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #29
Probably got a secret pardon already elehhhhna Jul 2013 #50
Bill Clinton could not give Bush a pardon because he was not in office Agnosticsherbet Jul 2013 #56
I think there is a reluctance to do this for fear we'll end up being a country pnwmom Jul 2013 #28
This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #30
You don't think we'd have bogus prosecutions? pnwmom Jul 2013 #37
I very much agree. branford Jul 2013 #32
Welcome to DU, branford! n/t pnwmom Jul 2013 #35
Thank you. branford Jul 2013 #40
This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #36
I am in no way stating that politicians are immune to criminal prosecution. branford Jul 2013 #39
GWB and Cheney should be investigated, indicted and tried for war crimes and HardTimes99 Jul 2013 #75
You may be right. branford Jul 2013 #78
Thank you for your balanced and civil tone. With reference to your second paragraph, the HardTimes99 Jul 2013 #79
You raise many substantive and relevant points. branford Jul 2013 #80
A magisterial response to my late-night fantasy. As perhaps a historical HardTimes99 Jul 2013 #81
Interesting. branford Jul 2013 #82
This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #38
You Nixon reference fails to address the OP or our discussion. branford Jul 2013 #41
1) There is a 5-year statute of limitations. 2) He has and has had de facto immunity from Obama. AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2013 #33
I've asked this before and I'll ask again... brooklynite Jul 2013 #34
You say that "no elected official" called for Bush's impeachment? Do you remember this guy? AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2013 #42
This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #44
Huh???? branford Jul 2013 #45
I stand corrected --- and you've made my point brooklynite Jul 2013 #47
Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) was one. It would be necessary to use Google to find others. AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2013 #49
Thank you for remembering this. nt LWolf Jul 2013 #57
Amen. Thank you. branford Jul 2013 #43
This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #46
I checked out your blog rusty fender Jul 2013 #55
This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #58
This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #59
I hear you rusty fender Jul 2013 #62
This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #63
This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #64
This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #65
The Florida Bar Associate Cannot Indict Anyone branford Jul 2013 #67
This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Aug 2013 #83
This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Sep 2013 #84
This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Sep 2013 #85
This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jun 2014 #86
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»This message was self-del...»Reply #31