A Question for Lawyers

George W. Bush is a criminal. He has blatantly broken the law in a major way. There is no reasonable doubt about this. He has admitted it. Apparently the lesson the Republicans learned from Watergate was that it’s not the crime that gets you. It’s the cover-up. As long as you freely admit that you broke the law, you have nothing to fear.

There seems to be little chance of him being tried, much less convicted for his crimes. Unlike our last president, he won’t be shamed into appointing a special prosecutor to investigate himself. Congress is in the hands of a dishonest and dishonorable Republican amen chorus that acts as if the only crime worth considering is a Democrat getting a blow job.

So here’s my question for the lawyers: is it possible for anyone else to indict and try the president? If the president has committed a federal crime (and he has) and Congress won’t act, does anyone else have jurisdiction? Can a federal prosecutor, a local district attorney, a low-level functionary in the Attorney General’s office, or anyone else indict and try the man? Is there a lawyer in the house?

2 Responses to “A Question for Lawyers”

  1. John Cowan Says:

    Prosecutorial discretion over who gets prosecuted and who does not is, generally speaking, absolute. The Attorney General (and all federal prosecutors work for him and have to do what he says) can decide not to prosecute (which he has), and no one has standing to compel him to do so. The remedy can only be political.

  2. John Cowan Says:

    P.S. I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice.

Leave a Reply