Four members of the Watergate investigations on cspan now.

[napi21]

I caught the last part of it in it's first run and it's very good. John Dean and Egil "Bud" Krogh are on the panel along with 2 of the prosecutors. They review how it all happened. If you have the time and are still awake, it's worth watching.

[mac2]

1. Excuse me but I have a rant about pardons.

I watched it earlier. Breyer is such a great and intelligent guy.

Nixon had done some great things before he became President. The shock of his arrogance hit the country and they never forgave him.

When Watergate happened it was pretty terrible for the country. President Ford pardoned Nixon it was even worse because Ford was picked to do it for a members of his own party. Ford was one term President because of it. Ford said it was to heal the country. No it was to get his party off the hook.

President Nixon committed "high crimes and misdemeanors" so President Ford had no power to pardon him. The Congress, the media, and the people just accepted it. President Ford abused his power.

Civil Right violations against the Constitution were the reason for the outrage.

Now it has come back to bite us since Bush believes (and most the country) when he leaves office he can pardon anyone for their crimes...such as Cheney, Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, etc.

It is not true. The Constitution does not give pardons for crimes against the people (high crimes and misdemeanors) especially by those of the same party. We would become pretty corrupt...which we are right now.

Is there a Justice Department lawyer, who has a degree in Constitutional law, who will speak out about this corrupt process of pardon by members of your own party for crimes against the people? Am I the only one wanting to right this wrong? If we can't do this simple process then we don't have a democracy where we can remove an abusive and corrupt leader.

"Change of face law" where they leave office with their bag of plunder is just not the answer either. People in the 2006 election wanted accountability for what had happened before that. We are still waiting.

What struck me was how inexperienced lawyers can reach top power and not know they were committing crimes against the people. They are the yes people the President relies on yet they fail. The seat of power is a very seductive place so one should always seek the advice of many advisers.

[napi21]

2. I can't disagree with you except for one thing. It IS in the Constitution

that the President shal have the power to pardon anyone for anything! I don't thinki the founders were anticipating "Parties" then. It IS quite sobering that all those young attorney's had such power. It's understandable that they would be a bit in awe of the power of the Presidency and be very inclinde to do what they are told. I don't think I'm ready to say no lawyer under the age of 45 can take the job though.

I'm facinated by the review of Watergate from the inside. Hearing what happened and why. I wish more people would take the time to watch this.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

4. Living through it

while going to law school in Washington, DC was quite an experience. We went to the hearings regularly. It was incredible.

Some of our Founding Fathers - George Mason was one - argued that treason should be excluded from the Presidential pardon process. But, his idea was defeated.

The only restrictions on the President's power to pardon are that civil matters are excluded, as are state cases (your offense has to have been of a Federal nature), and impeachment.

[mac2]

8. Nope not for high crimes and misdemeanors against the people.

It would be just plain stupid to give any President that kind of power.

John Dean even talked about it and what Ford did. I'll try to find it.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

11. Read your Constitution

It's right there.

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

(Article II, Section 2, Clause 1)

It's hardly stupid. The Founding Fathers knew exactly what they were doing. The closest the Supreme Court ever got to putting limits on the Presidential pardon power was in Schick v. Reed, 419 U.S. 256 (1974), when Warren Burger seemed to say that the offenses pardoned would be limited to those that did not offend the Constitution. But, the Court never came right out and said that.

So, as I said, the Presidential pardon power is absolute, with the exceptions previously noted.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

3. Pardon power

The President's power to pardon is absolute. There are no limits on it. Your notion that treason is excluded from the pardon process is wrong.

Ford's pardon of Nixon was, of course, part of the deal to get Nixon to resign before impeachment, which, after all the Watergate stuff that had gone on, after our country being knocked about by the almost-daily revelations of the Oval Office complicity and corruption, and let's not forget that Vietnam was still on our minds, was the last thing anyone wanted. I still wonder what would have happened had he not resigned and, instead, been subject to impeachment.

The only questionable part of Ford's pardon was that Nixon had not been charged with any wrongdoing at the time the pardon was granted. He was - in the now-famous phrase - an "unindicted co-conspirator." There was much speculation in the legal community if it was possible to pardon someone who was not indicted. Finally, it had to be admitted that it was, because the power of the President to grant pardons is without qualification and absolute.

[napi21]

6. I understand Ford's position was that if Nixon accepted the pardon, he was accepting

guilt. I suppose that will always be a debatable position. I personally don't agree with the absolute pardon power of any one person, but I doubt THAT will ever become an ammendment to the Constitution.

It's much more distrubing to me that the current occupant has been able to intimidate Congress enough to get his free pass!!!!!

[Tangerine LaBamba]

7. No

A declaration of guilt only comes about in two ways: either a defendant pleads guilty, or a judge/jury returns a guilty verdict.

I wonder daily what Fuckface has on the Congress that enables him to ride roughshod over them as he does. I recommend to you a wonderful book about this called "So Wrong For So Long," by Greg Mitchell, of E&P.

http://www.amazon.com/So-Wrong-Long-Pundits-President-Failed/dp/1402756577

[mac2]

10. Blackmail and money or a good job when they leave office.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

13. Sorry

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.

Are you implying that pardons are given for those reasons? If so, yeah, they may well be. I believe that's how Gerald Ford got his job as President. That doesn't detract from the simple fact that the Presidential power to pardon is absolute.

[mac2]

15. Guess I got my post mixed. It was an answer to someone

asking about why Congress is afraid of the President. They give him a pass.

[L. Coyote]

14. The question one has to ask is, "Did Nixon get pardoned for killing anyone?'

A blanket pardon is just that, and we do not know what crimes were committed!! And now we will never know.

[mac2]

9. Nope. Don't agree. Think about it.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

12. It's a simple matter of fact

Thinking about it won't change the simple fact that the Presidential pardon power is absolute.

[mac2]

16. Not impeachable acts which are high crimes and misdemeanors.

Constitutional Authority for Presidential Pardons
The presidential power to pardon is granted under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution.

"The President ... shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."

Nixon did impeachable acts by violation the Constitution regarding Civil Rights, etc. He was to be impeached.

Even murder and robbery would be included in impeachable acts since they are high crimes and misdemeanors. This was not a pardon which Ford should have been able to enforce.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

17. No

The only specific exclusions in the matter of the Presidential pardon are that the pardon power shall not extend to civil or state matters, and it will not extend to impeachment.

Nixon probably did commit impeachable acts, but that was never determined, because he resigned. You can't be charged with something you were never charged with. The fact is that he was not impeached.

I don't know where you're getting the "high crimes and misdemeanors" language since that's not part of the wording of the Constitutional section that holds here. As I wrote, there was considerable debate among the legal community about whether or not Ford's pardon of Nixon as "an unindicted co-conspirator" was legal, but, in the end, it was legal because the power of the President to pardon is absolute.

There's a very good book on this subject that would serve to enlighten you and it's very well-written: "Pardons: Justice, Mercy, and the Public Interest,: by Kathleen Dean Moore (1989, Oxford University Press). I highly recommend it.

[L. Coyote]

5. Worth watching...