the unlikely event
better to wish for the Wookie to become the Galactic Emperor. if you are going to fantasize go big.

ND, the only requirements for President are that you are 35 years old and a natural born citizen. So, while that excludes a narcissistic orangutan, someone like Trump is eligible. On the other hand, according to the Judiciary Act of 1789:

"And there shall also be appointed a meet person, learned in the law, to act as attorney-general for the United States, who shall be sworn or affirmed to a faithful execution of his office; whose duty it shall be to prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned, and to give his advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by the President of the United States, or when requested by the heads of any of the departments, touching any matters that may concern their departments, and shall receive such compensation for his services as shall by law be provided."

So it looks like he need not be a member of the bar in good standing as long as he is "learned in the law". Thank you for your insight.

Furthermore it is nearly impossible be convicted of perjury before congress.
Obama's boy former CIA director Michael Hayden avoided it.

The Senate report on the CIA's interrogation program included a lengthy section outlining ways in which former CIA director Michael Hayden misled Congress. It's against the law to lie to Congress, but proving that Hayden did that would be so difficult that it would verge on impossible, says a D.C. lawyer specializing in white-collar government litigation.

There are two statutes of U.S. Code that govern perjury before Congress. Section 1621 of Title 18, often called the "general perjury" statute, prohibits individuals from lying to Congress while under oath, while Section 1001, also known as the "false statement" statute, covers testimony given while not under oath. A person convicted of perjury could face fines up to $100,000 or up to five years in jail.

But the narrow language of the statutes makes convictions extremely hard to come by. “The perjury statute is a technical statute," explains Mark Hopson, managing partner at Sidney Austin LLP's Washington office. "It is especially difficult, if not impossible to prosecute statements that may be misleading or evasive but subject to an arguably truthful interpretation.”

The proof is in the numbers. According to Reuters, lawyer P.J. Meitl conducted a study in 2007 and found only six people who were convicted of perjury or related charges before Congress, going back to the 1940s. Two of the most famous convictions arose from the Watergate scandal during Richard Nixon's presidency.

In another notable conviction in recent memory, Clair George, a high-ranking CIA official in the 1980s, was found guilty of lying to Congress about his knowledge of the Iran-contra scandal, though he was later pardoned. And one of the highest profile cases in recent years ended in acquittal: legendary baseball player Roger Clemens was charged with lying to Congress in 2008 about his use of performance-enhancing drugs, but he was acquitted of all charges.

Hayden denies that he lied to Congress. But even if he were deliberately evasive or deceptive, it's likely that he wouldn't be convicted of any crime.

http://time.com/3628324/torture-congress-lying-hayden/

Brad, you don't need to prove perjury in order to impeach. You need only convict for "high crimes and misdemeanors" (which includes perjury as but one possibility):

"The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct peculiar to officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, conduct unbecoming, and refusal to obey a lawful order." Wikipedia!

Are we talking impeachment or disbarment?

furthermore impeachment is the same as indictment. as for both conviction at a trial before a punishment. Clinton and A. Johnson were impeached but served out their term.

@ND: The result of Bill Clinton's impeachment process was that Congress acquitted him. Why should that have resulted in him ceasing to be President?

Both Clinton and Johnson while impeached (charged), they both got enough votes not to be removed from office (acquitted). There have been lesser government officials that were impeached and removed from office.

Now both Trump and Pence could be impeached, but probably won't be removed since the Congress is Republican. Trump has possible illegal ties to Russia or his tweet about Obama wire tapping him. Pence for using a private email account for government business and failing to turn over those emails.

Trump has about as many ties to Russia as I do. The answer is zero. Lol.

you've met russian ambassadors at a speech before? you've had business with russia? you've asked Russia to find more emails?

They might well be impeached in 2019 if the GOP loses the house. Barring Trump handing the nuclear codes to Putin personally, the GOP won't impeach Trump no matter what. And barring a cataclysm, Trump won't be convicted so it'd be kind of a waste of time uless simply bringing the giant list of misdeeds with evidence has value.

The only reason it will happen is that the Republicans want Paul Ryan as president. :)

Or Pence. That's a good point. That's a problem with poking the establishment in the eye so often.

With that having been said, I'm hating Paul Ryan more and more by the day.

"With that having been said, I'm hating Paul Ryan more and more by the day."
There is... a House... of Representatives... they call Trump's puppets... and it's been... the ruin... of many poor spines. And God, Paul Ryan's one.

(To the tune of House of the Rising Sun)

of course impeachment has to be for offenses while in office, his being there about 50 days; but why would that matter. of course there is crazy maxine waters, she is a paragon of democratic rational thought:

Maxine Waters: ‘Eventually,’ We’ll Have To Impeach Trump
Rep. Maxine Waters reiterated calls for President Trump’s impeachment during House Democrats’ Monday morning press conference.

When pressed by a reporter, the California Democrat stated she isn’t calling for POTUS’ impeachment, but “he is doing it himself.”

“I have not called for his impeachment,” she claimed. “The statement I made was a statement in response to questions and pleas that I’m getting from many citizens across this country. What are we going to do?” (VIDEO: Waters Struggles To Explain Why Trump Should Be Impeached)

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/06/maxine-waters-eventually-well-have-to-impeach-trump-video/#ixzz4axrtMthK


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/06/maxine-waters-eventually-well-have-to-impeach-trump-video/#ixzz4axrYv7q3

Democratic California Rep. Maxine Waters had difficulty explaining why she thinks Donald Trump’s campaign attacks against Hillary Clinton are impeachable offenses while being interviewed by MSNBC’s Chris Matthews Monday night.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/16/rep-maxine-waters-struggles-to-explain-why-trump-should-be-impeached-video/#ixzz4axrhSBUr

As far as I can tell, no one has actually answered the question. I'm not 100% sure, but I would say that the AG does not have to be a practicing lawyer. The Solicitor General is responsible for arguing cases before the Supreme Court, so he would have to be.

Yes, I think the answer is in the statute. The AG has to be educated in law but not necessarily a member of the bar (although I wonder if the DC bar would feel he is "practicing law without a license). The solicitor general needs to be part of the supe court bar which requires membership in a state bar I believe

Eric Holder was held in contempt of Congress. No one in the Obama admin cared. So, I don't think Sessions has much to worry about. His predecessor already was censored and held in contempt so it's a pretty low bar he has to sink too to get to Holder's level.

Fast and Furious: Eric Holder held in contempt

Attorney General Eric Holder on Wednesday became the first Obama administration official to be held in contempt by a congressional panel. Ed O’Keefe and Sari Horwitz reported from the House Oversight and Government reform Committee hearing on Holder:

A House panel voted Wednesday to hold Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. in contempt for failing to cooperate with a congressional inquiry into Operation “Fast and Furious,” hours after President Obama asserted executive privilege over related documents.

On a party-line decision, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted 23 to 17 to hold Holder in contempt for failing to share documents related to the operation run out of the Phoenix division of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives between 2009 and 2011, with the backing of the U.S. attorney in Phoenix.

The panel’s actions will be reported to the full House, where Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and GOP leaders have scheduled a floor vote for next week unless Holder hands over the documents before then. If passed by the House, the matter would then move to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Ronald C. Machen Jr., who is an employee of the Justice Department.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fast-and-furious-eric-holder-held-in-contempt/2012/06/20/gJQAaEUArV_story.html?utm_term=.ffa262f39640

He didn't even get disbarred!

actually the communists in the california legislature hired him to protect undocumenteds. so much for prudent spending of citizen taxpayer money

That is not surprising lol.

Look out Capt Brad, those wascally Communists are everywhere, under your bed, in your Church, infecting your very own family, in the Republicans, even in the KKK, Carumba, Trump might even be a godless Communist..nowhere is safe...Don't panic, breath slowly