Is an impeachable for W. to pardon Rove to supress his testimony?

[skip fox]

That is a question that I hope becomes very relevant when Rove resigns and W. pardons him.

Possibilities:

1.) W. keeps Rove on despite indictments or information in Fitzgerald's report (even after a high-ranking group of Republican congresspeople and senators meet with the president). Equals MAJOR political damage.

2.) Rove resigns and is not gien a pardon. (Would Bush avoid an impeachable offense to save his "brain"?)

3.) Rove resigns and is pardoned. (Therefore W. is either not worried about Rove's testimony involving him, but may be worried what he might say about others, or W. is ready to commit an impeachable offense for Rove.)

[SteppingRazor]

1. It's not impeachable...

Did anyone cry "IMPEACH!" when Bush Senior pardoned everyone involved in Iran-Contra?

[kenny blankenship]

2. Impeachment is a release valve for something else

when the release valve fails in its function. And fails and fails and fails... It's time for something else.

[SteppingRazor]

13. I disagree.

The president can pretty much pardon anyone, anytime, for any reason. Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 74 "Humanity and good policy conspire to dictate, that the benign prerogative of pardoning should be as little as possible fettered or embarrassed." That's played out in cases since. No one has challenged a presidential pardon in any meaningful way, to my memory. Only political fallout stalls presidential pardons -- as with Clinton when he pardoned a big-time donor upon leaving office.
The Constitution's only exception to the pardon is in cases of impeachment.

[SteppingRazor]

14. Oops. Should've been in response to Warrens n/t

[warrens]

12. He was leaving office

It could be obstruction of justice if it was done to suppress testimony. It would be an impeachable offense for sure.

[IChing]

16. The law on Pardons here

Pardons can take place before or after a criminal proceeding. President Gerald Ford, for example, pardoned Richard Nixon before Nixon was ever charged with, let alone convicted, of any crime. Such pardons, however, are rare, and general procedures dictate that at least five years of a sentence should be served before a pardon is considered. In the Constitutional Convention of 1787, this issue was brought up and debated quickly, with no restriction on when a pardon might be granted, suggested by James Wilson as a way of obtaining the testimony of accomplices.

There are, however, things that a pardon cannot cover. The first and most obvious is impeachment, since it is specifically excepted in the Constitution. Civil liability cannot be excused - a harm against another can still be considered a harm even if there is no longer any criminal liability. Contempts of court cannot be pardoned, as they are offenses against the dignity of the court, and not necessarily offenses against the law. In the Constitutional Convention, a proposal to except treason was popular, but was defeated when the talk turned to granting the Senate only the power to pardon treason.

The U.S. Constitution grants the power to pardon to the President. In keeping with the feeling of the day, expressed in Hamilton's words, the power to pardon is virtually unqualified:

The President ... shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

A presidential pardon can be granted at any time after commission of the offense: the pardoned person need not have been convicted or even formally charged with a crime. In the overwhelming majority of cases, however, the Pardon Attorney will only consider petitions from persons who have completed their sentences and, in addition, have demonstrated their ability to lead a responsible and productive life for a significant period after conviction or release from confinement.

[skip fox]

17. A fine post. It's substance may come in handy in short order.

:toast:

[IChing]

19. Thanks but I also think that the Republican Congress is also at risk

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1948564&mesg_id=1948564

[atre]

22. Just to clarify...

The President's pardon power also does not extend to state crimes. It is expressly limited to "offenses against the United States" (i.e. federal crimes). Therefore, if the charges can be converted to offenses against the Commonwealth of Virginia (such as the obstruction of justice charge), the President's pardon power would be inoperative.

[rox63]

3. I don't think a pardon

would necessarily prevent Rove from being compelled to testify. It would just mean that he wouldn't personally have to go to jail as a result of the investigation. Just because someone has been pardoned, that doesn't prevent them from being obligated to testify.

[skip fox]

10. What's to assure that an pardoned Rovew ould tell the truth if

he could never suffer any penalities in the case? Why couldn't he even answer in nonsense syllables?

I'm not be sarcastic; I'm asking.

[jobendorfer]

18. the pardon wouldn't protect him from subsequent perjury

If Rove were to testify after being pardoned, and he perjured
himself during that testimony, he would be subject to perjury
charges. He probably couldn't refuse to testify on 5th amendment
grounds, either.

J.

[atre]

4. An impeachable offense is whatever the House says is impeachable

The Supreme Court has made clear that it won't intervene in disputes that relate to the impeachment process out of respect for the coordinate branches of government.

[CottonBear]

5. Doesn't one have to be convicted prior to being pardoned? n/t

[SteppingRazor]

6. No -- Ford pardoned Nixon, after all. n/t

[CottonBear]

21. But he resigned in shame first after giving a speech to the nation.

:( :( :( :( :( Oh well. I'm depressed.

[kenny blankenship]

7. Sadly, no.

[Jokerman]

8. Nixon never even stood trial and Jerry Ford pardoned him. n/t

[MrBenchley]

9. Not sure what you're asking...

If you want to know "Does what was done rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors?" as set in the Constitution" well, yeah, that standard was surpassed a long long time ago.

If you mean, "Will that get the Republican Congress off their duff to impeach the corrupt drunk?", it all depends on how much uproar there is as elections approach. Would pardoning Rove tip the balance? Anybody's guess.

It's telling, though, that the first and only time a major pollster (Zogby) asked a question about impeaching pResident Weaksuck, the number saying "Yes" was 42%. That's higher than public support in the polls for impeaching Bill Clinton at any time during that farce, including the day he was impeached, even after years of 24/7 GOP propaganda.

It all becomes a question of how much of a public liability the "war pResident" and his clique are to the GOP as the election approaches. And with every day he hasn't fired anybody, the liability grows. I don't think the "only if convicted of a crime" dodge worked.

[kenny blankenship]

11. Has there ever been a Presidential pardon

that was just overwhelmingly in the public interest or otherwise indisputably justified ?

[MrBenchley]

20. Of course...

Eugene Debs, for one...

[DoYouEverWonder]

15. Bush is an unindicted co-conspirator

He crossed over the line last week when he choose loyalty to his friend Karl Rove over loyalty to his country.

If Fitzgerald plays his hand right, Bu$h won't be able to do much except work on his own resignation speech.