Speculation is growing that President Bush may pardon those officials responsible for the unlawful programs under his Administration. It will be the subject (and possibly the Sunstein controversy) of my discussion on Countdown tonight.
This far, Bush has been openly hostile to pardons, creating one of the worst records in history. With the exception of Scooter Libby (who received a pardon without applying and without spending a day in prison), Bush has allowed thousands of pardon petitions to languish in his office.
He has granted only 157 pardons in comparison to Ronald Reagan’s 409 in eight years. Clinton, who abused this power, granted 459 but half came in his final year.
For the full story, click here.
Bush, as unitary executive, has already pardoned himself. No wrong doing here…
Meanwhile, our relatives Freddie and Fannie are about to get ripped off for 25 billion.
Of course there will be wholesale pardons of the Bush crime family. Bush is bereft of ethics, conscience or remorse. A friend of mine said he doesn’t have the common sense God gave a crowbar. He’s a disgraceful, sociopathic, psychopathic irresponsible over-grown petulant child who recognizes no authority but his own. He deserves nothing more than our contempt and disgust.
I don’t know, rcampbell, but I think you may be over-stating things just a bit. I mean “over-grown”?
He’s not that big …
I have been concerned about the pardon issue for awhile. I expect Bush to pardon Scooter and a few other cronies, but I was wondering if can preemptively pardon himself? If he preemptively pardons the torture crowd, that will be his crowning moment of sticking it to the American public.
I posted this a couple of days ago.
Essentially by granting pardons, Bush would be admitting,conceivably, that a successful argument would otherwise have been made
- ie that they, mostly, he, by virtue of administrative Executive directive, collectively and effectively broke the law.
That might work out just fine for us!
^^^^^
Barack Obama and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments: In Pledging to Work to Remove Retroactive Immunity for FISA Violations, What Kind of Action Is Obama Contemplating?
By JOHN W. DEAN
Wednesday, Jul. 2, 2008
The Democratic Party’s presumptive presidential standard-bearer, Senator Barack Obama, surprised many when he announced that he would support the legislation passed by the House of Representatives on June 20, 2008 amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA). While the House legislation was called a compromise, it was virtually identical to the earlier, rejected proposals that the Bush Administration had requested and that organizations like the ACLU had fought for months – and continue to fight – to defeat.
In his formal statement, Senator Obama said that while the House-passed bill left much to be desired (here, I am paraphrasing his understatement), but he could live with it. He did add, however, that he remained unsatisfied with the provision granting retroactive immunity to those involved in violating the existing FISA law – in connection with the Bush Administration’s controversial “warrantless wiretapping” program, in which the Administration enlisted the aid of several telecoms in violating FISA. Thus far, that program has given rise to civil suits against the telecoms by private parties, but not to any government action.
Accordingly, Obama pledged to “work to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses.” (Emphasis added.) He then added further that, as President, he would take “any additional steps” he deemed “necessary to protect the lives – and the liberty – of the American people.”
What does Obama mean, exactly? No one is quite sure.
MSNBC Discussion of Obama’s Position on the FISA Amendments
Appearing on MSNBC’s “Countdown” on the evening of June 20th, while all this was breaking news, I was asked for my take on Senator Obama’s apparent flip-flop. I knew that Obama had vigorously opposed immunity earlier. (And I suspected Republicans would – as they have done – call him spineless for caving in to the fear of their using his opposition to call him weak on fighting terrorism.)
At the time, and giving Obama’s position the benefit of the conspicuous doubt his actions suggested, the following exchange ensued between “Countdown” host Keith Olbermann and myself:
OLBERMANN: Senator Obama‘s position on this confuses me. He loathes the telecom immunity, he says that he would fight it immediately and he would monitor it carefully as president. The vote though is next week. He better do that part of the fight quick. If this gets in through the Senate, there‘s no way to get it out again, is there? I mean, the history of this nation in terms of lost civil liberties is pretty bad about restoring them.
DEAN: Well, I spent a lot of time reading that bill today, and it‘s a very poorly-drafted bill. One of the things that is not clear is whether it‘s not possible later to go after the telecoms for criminal liability. And that is something that Obama has said during this campaign he would do, unlike prior presidents who come in and really give their predecessor a pass, he said, “I won‘t do that.” And that might be why he‘s just sitting back saying, “Well, I‘m going to let this go through. But that doesn‘t mean I‘m going to give the telecoms a pass.” I would love it if he gets up on the Senate floor and says, “I‘m keeping that option open.”
OLBERMANN: In other words, let the private suits drop and get somebody in there who‘ll actually use the laws that still exist to prosecute and make the actual statement and maybe throw a few people in jail.
DEAN: Exactly. And it looks to me, as I read this bill and talk to a number of people in Washington familiar with the bill, some who are involved in the negotiations, and they say, “You know – we just didn‘t think about this issue.” So, as it goes to the Senate, maybe Obama‘s got a shot to take, you know, a future look at this thing and not let them have the pass that they think they‘re getting.
OLBERMANN: That would be a nice symmetry to that—that everybody had been so lulled into a sense of complacency because of the Bush success on this that they‘ve left out anything that protected anybody legally, if you had a president who actually believed in the Constitution….
The FISA Amendments Do Not Provide Immunity for Criminal Violations
To date, nothing has happened. The Senate has delayed action on these amendments until after the July 4th congressional recess (thank you, Senator Russ Feingold), so I have taken a closer look at the House-passed bill and tracked its legislative history. It is clear not only from the language of the bill (which must be read in the context of other, related statutes to be clearly understood), but also from the legislative history, that there is absolutely no criminal immunity for anyone in these FISA amendments.
In addition, I spoke with the Washington office of the ACLU, which has been following the legislation closely while trying to limit its further rollback of prior protections of civil liberties. The ACLU agrees that there is no criminal immunity, and while this fact had been largely overlooked, Legislative Counsel Michelle Richardson said this point had been mentioned in passing in both the House and Senate during the debate. With a little more digging, I found that the sponsors, as well as the Bush Administration, also understand that there is no immunity in the House-passed bill from criminal prosecutions for violations by anyone.
The House-passed bill has provisions virtually identical to many in the earlier Senate-passed bill. No one in the Senate watches out for the best interests of Bush Administration better than Republican Senator (and former presidential candidate) Sam Brownback of Kansas. During the January 24, 2008 debate in the Senate, Senator Brownback noted, “The immunity provisions would not apply to the Government or Government officials. Cases against the Government regarding the alleged programs would continue. And the provisions would apply only to civil and not criminal cases.” (Emphasis added.)
Similarly, when the FISA amendments were being addressed in the House during the June 20, 2008 debate, Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence J.M. McConnell sent Speaker Pelosi a letter for the record analyzing the provisions. This letter stated, among other things, that: “The framework contained in the bill for obtaining retroactive liability protection is narrowly tailored. … The liability protection provision does not extend to the Government or to Government officials and it does not immunize any criminal conduct.” (Emphasis added.)
Because this legislation addresses only civil liability, Senator Obama has a unique opportunity to show that his leadership as President would, in fact, bring a change to Washington. Indeed, he can both support the amendments now pending (for the reasons he stated), and make clear that as President he will request that his attorney general determine if criminal actions should be taken for the blatant violations of the criminal law. Actually, he has already said this, but in a larger context.
Since Obama Has Already Declared that He Will Hold the Bush Administration Officials Responsible for their Crimes, He Can Now Have It Both Ways: Support the FISA Amendments and Hold Miscreants Responsible
During the primaries, Senator Obama stated that, as President, he would not give his predecessors a pass for their crimes, which has recently become the informal custom. Obama was asked about this matter by a seasoned political reporter for the Philadelphia Daily News, Will Bunch.
Bunch wanted to know Obama whether his administration’s Justice Department “would aggressively go after and investigate whether crimes have been committed” by the Bush Administration. The discussion arose in the context of the uses of torture and other illegal means to fight terrorism, but Obama’s response was general and unequivocal. Bunch reported that Obama said:
What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that’s already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can’t prejudge that because we don’t have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You’re also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we’ve got too many problems we’ve got to solve.
So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment — I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General — having pursued, having looked at what’s out there right now — are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it’s important– one of the things we’ve got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing between really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity.
You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I’ve said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in cover-ups of those crimes with knowledge [aforethought], then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody[’s] above the law — and I think that’s roughly how I would look at it. (Emphasis added.)
If Obama Is a Man of His Word, He Should Place Bush Officials and the Telecommunications Companies on Notice of the Action He Will Take as President
Not everyone is aware of the statement that Obama made to Will Bunch, or the reality that there is no immunity from criminal prosecution under the FISA amendments. In fact, it is not clear if Senator Obama himself is aware of the limits of the immunity in the FISA amendments. However, if Obama is a man of his word, he should explain to his Senate colleagues that when elected President, he will “immediately” request that his attorney general investigate the criminal activity of the Bush Administration in violating the FISA statute, along with the telecommunications firms who aided and abetted these violations.
It certainly would not be unprecedented if an Obama Administration were to hold high officials of a prior administration responsible for their criminal activity undertaken in the name of national security. For example, former Nixon assistant to the president John Ehrlichman said that he acted for national security reasons when he approved a warrantless break-in at Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office; yet he was prosecuted, convicted, and sent to jail for his actions during the Ford Administration. During the Carter Administration, too, former CIA Director Richard Helms was convicted for lying to Congress, which he did for national security reasons; he was given a two-year suspended prison sentence and fined. Former Assistant Director of the FBI Mark Felt (later revealed to be Bob Woodward’s “Deep Throat” source during Watergate) was convicted for authorizing some nine warrantless break-ins of the radical Weatherman groups for national security reasons; while he faced ten years in jail, he was not sentenced to serve any time, but rather fined $5,000, and he was later pardoned by President Reagan.
If Senator Obama is going to honor the statement he made to Will Bunch, then he should place the Bush Administration and telecommunications companies on notice of his intentions. This will provide President Bush an opportunity to immunize those who broke the law at his request from criminal prosecutions, which he can do as long as he is President with his power to grant pardons. For Bush to issue a blanket pardon in this situation would be unprecedented, and it would offer Bush a chance at historical ignominy far exceeding what he already faces, and thus potentially become a powerful issue for the Democrats to campaign on during this 2008 election year.
Broader Meaning of a Blanket Pardon for “National Security” Law Breakers
If the civil suits that will now be dismissed under the FISA amendments had proceeded, it is questionable whether they could have been fully litigated, because they involved national security matters that no administration would disclose. Moreover, if those persons who have violated FISA at the request of President Bush are criminally prosecuted, it is not likely that any would be sent to jail (absent aggravating circumstances like those that existed in the case of Ehrlichman, who was involved in hiding information from the courts). But they all, particularly the telecoms, could face serious fines for criminal actions. Given the downside, it is not clear whether Bush would issue a pardon in this context.
If it were issued by Bush, however, a blanket pardon to his “national security” miscreants would require acceptance by them of the fact that they had broken the law, and thus an admission of guilt. Were Bush to issue such a remarkable pardon, it would, of course, cement his historical stature as several notches below even that of Richard Nixon, who refused to pardon those who (many “for national security reasons”) engaged in the so-called Watergate abuses of presidential power on his behalf. Not many presidents want to be viewed by history as worse than Nixon. And a blanket pardon would be an admission by Bush that his war on terror has been a lawless undertaking, operating beyond the bounds of the Constitution and statutes that check the powers of the president and the executive branch. It would be an admission by Bush, too, of his own criminal culpability (which is why Nixon refused to grant his aides a pardon.)
Bush is very politically savvy. He knows that a blanket pardon, or even the prospect of it, could give Obama and the Democratic Party a wonderful issue during the coming months of the general election. Most Americans are deeply concerned about Bush/Cheney’s conduct of foreign affairs and national security, which ignores American laws and treaty obligations. So if Bush is forced to pardon his national security zealots, or if GOP standard-bearer John McCain was forced to embrace such action (as he likely would be), it raises the issue of whether Americans now want to elect a president who is subject to the law, or endure another temporary monarchy which ignores it. And that is no small issue in this 2008 election.
In short, Senator Obama has much to gain by restating his position, unless his beliefs on the subject have changed. Conversely, Bush and McCain have much to lose if a blanket pardon becomes an issue. However, if Obama now has no stomach to enforce the criminal law, as he once proclaimed he would, he may pay a significant cost for balking. In particular, he is likely going to lose more than a few among his base of supporters who are upset with his flip-flop on the FISA amendments, for many of these unhappy supporters may currently take comfort in knowing (as few others know) that he could hold violators responsible for their criminal actions – and will retain that power even if the current legislation becomes law.
Of course, Obama can remain silent, which is the usual course of action for Washington politicians in these situations. But he will remain silent at the risk of making all his previous statements increasingly hollow, and his posture strikingly wishy-washy. And how refreshing it would be for him to act like a leader who believes we are governed by laws, not the whims of men.
What better way, too, for Obama to make clear that he will do what he said to protect the rights and liberties of all Americans, and to keep government officials and those who assist them fully accountable, than by making clear that those who violate the criminal laws that protect Americans’ freedoms will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. What better time than this issue, as well, to learn if Barack Obama is a stand-up leader or a slick politician who dodges his own past words when they might prove to have real meaning for the future.
John W. Dean, a FindLaw columnist, is a former counsel to the president.
” … that will be his crowning moment of sticking it to the American public.”
Let us not forget how complicit the democratic congress has been in allowing this, as well as their showing zero interest in pursuing investigations and hearings into the numerous crimes committed by this administration. I have been wildly unimpressed with the likes of Pelosi and her pals. The Speaker seems more concerned with how she looks in her newest pants-suit and pearls than in the job she holds but refuses to carry out.
Mojo,
I agree that the Dems in the Senate were enablers of this FISA capitulation bill. We have to keep Obama’s feet to the fire after January 20, 2009 on FISA and other issues.
rcampbell,
I like your “take no pardons” style!
Jill
GOD BLESS GW BUSH!
Martha H,
Somebody has to love George W, because he may need all the love he can get once the war crime investigations begin.
rafflaw said:
“We have to keep Obama’s feet to the fire after January 20, 2009 on FISA and other issues.”
Agreed. But my nightmare is that once elected he will do exactly what the dems did after the ‘06 election.
Nothing.
rafflaw said:
“We have to keep Obama’s feet to the fire after January 20, 2009 on FISA and other issues.”
I guess my nightmare is that once elected Obama will do exactly what the dems did after the ‘06 election win.
Nothing.
Rafflaw wrote:
I have been concerned about the pardon issue for awhile. I expect Bush to pardon Scooter and a few other cronies, but I was wondering if can preemptively pardon himself? If he preemptively pardons the torture crowd, that will be his crowning moment of sticking it to the American public.
**********************
Rafflaw, his sticking it to the American public now should come as no surprise, since he’s been doing that for eight years anyway. I’m just glad I never voted for him in either election, and 2000 wasn’t even an election, but a SC appointment.
Mojo,
I feel pretty secure in my belief that Obama will do a better job than the Democratic Congress. The FISA slip-up should not be repeated and Obama needs to initiate the correction of that foolish bill right after he gets into office. Only time will tell for sure.
martha h:
“GOD BLESS GW BUSH!”
***************
We used to say “God Bless America,” now the fawning Republicans canonize or deify their insipid leaders. I thought Reagan was their god, now GW Bush has ascended the throne of empire. You know, martha h would have made a good servant of the crown.
Mespo,
I agree with your comment concerning Marth H.
I have also done more research on my original question whether Bush could preemptively pardon himself and the majority opinion seems to be that he can. Bush is a war criminal and I think he will be pardoning himself and the rest of the torture crows. One way to prevent him from pardoning himself is to initiate the impeachment proceedings before he issues the pardons because that may prevent him from using the preemptive pardon power for himself.
“Speculation is growing that President Bush may pardon those officials responsible for the unlawful programs under his Administration. It will be the subject (and possibly the Sunstein controversy) of my discussion on Countdown tonight…”
****
JT, saw you and KO on Countdown this evening. Good show!
You may recall, with glee, my wish that you and your little
sous chefs enjoy cooking pizzas together as a family. The recipes I love, from Boston’s ‘Figs Table’, I partially posted earlier in the year.
Whatever else you choose to do, take some time out, and enjoy
goofin’ off at home with your family this summer.
Best,
PC
PattyC,
I agree with you that Prof. Turley did a great job with Keith Olbermann. I hope that Cass Sunstein’s view of what Bush crimes will be prosecuted is not the official Obama policy. Prof. Turley warned that if that was the case, the Obama administration would be starting on the same level as the Bush administration. That would be sad.
Turely was mesmerizing to be sure. He always grabs my attention when he comes on. Its the clarity I think. The simple plain clarity.
He doesn’t spin, he doesn’t opinionate. Its like, well… a teacher, teaching a class. And I like that delivery. Its just, here.. this is what the Constitution states, or this is what the law states. Its not the sillyness we get from so many. Its just “there it is”.
Course what he said tonight depressed the sh$t out of me, but I’m getting used to disappointment.
martha h
1, July 22, 2008 at 10:04 pm
GOD BLESS GW BUSH!
Yes! By all means. Pleeeeeaaaassssssee God….bless him! And you can start with blessing him with some brains.
Then maybe a soul would go nicely…
…and literacy….. lets not forget literacy.
Dear Prof. Turley,
I was impressed and heartened by what you said on Keith Olbermann’s Countdown. At the very least, perhaps a large number of those criminals will largely be confined to the borders of this country. Universal jurisdiction may come in very handy.
Be well,
Claude Horvath
Claude,
I can only hope that one of the Bush war crimnal crownd will be overseas at the wrong time and they snatched up and rendered to a country that is serious about the rule of law.
The very idea of a preemptive pardon is so far from what should be reality that everyone should stop and take notice. This kind of action, if done by some tin-pot dictator, would be immediately condemned by this administration. Maybe we shouldn’t be blaming Bush as much as the system that allows such ridiculous power. It is plain for anyone to see: the United States is a dictatorship.
If by some unforeseen miracle Obama is elected in 2008 it is guaranteed he won’t change FISA, cut taxes, abandon a vital interest named Iraq, or harass former Bush administrators over allegations of wrong doing.
Anybody that belives he will is just plain naive about politics.
Rocker,
My only disagreement is that cheneybush wouldn’t say it was wrong if the tin-pot dictator had oil and was “cooperative”!
Jill,
You are right. I would also suggest that since 2001, we have come very close to a dictatorship. As close as I want to ever get to one.
Question:
If the power of the President is to pardon individuals for crimes against the United States, is there still a possibility that Bush or members of his administration could be prosecuted for lesser crimes at the state level? Is there precedent for this?
In my view the assertions and assumption of authority by this administration have been broad, novel and unprecedented on many levels. Is there reason to believe that Bush would be particularly selective about pardons, and not issue thousands of pardons to cover those in many roles (executive, corporate, and foreign) who assisted the administration in their pursuits in various capacities?
If pardons are done on a massive scale under the guise of protecting and enshrining the spirit of “good samaritans” or “good citizens” who Bush claims assisted the nation in a time of existential crisis, wouldn’t this sweeping action serve to deflect political damage in the media? In other words, couldn’t a broad, novel application of pardons reframe the debate?
He’ll pardon anyone that will keep him out of jail. Libby knew ahead of time to take the fall and he’d be okay.
Strider333,
You are right that George W. will do anything and everything to cover his backside. That will include, in my opinion, pardons of his entire cabal. And Scooter and the Rovester. And worst of all, I would expect a pre-emptive pardon of George W. himself. I hope I am wrong.
puzzling
1, July 23, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Question:
If the power of the President is to pardon individuals for crimes against the United States, is there still a possibility that Bush or members of his administration could be prosecuted for lesser crimes at the state level? Is there precedent for this?
In my opinion, Mr Bush may not necessarily have as much power, at least politically, to pardon himself as easily as some might think. Now Professor Turely, or one of the Constitutional scholars in here would be better able to answer this in more detail, but it seems to me that given the specific charges possibly facing mr Bush, and the nature of the offenses, that pardon may not be possible on some of these offenses, specifically, for himself, at least if he follows the regulations in the Federal US Code. While admittedly someone came along and tacked on a really weird disclaimer to the regulations, saying they are only “guidelines” and do not necessarily restrict the power of the president to pardon, it would be seem odd with Bush being as weak as he is, for him to get away with it. Of course that never stopped him before.
First and foremost, a requirement I find amusing, as considered in the context of Bush “pardoning himself”, is found in Title 28, Section 1.1 of the Federal US Code that requires the person seeking the pardon, to execute a petition to the President of the United States, asking for the Pardon.
That means that Bush, would have to write a letter to himself, asking himself to pardon himself.
And not only is that a really weird image, it is also unseemly, in that the wording to me at least, in the federal code, seems to suggest that the power of clemency or pardon was never anticipated to be endowed in the executive to pardon himself.
But, Constitutional scholars will point to Article II, Section II of the Constitution as saying he does have the power, although I just don’t see it. The concept of a president pardoning himself is more in keeping with the image of despots and dictators and not democratic Presidents. Not to mention that no US President in US History has ever done it, not even Nixon, but ok. Lets say he can.
Section 1.4 of Title 28 says clearly;
Petitions for executive clemency shall relate only to violations of laws of the United States.
So it seems if Bush broke “International Law”, then he would not by definition, be eligible for pardon.
But really I don’t think he was ever intended to pardon himself. The characteristic I see in the US Code that seems to indicate that the idea of a president actually being caught in crimes and pardoning himself was never the intent of Article 2, Section 2, is the notion in Sec 1.1 of Title 28 that requires the petitioner to “Petition the President”, and Section 1.7 and 1.8, (notification), particularly 1.8, which requires should the petition be denied, then the President must notify the Attorney General, who in turn, must notify the President.
Seems kinda odd to me, that the authors intended the President to play a game of ring around the rosy with the Attorney General like that. Its more likely to me at least, that their intention was not for the President to be using, or should I say, misusing, his Executive pardon to pardon himself. Otherwise it seems they’d have included wording that would adapt more accordingly, and exemptions for requirements like notification, and or petition.
But most Constititional scholars and experts in the field certainly seem to disagree with me, and seem to think he has the right to do it.
I personally just don’t see it though.
And in my, limited understanding, to me its an affront to the concept of the balance of power, if one concludes he does.
After all, if the President can effectively do whatever he wants, then merely pardon himself, then the Executive Branch is suddenly elevated above any co-equal status with the other two branches.
The Executive effectively becomes omnipotent, being beyond any legislative oversight, or judicial decree. If the President can pardon himself of whatever crimes he so chooses, with no guidelines or restrictions, then the balance of power in our country has ended and its now Executive rule.
One other chasm, one that may be too big for Bush to cross, is the “official”, and automatic admission of guilt, should Mr Bush seek the escape of a pardon.
In Burdick v. United States the US Supreme Court ruled that the acceptence of a pardon was mandatory to validating it, and doing so automaticlly constituted an admission of guilt.
On the other hand Bill Clinton had to go and pardon a dead guy, which opened the door for that, LOGICAL assumption, to be challenged.
Nonetheless, in all minds but those who are capable of straining at a gnat, while swallowing a camel, its going to be evident that Bush pardoning himself, is an admission of his guilt.
Thanka to all of you for your comments to my question.
I do think its possible that Bush will issue thousands of pardons. If so, he will claim not that this action is any tacit admission of guilt by those pardoned, but that he is protecting the patriotic spirit of the nation that enabled these citizens to answer a call to duty that saved the country in a time of crisis. He will claim that this action is simply to protect good citizens from political retribution by his successors, and by doing so will state that he is enshrining the moral correctness of those who served national security interests.
I think this position will make the pardons less about the crimes many correctly believe were committed, and more about a President who used his authority to protect the calling of patriotism and duty.
I can see such a message playing successfully in the media, and I think it’s much less risky to Bush politically than to issue a few dozen targeted pardons to those closest to him. In other words, the outrage over pardoning a few will be lost by the sheer scale of his action. I can see the Bush pardons reaching so broadly that some individuals pardoned may have committed no crimes at all. By aggregating the potentially guilty and largely innocent into one large class, he will reframe the discussion about the meaning of this action.
Just a theory, and I hope I’m wrong on it.
puzzling,
I think that is a good analysis of the situation. We see these ideas ramping up in the talking points now. This rational was utilized heavily in the telecoms case where it was pointed out that these poor community service minded companies who made billions of dollars breaking the law where just doing it “for team America”. Right!
Jill
puzzling
1, July 24, 2008 at 8:06 am
If so, he will claim not that this action is any tacit admission of guilt by those pardoned, but that he is protecting the patriotic spirit of the nation that enabled these citizens to answer a call to duty that saved the country in a time of crisis. He will claim that this action is simply to protect good citizens from political retribution by his successors, and by doing so will state that he is enshrining the moral correctness of those who served national security interests.
Its like you’re peering into the future. Thats no doubt right in line with the reasoning they will purport for their evading justice.
Me thinks sir, thou art a prophet.
I have a question for you Professor Turley.
If George Bush is the subject of impeachment hearings, even if no vote is conducted, does this impede his ability to pardon?
I am not a Constitutional scholar, so I defer to your interpretation of this, but this clause of Article 2, Section 2:
“…(H)e shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
I look at that and think that if the president is in the midst of impeachment that he is unable to pardon anyone. So if Nancy Pelosi allowed the Judiciary Committee to hold hearings, but does not want it to come to a vote…could it be to place a marker to prevent these potential pre-emptive pardons?
Or does this single exception for pardons “except in Cases of Impeachment” refer to the potential recipient and not the
president?
And, can you really pre-emptively pardon someone for a crime they have not been charged with by any legal authority? What would the pardon say the legal sins they are being absolved for? Or does it give them a cosmic “get out of jail card free” that they can redeem for anything should future prosecutors decide to target them for investigation or grand jury testimony?
I think most people here are underestimating Bush. He can and will pardon himself and his cronies.
Who cares if its a tacit admission? We all KNOW he did it, yet there he sits, King Dubya, untouchable.
The problem is leaders in congress that are supposed to shut him down are accomplices. Members of the Senate Intelligence committee SAT IN on torture meetings and quietly let them slide by, so they are complicit.
Why would hypocrites like Pelosi bring actual impeachment proceedings when her role in the coverup would come to light?
Quit being naive. Our Republic is now a shadow dictatorship and America’s Apathy + Corruption in Congress = no end in sight…
I’m really torn about whether to hate or love Bush Jr. On the one hand, he is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Iraqis but on the other hand he has done more to end the reign of the American Empire than anybody including Reagan.
I’m also torn on Obama vs. McCain for the same reason as above. On the one hand, Obama like Clinton could turn the Republican deficit into a surplus and perhaps get a settlement for Palestine and Israel. On the other hand eight more years of Bush – I mean McCain and a war with Iran which is four times larger and has more than double the population of Iraq and has many more sophisticated weapons could very well be what bankrupts the US, demoralizes what is left of the armed forces and leaves them unable to dominate the world.
Unfortunately, I’m going to have to go with McCain because more Iraqis died under Clinton than under Bush. Clinton deprived Iraq of food and medicine with his sanctions and over 500 000 children died (see WHO, IRC) and when Albright was asked if it was justified in killing half a million children, she said “yes”.
For all of us non-American citizens, go to McCain’s website and donate money. When asked for a Zip Code, just pick almost any random five digit number – I went with 85050 (Phoenix, Arizona) but I’m sure 90210 would work just as well.
I feel sorry for all the Iranians and US soldiers who will die under McCain and I pray that God will take my explanation on Judgment Day, that I was doing it for the good of the world in the long term and I would encourage all those that donate to also donate to the International Red Crescent/Red Cross after the war to help the orphaned children and maybe some money for all the disabled soldiers that make it back alive. God Bless and please forgive me.
> Unfortunately, I’m going to have to go with McCain because more Iraqis died under Clinton than under Bush
Are you serious? Excellent logic here….more Iraqis died under Clinton than under Bush, therefore I will vote for McCain and not Obama.
Yes, I’m sure God will understand and accept your explanation…. Just donate some money for the orphans and happily go about your life.
leave it alone, marvin…
(the ghost of).
zakimar 1, July 26, 2008 at 2:44 am
“… For all of us non-American citizens, go to McCain’s website and donate money. When asked for a Zip Code, just pick almost any random five digit number – I went with 85050 (Phoenix, Arizona) but I’m sure 90210 would work just as well…”
p.s. Psssssst, fellow turlees, I’ve decided zakimar is ‘code’ for
‘im-kra-z’