Don't expect any more pardons from Bush... and with good reason

[Windy]

Anyone pardoned would not be able to plead the fifth amendment and refuse to testify on the basis of self-incrimination. The former administration is obviously concerned about the potential for prosecution. They can't have a blanket pardon of the entire administration including Cheney and Bush as that would signify guilt. Bush can't pardon anyone under him as they would be obligated to testify against him and fifth amendment protection would be waived.

It is clear that they are concerned about prosecution.

Good!!!

[drm604]

1. Interesting thinking.

It seems to make sense to me. We'll know very soon whether or not there will be more pardons.

[ddeclue]

2. Well that's kind of a flawed argument...

If they have been pardoned they have no real motivation to testify and can simply say "I have no recollection" when questioned and how do you prove differently.

The way the gov't takes down the mob is by flipping little fish to get the big fish. If Bush pardons all his "little fish" all that leverage is down the drain since you can't threaten them with any real jail time.

Doug D.

[havocmom]

6. they could be held in contempt until their failure to recollect passed

:evilgrin:

[Windy]

7. Uh, their motivation would be a subpoena and perjury charges with jail time...N/T

[LakeSamish706]

3. May they have to look over their shoulders for a very long time to come. n/t

[lurky]

4. I'm sure he and Obama have discussed it.

If I were Obama, I would have told Bush that if he pardoned anyone in his own admin I would reverse the pardon. Obviously, I have no idea what they have said to each other, but we can be sure that this has been discussed and that the Obama team has a plan in place if Bush does try it.

[Windy]

8. I was not aware that a president could reverse the pardon of another president.

If that were the case, I'm sure the rethugs would have reversed many Clinton pardons.

[KatieW]

9. They can't.

[endarkenment]

11. yes sure but other than that it was an interesting idea :-)

[tritsofme]

17. Bush was advised in 2001 that he had the authority to reverse the Rich pardon

but he declined, and such an act would be unprecedented, but within the power of the POTUS.

[endarkenment]

19. Please show me where that power is enumerated.

it would be an astounding interpretation of the pardon power to include a de-pardon power. Bush got lots of bad advice.

[tritsofme]

21. The pardon power of the president is so broad and vague

That there have historically been very few limitations to the president's ability to pardon.

For instance, just last week Bush rescinded a pardon he had issued just a few days prior.

If this is possible, as it has just been shown to be, then what difference would it make who happened to be the POTUS at the time the pardon is rescinded?

[lurky]

22. It has been done before and upheld in court.

When he assumed office, Grant revoked two pardons that Andrew Johnson had issued. Nixon revoked one of Johnson's pardons when he was first elected. Bush just revoked one of his own pardons last month when the guy turned out to be too embarrassing even for W to associate with.

Yes, there are a lot of unresolved questions about how, when, and under what circumstances a pardon can be reversed, but it can and has been done.

Here's a TPM post by Josh Marshall on reversing pardons:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/249446.php

[leftynyc]

20. You can't reverse a pardon

It's an absolute power given to the President.

[lurky]

23. See post 22. n/t

[BattyDem]

5. That's a very good point!

:toast:

[endarkenment]

10. That is why a blanket pardon or amnesty is a real possibility.

That way everyone in the administration is out of bounds for prosecution. Nobody to testify against (that matters) means no problem regarding the 5th.

[drm604]

12. Another consideration.

There are likely a number of crimes that have been committed where some or all of the states have jurisdiction. Bush can't pardon people for state-level crimes.

[endarkenment]

14. An interesting consideration, but...

note that our torture centers are not located in any of the 50 states. Why is that?

[drm604]

16. For that very reason.

However, torture is not the only thing they are guilty of.

For example, Prosecutor Vincent Buglioso argues that Bush could be prosecuted at the state level for murder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prosecution_of_George_W._Bush_for_Murder

Bugliosi argues that Bush intentionally misled Congress and the American people about the evidence that he said mandated going into Iraq and overthrowing Saddam Hussein. Therefore, Bugliosi argues, the deaths of over 4,000 American soldiers and 100,000 Iraqi civilians since hostilities began (as of spring 2008) amount at the very least to second-degree murder. He further states that any of the 50 state attorneys general, as well as any district attorney in the United States, has ample grounds to indict Bush for the murder of any soldier or soldiers who live in their state or county. Bugliosi says that if he were prosecuting the case, he would seek imposition of the death penalty, and that impeachment alone would be "a joke", considering the magnitude of Bush's alleged crimes.

[endarkenment]

18. I understand that, but it would be a stretch.

The torture case is very straightforward.

[spinbaby]

13. So if Obama pardons them,

they have to testify? That has real possibilities.

[jgraz]

15. Looks like they're as competent at avoiding prosecution as they are at running the country.

Sad day for them...