KY Corrupt Stench Rises w/ Pardons by Gov -Plame strategy preview?

[rrrevolution]

The stink of corruption coming out of Kentucky is rivals Ohio if that is possible.

The Governor pardons nine(9) top officials of his Administration charged by a sitting grand jury, and it hardly gets mentioned on the national news -- AP treats it like a partisan squabble, which is then picked up by all other news sources and reprinted.

The Governor is to appear today before the grand jury, but has stated "he will not testify" -- which means he must invoke his 5th Amendment right to remain silent and not give incriminating evidence against himself -- which means he is admitting criminal culpability or he cannot avail himself of the 5th Amendment Privilege in the first place.

News accounts state that subpoena was issued for the Governor to turn over email to the grand jury from an email address the Governor set up using the name of his dog "sadie." Governor not only did not comply after ordered to do so, but found a sympathetic District Court Judge who accepted the emails and promptly sealed them from disclosure to the public.

A quote "bipartisan" committee to investigate patronage hiring, the basis of the charges against the nine(9) pardoned, consists of individuals connected to the charges -- one of the members of the committee helped implement the patronage hiring, expert witnesses called before the "bipartisan" committee were some of the individuals charged with violating the law.

People pay attention here to what is going on -- this is the Bush playbook in action. You might get a preview of what is going to happen in the Plame case just by watching this disaster unfold.

An important note -- you will recall when the California electrical blackouts were caused and coordinated by the various energy traders like ENRON, the guilty parties found a sympathetic US Atty and Judge to dump their incriminating evidence into a case in their district and had the files SEALED FROM PUBLIC VIEW. The energy traders responded to the California attempts to obtain this information by pointing out they could not give them this information since it was contained in the files under seal by the Court.

[NJCher]

1. you don't have a daily that's reporting this?

Cher

[rrrevolution]

2. www.courier-journal.com and others

but are for the most part taking the AP approach.

This article does provide legal implications

www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050830/NEWS0104/508300369/1008

[loudsue]

28. From that article:

"Q: Can a governor pardon himself?

A: Johnson and Salamanca said they believe so. "The section of the constitution does not prohibit him from doing so," Johnson said."

If that's the case, the constitution NEEDS TO BE CHANGED!!

I don't think the framers of these State constitutions had in mind that, if a governor's office is COMPLICIT in the commission of the crime, that he should be allowed to skate.

They just didn't know how bad republicans can really be back then.

:kick:

[Roland99]

5. See post #4 here, too

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1735612&mesg_id=1735627

[peacetalksforall]

3. Under what privilege or law does a Judge get to hide the documents

requested by a grand jury?

[rrrevolution]

4. It falls within the "discretion" of the Judge

A Judge has inherent "discretion" to enter such orders as sealing files and blocking disclosure of docs to promote the ends of justice.

This decision by a Judge can be appealed, but the burden of proof is on the party requesting the sealed docs be released, and there are other obstacles. Appeals to a higher court(ie. court of appeals)are not usually accepted or ruled upon until the Judge completes the case before him and the aggrieved party's appeal rights become effective.

To prevail in having an order set aside which was issued pursuant to the "discretion" of the Judge, the moving party has the burden of proving the Judge "abused his discretion" which is an incredibly high level of proof -- and in a case like this, you have to prove it without seeing or knowing the contents of the very documents you are seeking to disclose. Short of showing "bias or prejudice" of the Judge it is almost impossible to get a higher court to overturn such an order.

Edit: "set aside which was" added.

[peacetalksforall]

7. Thanks. Proves my pitch on what I observe their long range plan

to have been. They started long enough ago to reap some benefits today. They planned, found, groomed, and fulfilled their objectives to get critical people in every job slot and position possible. Judges, lawyers, education boards, civic jobs, media, guest experts, radio and tv producers and celebrities, think tanks, and people to fund it all. They are really good at what they do. I have a growing, dark assessment of their agenda.

Thanks for sharing your knowledge.

[unblock]

6. there's no precedent for reversing a pardon

at least, it's never been attempted, afaik. pardons are intended to be part of the executive 'checks and balances' against the judicial branch (as well as the executive's own overzealous prosecutors) and would likely not be curtailed in any way, though talk does come up from time to time.

for instance, they always talk about limiting the right to pardon when presidents make unpleasant pardons in their last few days in office. but they never do anything about it, and likely never will.

in an extreme case, an administrative official could kill in cold blood and the president could pardon him. the only 'checks and balances' that apply here are at the voting booth.

[Democrat 4 Ever]

8. Well, just for the record, Fletcher didn't pardon anyone, he issued

an amnesty for all of the people under indictment. Could someone explain the difference?

Guess these guys have a free pass to go out and commit any crime they want and since they are operating under amnesty no one could touch them? I know, it is a stretch but how far off the mark is it really?

[rocktivity]

9. Thank you for clearing that up

I couldn't figure out how you can pardon someone who hadn't been convicted of anything.

:headbang:
rocknation

[unblock]

11. the power of pardon doesn't require a previous conviction

ford pardoned nixon for anything he might have done in connection to watergate. bush 41 pardoned several iran-contra figures prior to conviction and even indictment, most notably caspar weinberger. and jimmy carter granted amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants.

[sunnystarr]

13. Are you saying this reporting is false?

FRANKFORT, Ky. (AP) -- A day after issuing pardons to aides and anyone else who might be charged with illegal hiring practices, Gov. Ernie Fletcher made a brief appearance a grand jury Tuesday then said he wanted to put the investigation behind him.

...

The pardons specifically named the nine of the current and former members of his administration who have been charged by the special grand jury. And it sought to extend an amnesty to "any and all persons who have committed, or many be accused of committing, any offense" through Monday.


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/K/KY_POLITICAL_PERSONNEL_KYOL-?SITE=KYLOU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2005-08-29-15-28-17

[rrrevolution]

15. Sunnystarr is right -- Pardon power in KY Constitution, not Amnesty

With looking at the reported link,
Governors draw their power from the Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Kentucky reportedly contains the Governor's power to "pardon" and does not mention "amnesty" at all.

Amnesty is usually used to describe a specific type of governmental action exercised by the Legislative Branch, not the Executive Branch which the Governor heads. Example - Legislature decides to extend a "tax amnesty" to those who have not yet filed returns which are overdue. This could include future actions of the persons targeted by the amnesty.

Pardons on the other hand come from the Executive Branch power conferred upon them by the Constitution--and may not apply to future conduct of the person pardoned. If further offenses occur after the issuance of the initial pardon, then new pardons would be required to wipe out the criminal prosecution for the future acts AFTER they have occurred.

Hope this helps.

[sunnystarr]

20. Thanks for the clarification and source

I wonder if this pardon power has been used to absolve an official on any large scale since Iran-Contra and Bush Sr. It seems that pardons shouldn't be able to be issued by an official seeking to absolve themself from culpability and accountability.

Using the rationale that the public can express their outrage at the ballot box doesn't cut it when the official either isn't running again or is prohibited by term limits from running again.

[rrrevolution]

22. There is long history of outgoing Presidents granting pardons at last min

and many of the pardons granted cannot be explained in any way than there must have been some benefit exchanged which was not revealed.

The Marc Rich pardon that Clinton issued at the eleventh hour cannot be explained in any reasonable manner, just as the Iran Contra pardons cannot be explained in like manner.

But we know that these pardons were not issued just out of the goodness of the heart of the outgoing President. There was some benefit gained. And in the Iran Contra Affair, it stopped the investigation cold right at the footstep of George H.W. Bush.

[sunnystarr]

26. Actually those pardons you mentioned can be

explained easily in a reasonable manner. What's not reasonable is that these pardons were allowed and occurred.

[unblock]

24. regarding pardons being issued to absolve one's own administration,

yes, this is the obvious drawback of an executive's power of pardon. however, i'm not sure there's an easy solution.

consider if the constitution were amended to prohibit pardons of the executive and his closest advisors. this would then leave the administration powerless against congressional investigations, judicial overreach, or certain other executive abuses. imagine, in an extreme case, a state prosecutor going after the vice-president for jaywalking and the court sentencing him to 4 years in prison.

it sounds ridiculous because the power of pardon makes such a political vendetta pure folly. but without that pardon power, the government of a very republican state might do this to a democratic president, or vice versa. we all know from the clinton years what politically motivated prosecutions look like....

[sunnystarr]

25. but Clinton didn't pardon himself ...

Certainly the exception would be for high crimes and misdemeanors ... or it could be spelled out as a certain class of felony.

[rrrevolution]

27. Right You Are .....

The power to pardon is a necessary check on the power of the other two branches of government.

However, democracies which are based on shared power between three(3) branches of authority are indeed messy, and literally owe their very existence and durability to the checks and balances they exercise between themselves.

An example of a failing democracy is when the Executive Branch may dictate to the the other two branches how they must and must not act, much as is occurring today with Bush and his ilk.

If the Judicial Branch does not exert its power when challenged by the Executive Branch, it ceases to carry out its duly authorized oversight and check & balance responsibility. Same with the Legislative Branch when they march in lockstep to the orders of the Executive Branch.

In such case, democracy fails and totalitarian rule ultimately takes its place. Such was the path that Germany took in allowing Hitler to rise to power.

[unblock]

10. you're missing a very KEY point abou the 5th amendment

the 5th amendment protects (among other things), the right not to answer questions that MIGHT incriminate you.

you can invoke the 5th amendment and refuse to answer questions, even if the truthful answer wouldn't incriminate you. it's the QUESTION that determines whether or not you can refuse to answer.

for example, they can't ask someone if they bought illegal drugs. well, they can ask, but their lawyer can object, and the objection should be sustained. it doesn't matter whether the answer is yes or no. legally, there's no presumption of guilt associated with invoking the 5th amendment.

politically, on the other hand, you can certainly wonder why someone would choose to invoke the 5th when they could just give a harmless answer instead. however, there are more reasons to refuse to answer than simple guilt.

[rrrevolution]

12. Sorry Unblock but that is incorrect, Individual invokes 5th ....

You can be be placed under oath and asked any question whatsoever to which you must invoke your 5th Amendment Privilege as your response to each question asked -- the question has nothing to do with the invoking of the privilege.

The question does not determine whether the privilege applies, the person being questioned makes the decision whether to invoke the privilege.

Another point, you may not refuse to be sworn and asked questions for 12 hours to which you must invoke the 5th Amendment privilege as your response to each individual question for the entire 12 hours. A blanket invocation of the 5th Amendment Privilege does NOT apply. Having observed just such a situation as this in a trial setting, the jury can observe the non-verbal facial expressions of the person invoking the privilege even as they refuse to answer and invoke the privilege.

Refusing to take the witness stand and be sworn is a contemptible offense even if you state you are going to invoke the 5th Amendment Privilege in advance.

Edit: "Not" added. "A blanket invocation of the 5th Amendment Privilege does NOT apply."

[unblock]

16. just to clarify;

i agree with the specifics of what you say. yes, the person (or their lawyer) may invoke the 5th amendment and must do so specifically in response to each question they are refusing to answer.

the judge, however, can decide if the 5th amendment applies in each case however, based on the question. for instance, if you invoke the 5th amendment to refuse to answer a question about purchasing illegal drugs, the judge will abide by your refusal to answer.

if, however, you invoke the 5th amendment to refuse to provide your name or address, the judge can force you to answer, or throw you in jail for contempt.

the 5th amendment does not give you the right to refuse to answer any and all questions; it only protects your right to refuse to answer questions that might elicit self-incriminatory testimony.

this is why you have to invoke the 5th for each and every question, because the applicability of the 5th amendment is a separate legal issue for each question.

my point was that the answer to any of the questions is not relevant to the applicability of the 5th amendment.


also, a good defense lawyer (assuming a reasonable judge) would not permit his client to be interrogated in front of a jury for 12 hours if the answer to every question was going to be refusal by 5th. after a short period of time, it becomes obvious that the prosecutor is, in fact, circumventing the 5th by making the non-verbal responses a form of self-incriminatory testimony. a reasonable judge would send the jury away or go to chambers and hash out what the permitted lines of questioning would be.

[rrrevolution]

18. To be more technical .....

It makes a difference what the venue is when you decide to invoke the 5th Amendment Privilege Against Self-Incrimination.

If testifying as a witness before Congress or before a regulatory agency or in a deposition, you can answer some questions and invoke the 5th Amendment Privilege as to others. It is your decision.

In a courtroom setting, civil and criminal, you do not have that option after identifying yourself by name and address. (Some jurisdictions do not require you to answer the address question because it could incriminate you).

However, once called to the stand and sworn or affirmed, you must choose whether you will answer all questions or not -- you cannot pick and choose the questions you decide you will answer. If you try and do that the party calling you to testify may move for an order from the judge that your testimony be stricken from the record and the jury instructed to disregard everything to which you have testified in their deliberations.

The bottom line is that when you are a charged defendant, or an unindicted co-conspirator, or just a witness, you cannot invoke the 5th Amendment Privilige against self-incrimination without indirectly acknowledging that you have violated the law prior to invoking the privilege.

As a practical matter, the lawyer representing the person may not invoke the 5th Amendment Privilege on behalf of his client, the client must do so personally. However, once invoked the lawyer may detail for the court on the record outside the hearing of the jury the facts that support the client invoking the privilege, but the lawyer may not reveal any specifics which would incriminate his client or disclose any attorney/client confidential information.

This may seem strange to the layman, but all lawyers are officers of the court, and the court gives great deference to a lawyer's representation that there is a good faith basis for invoking the privilege, without the specifics being revealed to the judge.

[unblock]

19. here's the only thing i think we're really disagreeing on:

The bottom line is that when you are a charged defendant, or an unindicted co-conspirator, or just a witness, you cannot invoke the 5th Amendment Privilige against self-incrimination without indirectly acknowledging that you have violated the law prior to invoking the privilege.


from a legal perspective, you've conceded nothing by invoking the 5th. from a political perspective (congressional hearings are clearly political and trials certainly have a political element, if only in the sense of influencing the jury) you've opened the door to people inferring that you've got something to hide, or else, why didn't you chose to answer.

note, though, that the inferrence is that you've got something to hide, worth possibly jeopardizing your case. this MAY mean guilt, though guilt as to which crime may be a matter of speculation. however, you could be protecting someone else, or simply hiding an embarassing fact.


just as an example, clinton might have chosen to invoke the 5th at certain points during monicagate, not in order to conceal anything criminal, but simply to conceal his affair. of course, this would have been politically very damaging indeed, and not doubt unhelpful to his legal case, which is why he didn't go that route. my point is that you don't have to have to be guilty of any crime to invoke the 5th.

[rrrevolution]

21. This thread is getting long, but to be clear....

You cannot invoke the 5th Amendment Privilege to remain silent in order to protect another, or to conceal an affair, or hide politically damaging conduct which is not illegal.

Just think about it. IF that were the standard every corporate officer in every case would invoke the 5th Amendment Privilege and refuse to testify to protect his corporate employer, and thereby his own job.

The basis of the the 5th Amendment Privilege is that we don't require individual citizens to supply evidence or testimony against themselves in the prosecution of a crime. The burden of proving each and every element of the crime charged resides with the prosecutor, and the defendant is entitled to be presumed innocent until proven guilty by the prosecution's evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. In short this is your Constitutional right.

Clinton could have refused to give testimony during a civil deposition, but he chose not to do so for political reasons. In a criminal deposition as a charged defendant you may decide to invoke the 5th Amendment Privilege and not testify at all, and at trial decide not to take the stand and testify (which is based upon invoking your 5th Amendment privilege like Michael Jackson decided to do recently)and the prosecutor may not mention your failure to testify to the jury as evidence of your guilt. You can do this because legal jeopardy has attached to you.

If you are merely an uncharged witness and there is no basis for the 5th Amendment Privilege being invoked you could be held in contempt of court and subject to sanctions. It is a pre-condition that your testimony might reveal evidence that could be used against you in a criminal prosecution, but whether the prosecutor ever decides to charge you or you are ever convicted is up to the prosecutor.

Without the potential for criminal prosecution as a possibility, there is no basis for invoking the 5th Amendment privilege to remain silent.

[unblock]

23. we're talking past each other

as i've said before, yes, the legal basis for invoking the 5th is based on the question possibly eliciting self-incriminating testimony. so, correct, the legal basis for refusing to answer cannot be to conceal a (perfectly legal) affair.

however, where there is a legal basis for invoking the 5th, the motivation for refusing to answer might well be to conceal an affair, etc.

[ramapodem]

14. Try living in New Jersey

Try living in NJ. This type of thing is just a fact of life. Could explain why 90% of Jerseyites think the state government is corrupt.

[unblock]

17. as opposed to the state gov't in fl... or tx... or ri... or la....

[brentspeak]

31. I, for one, live in NJ

and while there certainly is some corruption in our state government, I don't recall anything similar to the Kentucky/Fletcher situation. In fact, I don't recall any high level (or even low level) pardons.

[alfredo]

29. this could go federal

http://www.bluegrassreport.org/


Significant Online Story Just Posted By Herald-Leader On Possible Involvement By Feds and Impeachment Discussions

This story by John Cheves by the Herald-Leader just posted on-line is a very significant update of events today. A must-read, here are a few excerpts:

Fletcher's Pardons Won't Make The Personnel Investigation Go Away
By John Cheves
HERALD-LEADER STAFF WRITER

FRANKFORT — Gov. Ernie Fletcher today said he wants “a new day for Kentucky,” one in which his administration is not investigated for allegedly giving state merit jobs on the basis of Republican politics.

That day might not dawn for months to come.

[NVMojo]

30. the truth in America is dead ...