And Obama might pull one little trick out of his bag…he could create a board to grant pardons for little fish if the told all (under the threat of perjury). A “Truth and Reconciliation Commission”. That way he could focus on prosecuting the real instigators of the mess.

Oh, I do so like your mind.

I’ve been talking about this possibility of “postresignation” or post-incumbency” impeachment for about two years now. It was the one way forward when I saw that a) Nancy P. wasn’t going to put any food on the table because she had so much else to do (hah-hah); b) the Republicans would simply filibuster everything to death; and c) things, even if they got started, would likely carry over into the next term.

I’d like to say that people got some of their ideas about this from my postings (strongly defending the option) here on this site…but I suspect that there were other folks (real lawyers) who were thinking about this.

Here’s a recent article from http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1215-25.htm ">John Dean on “Post-Incumbency” Impeachment

And guess who were raising the Belknap issue before this? In fact there are many Republicans (possibly even Limbaugh) who supported the impeachment of Clinton after he left office due to the Marc Rich pardon. A bit of sweet irony there.
Arlen Specter: “It’s legal to impeach Clinton over Rich Pardon”

The HouseJudiciary Committee decided to issue Bills of Impeachment in any case after resolving that the Constitution also intended the effects of impeachment to be “prospective” (not merely the present, but any future office or emoulment) and the House as a whole concurred. Thus they voted to send the Bills to the Senate. Here too the issue was debated. Some argued that Belknap had already resigned, and, in addition, would be at the mercy of the courts for any criminal action. They felt that the trial was thus purely symbolic and political theater with no real impact. Others, Grant partisans, were concerned that it would taint the Administration with scandal. Although the vote was close the Senate also voted that they had the legal right and responsibility to impeach Belknap.

The trial was held, and again the same arguments I listed above were presented to oppose Belknap’s CONVICTION by impeachment. “Let the courts handle this!”, “He’s suffered enough”, “This looks bad for Grant”, “He’s quit, and now faces criminal charges…what we could do is so minor compared to THAT.”

William W. Belknap
NY Times “Belknap Faces Impeachment Trial”

In the end Belknap was acquitted in the impeachment trial. It took about three Senators to shift from the group that supported impeachment (processually) to the “no conviction” camp.

So, it’s on the record that Congress holds that impeachment can take place even after an individual leaves office…EVEN IF they face prosecution in the courts.

Now, as I see it, any sort of pardon would kick up the importance of IMPEACHMENT, simply because it would allow pardoned individuals not only to escape punishment…but to potentially inflict their corruption onto the American public again.

The HouseJudiciary Committee decided to issue Bills of Impeachment in any case after resolving that the Constitution also intended the effects of impeachment to be “prospective” (not merely the present, but any future office or emoulment) and the House as a whole concurred. Thus they voted to send the Bills to the Senate. Here too the issue was debated. Some argued that Belknap had already resigned, and, in addition, would be at the mercy of the courts for any criminal action. They felt that the trial was thus purely symbolic and political theater with no real impact. Others, Grant partisans, were concerned that it would taint the Administration with scandal. Although the vote was close the Senate also voted that they had the legal right and responsibility to impeach Belknap.

The trial was held, and again the same arguments I listed above were presented to oppose Belknap’s CONVICTION by impeachment. “Let the courts handle this!”, “He’s suffered enough”, “This looks bad for Grant”, “He’s quit, and now faces criminal charges…what we could do is so minor compared to THAT.”

In the end Belknap was acquitted in the impeachment trial. It took about three Senators to shift from the group that supported impeachment (processually) to the “no conviction” camp.

So, it’s on the record that Congress holds that impeachment can take place even after an individual leaves office…EVEN IF they face prosecution in the courts.

Now, as I see it, any sort of pardon would kick up the importance of IMPEACHMENT, simply because it would allow pardoned individuals not only to escape punishment…but to potentially inflict their corruption onto the American public again.

Ultimately Babcock was acquitted by the jury, despite very strong physical and testimonial evidence of his involvement. Babcock was later indicted for evidence tampering…in an effort to implicate a reformer who had attacked Babcock in the scandal. Babcock was acquitted a second time, lthough there was evidence of jury-rigging. Grant allowed Babcock to stay for a time as his Secretary, but eventually sent him from the limelight as Superintendent of Lighthouses. He died in a drowning while his boat capsized during an inspection.