If * himself got indicted in the Plame case, could he pardon himself?

[Sperk]

or does he have to wait for Jebby (stolen election 2008)to pardon him?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. nothing in the constitution to prevent it.

how is that for a scary thought?

[longship]

32. Except for the fact that the President cannot be indicted.

He must be impeached by the House of Reps, and convicted by the Senate.

The House does the "indictment" part.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

38. but there is nothing to prevent

himself pardoning himself and his entire den of thieves, if he so chose.

[longship]

39. Yes, there is.

It's called abuse of power and obstruction of justice. There would be articles of impeachment passed so quickly that *'s head would be spinning.

on edit: I'd like to believe that would happen. I think * knows better than to try such a thing.

[kestrel91316]

40. Sorry, no, the Republicans wouldn't even impeach if .............

Bush committed abuse of power and obstruction of justice on TV on the White House lawn. They will NEVER do anything to their great leader. He is the Second Coming of Christ to them (he's the Antichrist to me, lol).

[longship]

41. I would hope that that isn't true.

I'd like to think that some Reps would turn against him. We'll know soon enough, I think. He didn't hold on Bolton. He didn't hold on Stem Cell. He almost failed on CAFTA.

I truly believe that this thing is going to break soon. The people are tiring of * and his abuses. They are now beginning to come to the conclusion that he lied us into war. When the Rove affair breaks big, it may be enough to push it all over.

Don't forget, Nixon had a firm grip on the Repugs, too. But they turned. When the groundswell is saying "impeach him" the House will do their job, or they will be out on their miserable arses.

[kestrel91316]

42. The problem now is that the Repubs know they will NOT be .......

out on their arses if they continue to support Bush, because the RW fascists OWN THE VOTING MACHINES. We can no longer remove them.

[longship]

43. Well, they have to be very, very careful

The data on the voting machines is not as compelling as the information in Ohio on gaming the system, moving machines around, withholding machines, putting obsticles in the way of minority voting, etc.

They could still go down for that without having to bother with the voting machine issue. Also, in spite of what some are saying, statistical analysis does not *prove* that the machines were jiggered. But we *do* know about the system being jiggered.

But we can fight the system jiggering. Also, if they are jiggering the machines, they can only go so far without being caught. I'd say that the exit polls were not far enough out of wack for this to have happened in 2004. But if they push things further, the chances of it showing up are increased.

If Dems take the House and Senate races in a groundswell of support, no small amount of jiggering is going to fix it. They can swing the vote a percent or maybe two, but 2-3 percent or more would be near impossible without raising flags.

Also, I think the press is going to be watching the 2006 election much, much closer, and with a much more jaundiced eye.

[wli]

44. Pope John Paul II thought he may have been the antichrist

Seriously disturbing stuff.

[still_one]

2. no, and he will pardon the others before it gets that far

[FreedomAngel82]

4. Probably

His brain first of course.

[jobycom]

16. That would only work

if all the evidence against him came from the people he pardoned. Bush Daddy skated on treason because he pardoned all the people who could have been offered immunity to testify against him. After the pardon, they had nothing to be offered immunity for, thus the IC's leverage was gone.

If there are witnesses against W who will testify voluntarily, a pardon would do no good. Also, if the witnesses are not themselves accused of crimes, they can't plead the Fifth, because that only protects against self-incrimination.

[still_one]

18. agreed, but I think the odds are against us

then again, I have always said what will save this republic will be someone from the other side, not the democrats who mostly rubber stamped everything bush put forward

The amazing exception is bolton

[jobycom]

23. Oh, quit attacking the Dems

When they get some power to do anything else, then I'll listen.

As for where the impeachment would come from, it WON'T come from his party. They goose step to everything he says. IF he's impeached, and it won't happen, but IF he's impeached, it will be because a prosecutor has found so much evidence that no one can deny it. Then the people will turn on Bush, and then some Repubs will try to pretend they are leading the charge, along with the Democrats.

As it stands now, the Democrats can't get any bill even introduced without Republicans allowing it, so of course they aren't doing anything. You and I haven't been able to pass any legislation, either. We have about as much clout in Congress right now as the Dems.

[still_one]

46. I agree, but much of that is because when we did have some power

the republican lite democrats laid down and gave these criminals everything they wanted

Sorry, but I will attack the democrats who are allowing bush and the neocons to destroy MY COUNTRY!!!

[jobycom]

50. Everything they wanted?

There's a lot the Republicans didn't get, and the last time the Dems held full power was 94, and then only for two years. Since then, and for over a decade before then, the Democrats have held partial or no power. Since 2002, we may as well have been hired to wash the dishes, for all the good we can do.

[leftofthedial]

3. I don't know if he can pardon himself

He definitely will take a page from poppy's playbook and pardon all his fellow criminals though

[BlueEyedSon]

5. He pardons Cheney, then resigns, then Cheney pardons him.

[H2O Man]

6. Presidents are not indicted .....

if there is evidence he committed a crime, he will be impeached. And no, he can not pardon himself.

[Sperk]

11. so a Pres. can do whatever he wants and the worst thing that can

happen to him is he is impeached? I don't get it. Surely the justice dept can bring criminal charges against a pres if they can prove that a crime was committed, no?
I'm talking theoretically, of course, I know that consequences are only for the weaker among us.

[longship]

26. Nope. Sorry.

The president cannot be indicted. He must be impeached *and* removed from office before that can happen. Simple impeachment is not sufficient. The Senate must convict him after he's impeached. We need *both* houses of Congress to accomplish this.

[jobycom]

12. Are you sure that's right?

Impeachment is the trial and vote to remove from office. Once he's removed, can he be indicted and convicted of crimes he committed while president? And can he be indicted of crimes that aren't impeachable? They talked about doing it to Clinton. Are you sure he's prevented from pardoning himself from those crimes?

He's definitely forbidden from pardoning any impeachment.

[H2O Man]

14. Once he's removed

he's not president.

[Sperk]

15. so you need to have a congress that is willing to impeach a pres.

otherwise he is free to do whatever? The justice dept has no recourse? Shite.

[jobycom]

17. But he could pardon himself of the crimes before he was removed

Is a sitting president immune from indictment? I don't think he is. I know Congress is when it's in session, but I don't know where it states that the president is immune.

[H2O Man]

19. No, he can't. n/t

[jobycom]

21. Why? I'm not sure what you're saying here

Where and how is he prevented? He's given the power to pardon except in cases of impeachment. I don't see where that power can't apply to his own pardon. He can't pardon the impeachment, but why can't he pardon himself on non-impeachable offenses? For that matter, it's not even clear in the Constitution that he can't pardon himself for the criminal aspects of impeachable crimes. It only says he can't pardon impeachments.

I'm not arguing, I'm asking. You're not spelling anything out.

[H2O Man]

22. Because of the

fact that those potential crimes he could be charged with are by definition those he could be impeached for. They are one the same.

[H2O Man]

24. answer: part two ....

I'm not trying to avoid answering .... I'm not able to put in much time right now .... but the Founding Fathers recognized the danger of an out-of-control executive. The genius of impeachment powers residing in the legislative branch is that -- in theory -- it lessons the ability of the executive to manipulate and exert too much influence on proceedings into presidential wrong-doing.

There are concerns about if this congress (both House and Senate) could actually be impartial if there are determinations by the Fitzgerald investigation that indicate the need for impeachment. Believe me -- right now the republicans are spewing disinformation on Rove and Wilson -- but when Fitzgerald lays out the case, there will be a shift.

[jobycom]

27. I get all that. My hangup is on the penalties AFTER he leaves office

I mistated something above. There are no "non-impeachable" offenses, but there are limits on which offenses could result in removal.

But after removal--or voluntary exit--a former president can be tried. he can't pardon himself (or anyone else) from impeachment, but as you pointed out, once he's out of office impeachment no longer applies. He can still be tried in civilian court. In that case, it isn't an impeachment anymore. So why can't he pardon himself from "all crimes relating to this issue in a civilian court?"

I'm not saying he can't, I just don't see where it's forbidden. Is it because they would be the same crimes, even though they would be tried in different courts and under different laws?

[H2O Man]

37. The senate

hearing is the criminal trial. One does not face double jeapardy.

The issues with Clinton that have been mentioned in passing involve civil actions.

[jobycom]

49. No, that's wrong.

The Constitution is quite explicit that after an impeachment, the person has to face criminal penalties.

"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

And Clinton's issues weren't over the civil stuff. They were over the perjury and obstruction stuff, and that was criminal, even if they stemmed from a civil trial.

[H2O Man]

54. You're absolutely right ...

which makes me absolutely wrong! Obviously, Ford would not have pardoned Nixon otherwise. What the heck was I thinking of? Thanks for pointing that out.

[jobycom]

55. You weren't absolutely wrong, just missed a point

I googled, actually, and found a few articles on Clinton and whether he could pardon himself. Legal scholars were divided, so there's no reason we shouldn't be.

Ultimately, it would come down to the judge in the trial if a president did pardon himself and was brought to trial after impeachment. The judge could rule the pardon was invalid, for a number of reasons (I linked an article somewhere downthread), or the judge could decide that he had no authority to decide, in which case the pardon would stand.

It would be cool to watch, wouldn't it? I mean, it would only occur after Bush was impeached and removed, and pardoning himself would be the lowest of low, so his own supporters would largely turn on him. It would be interesting to watch it play out.

For the record, Clinton promised he would not pardon himself, if it came to that.

[H2O Man]

56. No, I was wrong

on the one point for sure .... I had thought of a part in Article 3, near the end of the second section .... and instead of checking, I assumed I knew what I was talking about. The obvious example of how wrong I was is Ford with Nixon. I remember years ago, reading Vince Bugliosi's saying that the most faded ink is better than the best memory!

I think we are in for a show-down. And I think it's getting closer. On one hand, I do not think that there should be any leaks -- none -- in a grand jury. So I resent like hell when the attorneys for Rove and Libby are leaking to the press. Aren't these the same ones who were saying that jailing Miller would end people talking to reporters?

However, I think it is very unlikely that they would be talking to the media if they weren't really aware of a serious situation building.

[Swamp Rat]

57. At which point IT will send an SOS to the Mothership...

:D

[longship]

28. No, Impeachment is

The House of Reps bringing charges against a sitting officer of the government after which there is a trial in the Senate for removal from office.

[longship]

34. That's not what impeachment is.

Impeachment is the bring forth of charges by the House of Representatives. Clinton was impeached, but then prevailed in the Senate trial.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

7. Even if he does.... there will still be pitchforks and torches enough

to git 'er done.

[Greeby]

8. Worth remembering what Malloy said

The IIPA is the only law under which the President and Vice President can be indicted for murder

[Spock_is_Skeptical]

9. He will if it comes to that, but I'm sure Jeb Boy will pardon him...

after stolen election 2008.

[jobycom]

10. "Except in cases of impeachment."

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

---

He can't pardon himself from being impeached. It's vague on whether he can pardon himself of the criminal penalty for the impeachable crime.

[alfredo]

13. Couldn't he order the evidence classified, making

it difficult to impeach him? Could his sealing of his presidential papers prevent prosecutors from seeking war crime charges against him?

[jobycom]

20. Congress and/or SCOTUS should be able to unseal the documents

Sealing them would look ver incriminating, too. Nixon resigned after his "executive priviledge" claim fell apart, and he knew he would have to turn over the tapes.

[alfredo]

25. Could he claim national security because it deals with

the CIA? If anything he could then tie it up until it would be too late to do anything. I don't see a replublican congress impeaching bush no matter what he does.

[longship]

29. Nixon tried that.

It didn't work.

[alfredo]

31. I was thinking that even though it won't work in the end,

he can stall it, and could run out the clock on impeachment.


A solid republican SC could rule in his favor.

[H2O Man]

48. That's the key .....

there is no executive privilege in impeachment hearings. None.

[longship]

35. Consider this, though.

He can't pardon himself from being impeached. It's vague on whether he can pardon himself of the criminal penalty for the impeachable crime.

Except that if he is impeached and does not prevail in the Senate trial, he will be immediately removed from office and will not have the power to grant clemency.

I just don't think a President has that power. If * tries it, it certainly might form the basis of yet another "abuse of power" article of impeachment.

[jobycom]

51. Just found this on Clinton pardoning himself

http://slate.msn.com/id/1002012/

Summary: Clinton promised not to pardon himself. Basically, though, there was debate whether he could or not, for many of the same reasons we discussed here. Ultimately, if Clinton would have been removed from office, and Starr would have prosecuted him before a court, that judge would have to decide whether the pardon was legal. Here it gets interesting:

"Amazingly, the judge might rule that she isn't permitted to interpret the meaning of the Constitution in this matter. This is because the Supreme Court has ruled that certain constitutional interpretations are the province of "political" branches, not the judicial branch. (For instance, the Supreme Court refused to comment upon whether the 1993 Senate trial of Judge Walter Nixon was constitutional or not, saying that only the Senate could make that decision.) By this reasoning, only the president can interpret the scope of the presidential pardon."

[sattahipdeep]

30. After all tricky dicky recieved

nothing but full retirement at tax payer expense.

[Sgent]

33. As long as he's president

He can just dismiss any indictment's filed against him, since he's the chief law enforcement officer in the country.

After being removed, he no longer could do this.

The reality is that no sitting president will ever go to trial or have to pardon himself. He will either have to be impeached/removed, or they will have to wait until he's out of office.

[longship]

36. And add another article of impeachment to the ledger.

This is a clear obstruction of justice and abuse of power. That's the only way to look at it. That's precisely why Nixon's firing of Archibald Cox was viewed by everybody as "the line" Nixon crossed to enable impeachment proceedings to begin. Once he so clearly and brashly interfered with the investigation of his own WH, support amongst already wary Republican centrists evaporated.

Already in trouble, the smoking gun tape hit in August and drove Nixon's resignation. By that time, not even conservatives were supporting him. If he had been impeached, he would not have prevailed in the Senate. Well over 2/3 would have convicted him.

[wli]

45. he won't have to

All possible avenues for prosecution are covered. The Federalist Society owns the courts, The neofascists control both houses. Neofascist plants in the FBI, Homeland Security, etc. are all there to squash the investigations and criminal suits.

What's going to happen is probably going to be exposure followed by extralegal actions by government agencies (regardless of whether it's in the neofascists' favor or to their detriment), and completely out of the people's hands.

[Jack Rabbit]

47. Yes

The president's power to pardon in cases other than impeachment is unlimited.

[lovuian]

52. He could but the country would be in Chaos!!!

so it wouldn't work!!!

[tinfoilinfor2005]

53. But since he is physically unable to utter the words "I'm sorry"

then it also stands to reason that he wouldn't be able to say "Pardon Me." This could end up in our favor. (like a republican run house is ever going to impeach him...not even when those lipsticked pigs fly)