Prediction; Bush will become a 'pardon-granting machine' before he leaves office...

[Blackhatjack]

Public opinion polls won't matter. He will protect those who supported him. Cheney, Libby, Rumsfeld, anyone who might have any potential liability will get their own shiny presidential pardon from Bush before he leaves office.

I believe it has already been decided, as evidenced by so many who should have resigned and left office hanging on. Bush will spit in the eye of the American public before he allows his corrupt friends and family to face criminal prosecution. Count on it.

[babylonsister]

1. I hope he is neutered before 07 is out. nt

[sammythecat]

4. My hope too.

It's probably unlikely, but there is hope. It could actually happen. God, that would be good.

[illinoisprogressive]

2. Ya think???

His hand will be swollen from all that signing.

[Somawas]

3. Of course he will.

What else would you expect?

[Democrats_win]

5. But...but pardons are good. Right? He'll be honored for making the right choice?!!!

First they pardoned the crooks and no one spoke up. Then they pardoned the murderers and no one spoke up. When they pardoned the warmongers there was no one left to speak.

[mitchum]

6. He'll be a healer as well as the decider

[Wilms]

7. I came across this piece.

Monday, September 12, 2005

Treasongate:

Pardons May Be Voided For Criminal Prosecutions Flowing From "Cases of Impeachment

The Constitution Voids Presidential Pardons For Criminal Convictions Or Indictments Flowing From "Cases of Impeachment" Where The Senate Has Voted To Convict.

snip

However, in researching the issue, I was pleasantly surprised to discover an obscure Constitutional device which insulates certain convictions/indictments from the broad pardon power granted to the president. This never before tested Constitutional process requires the House of Representatives to Impeach and the Senate to convict "civil Officers of the United States" so that pardons of those Officers pertaining to criminal prosecutions flowing from "Cases of Impeachment" can be voided.

snip

http://www.yuricareport.com/Impeachment/ConstitutionVoidsPardons_Impeachment.html

[G_Leo_Criley]

16. hmmm

This is very interesting and a good catch.

http://www.yuricareport.com/Impeachment/ConstitutionVoidsPardons_Impeachment.html

Thanks!

glc

[wtmusic]

8. They can't be pardoned if they're not yet charged

and the Decider will have a heckuva time pardoning himself at the Hague.

[Nickster]

18. No, that's not true. He can grant a pardon anytime after the commission of the offense. It's just

not common for a Presidential pardon before an indictment. Take Nixon for example, he wasn't indicted, but he got a Presidential pardon.

[wtmusic]

19. Wouldn't that be sort of like an admission of guilt?

If there's no "offense" there can be no "pardon".

[G_Leo_Criley]

9. In the case of Libby...

for example, I think it depends on what comes out in his upcoming trial as to whether the public will tolerate a pardon.

I think these guys in general are gonna make Nixon look like an amateur. If the American public "gets" it, there'll be plenty of pressure to NOT pardon.

But, BHJ, do you know if there's any way to stop * from pardoning? Darth too? Is there any provision in the law to prevent those who are under a cloud of suspicion themselves from issuing pardons?

Thanks...

glc

[G_Leo_Criley]

17. when a presidential pardon might be unconstitutional....

It appears that there might be ways to divert pardons.

glc

from http://www.yuricareport.com/Impeachment/ConstitutionVoidsPardons_Impeachment.html


"THE SUPREME COURT'S ANALYSIS OF THE PRESIDENTIAL PARDON POWER

It's a long established principle, upheld by the Supreme Court, and supported by commentary from the Constitutional Convention, that the presidential power to grant clemency is plenary except in "Cases of Impeachment."

In Schick v. Reed, 419 U.S. 256 (1974), the Supreme Court affirmed this broad authority. Chief Justice Burger stated that the power to pardon flows from the Constitution and "it cannot be modified, abridged, or diminished by the Congress." Id. at 266. But the Supreme Court in Schick v. Reed also announced, in three separate quotes, the only instance, besides "Cases of Impeachment", where a presidential pardon would be unconstitutional:

"Additionally, considerations of public policy and humanitarian impulses support an interpretation of that power so as to permit the attachment of any condition which does not otherwise offend the Constitution."

"...the conclusion is inescapable that the pardoning power was intended to include the power to commute sentences on conditions which do not in themselves offend the Constitution..."

"We therefore hold that the pardoning power is an enumerated power of the Constitution and that its limitations, if any, must be found in the Constitution itself."

If a presidential pardon offends the Constitution, the pardon itself is unconstitutional. Having stated that, let me make it clear that the basis for my conclusion in this report does not depend exclusively on the Supreme Court's holding in Schick v. Reed. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court's opinion in that case certainly reinforces the conclusion of this report since the limitation of the presidential pardon power that I have discovered is found directly within the Constitution."

[Imagevision]

10. Just like Poppy pardoned Ollie North and others for Iran/Contra

Does anyone believe Ken Lay died the week he was to be sentenced?!

[G_Leo_Criley]

11. pardon of Ollie North and others for Iran/Contra

Happened at least partly because the public was not paying attention in quite the way that they are now, with the Iraq war/occupation in progress.

I think they'd like to slip it by, but think it will be harder for them to pull it off.

As for Ken Lay -- How would I know? People commit suicide or die from severe stress everyday. Is it possible that he's alive? Yes. Can I prove it? No.

I understand that we're being jobbed, lied to, and otherwise treated with contempt every single day by this a-hole * and his cohorts. But I have to believe that there's something that we can do about it all -- if we keep ourselves informed and keep in touch with our elected representative. Otherwise... what exactly is the use?

If we're serious about avoiding pardons this time around, then we need to figure out how to avoid pardons.

glc


edited for spelling

[MonkeyFunk]

13. Oliver North wasn't pardoned

he was convicted, and then the conviction overturned because his congressional testimony couldn't be used in his criminal trial.

[G_Leo_Criley]

14. thanks...

Weinberger was pardoned.

Check out this list of folks in the aftermath.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair#Aftermath

Gotta laugh to keep from cryin'

glc

[maveric]

12. Could Duke Cunningham walk?

Can a conviction of his sort be pardoned?

[Blackhatjack]

20. Answer: Yes. n/t

[tritsofme]

21. The power of the POTUS to pardon is absolute

So yes.

[maveric]

24. So he'll live out his life on a sailboat in San Diego Bay?

Bastards!

[SammyWinstonJack]

15. Well his daddy did exactly that, didn't he? Pardoned his partners in crime.

And at the last possible moment also. Like father, like son, in this instance.

[Blackhatjack]

22. There is an argument to be made that the "act of pardoning" could be a crime....

It has never been tested in court, and would be open to interpretation by the Supreme Court.

IF by performing an act pursuant to a legitimate power granted to the President by the US Constitution(the act of pardoning an individual) that act was done not for the public good but as an act in futherance of a conspiracy to commit a high crime and/or misdemeanor, then in that event the pardon would 'offend the Constitution' because it was used for an improper purpose.

In the Nixon case, if Nixon had pardoned everyone involved in the Watergate breakin and the coverup, his pardoning acts might have been set aside by the Supreme Court because they were done for personal benefit(evade prosecution) and to obstruct a lawful investigation which would have revealed the criminal behavior of the President rising to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. THis is impt because the Constitution specifically provides a mechanism for removing a President that engages in that kind of behavior, and in that instance the pardoning acts would have conflicted with the Constitutional duty and power granted to the Congress to impeach and remove the President.

Now that we have Roberts and Alito on the SCOTUS, it would be hard to predict how Bush's pardons would be viewed by that Court. I am betting the decisions would all be 5-4 decisions if this issue was ever heard. Then people will realize just how impt it is to keep certain people off the SCOTUS by using the confirmation process.

[Vidar]

23. One of the most important arguments for impeachment.