[QUOTE=BarnOwl]
I think it would be a diabolical stroke of genius if he pardoned only himself and let the rest of the possible felons in his administration sweat blood.
[/QUOTE]
Why would he do that? When he has the power to pardon the others, why not use it? Anything they might be forced to say in the course of a prosecution would reflect on him, and his legacy is all he’ll have after January.
Besides, one virtue W actually seems to have is personal loyalty. It would have been more convenient for his Admin not to commute Scooter Libby’s sentence, but he did it anyway.
He would (theoretically, anyway) pardon himself to save his ass. There are rumblings by the dems, lately, of BushCo accountability. Who knows how
much of this is pure crap.
But the rub is what Bricker noted: accepting a pardon necessarily constitutes an admission of guilt. So I think Bush can’t say, “I’m really innocent, but my lawyers say I must protect myself from unfair (or whatever word works best) prosecution by those vengeful Democrats.”
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
The question is not “would he” but “can he.”
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=me]
Another issue raised by the conviction of a sitting president is pardon. Can the president pardon himself? Once again, there is no clear answer in the Constitution. Amar says a sitting president cannot pardon himself; ex-White House counsel John Dean says, in effect, “why not?”
While no president has ever pardoned himself, the law supports the president's authority to do so. Scholarly inquiry into the subject was provoked first by fear that Richard Nixon would pardon himself to escape Watergate; later by thought that George H. W. Bush would do so because of the Iran-Contra grand jury; and most recently by concern about Bill Clinton's problem of a possible post-Presidency indictment and trial. And while a few scholars have concluded that the president cannot pardon himself, many more believe that he can.
[QUOTE=jtgain]
I’m not a fan of GW Bush, but what in the hell are you going to charge him with? Being a bad President isn’t a federal crime..
[/QUOTE]
Even avoiding any claims over the legality of what he’s done, given what we know he’s done, do you really think that he’s done nothing illegal that an investigation wouldn’t turn up ? One argument for impeachment is that it would involve getting the Democrats off their butts for a probe into all the things he’s done, instead of looking the other way. Bush, or his handlers might be afraid that the Democrat’s corpselike inertia won’t last.
To answer the OP : Assuming that I was as arrogant, sociopathic and guilty of as many things as Bush, yes I’d pardon myself. It won’t hurt his legacy; that’s already nothing but disaster and evil, except in the eyes of the True Believers who wouldn’t blink at a self-pardon. They’ll just blame the Democrats.
[QUOTE=BarnOwl]
But the rub is what Bricker noted: accepting a pardon necessarily constitutes an admission of guilt. So I think Bush can’t say, “I’m really innocent, but my lawyers say I must protect myself from unfair (or whatever word works best) prosecution by those vengeful Democrats.”
[/QUOTE]
Why can’t he say that? You might not believe him, and his detractors wouldn’t either. But his supporters would.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
In fact, there is case law on the issue: you don’t have to accept a pardon, because acceptance of it carries an admission of guilt as well as a remission of any criminal liability.
Burdick v. U.S.
[/QUOTE]
Burdick says what it says, and it says that. On the other hand, the admission of guilt part of Burdick is dicta, and Burdick has been distinguished and limited a few times. More fundamentally, the statement doesn’t seem especially relevant. The court could easily have held that Burdick didn’t have a choice in the matter. The Constitution certainly doesn’t say anything about declining a pardon. Instead, the Court relied on earlier cases that found, at least in the case of conditional pardons, that they weren’t complete until accepted. Which is, IMO, the true holding of Burdick. I see no reason to get into the metaphysical debate about whether it necessarily implies anything. Here is what the Court said:
But before it said that, the Court had already ruled Burdick could reject the pardon based on a case called Wilson, which didn’t say anything at all about “imputation of guilt.” Instead the Court recognized that there was a procedure for pardons that included delivery and acceptance.
While portions of Burdick seem to hang on the “imputation of guilt” bit, it certainly wasn’t necessary to the holding of the case, and it just doesn’t make sense. You’ve got no Constitutional right to avoid imputation of guilt–only to avoid being forced to be a witness against yourself. And if you are accepting the pardon, you aren’t risking that because you can’t be tried for the offense. In other words, that portion of Burdick is transcendental nonsense that wasn’t necessary to the holding and doesn’t even make much sense.
All of that said, I’d suggest that politically and factually, the President issuing himself a pardon implies that he at least has a guilty conscience, and probably fears prosecution.
I wouldn’t, because I would believe in what I had done. Some people here obviously expect that one day Bush is going to admit he pulled a fast one on everybody and knows everything he did was wrong. I don’t believe he thinks that way - and even if he did, he’s never going to admit it. He’s got little reason to fear prosecution from a future President, if for no other reason that the precedent that would set.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Why can’t he say that? You might not believe him, and his detractors wouldn’t either. But his supporters would.
[/QUOTE]
If he says he’s innocent, he denies guilt. Says Bricker, "…because acceptance of it (the pardon) carries an admission of guilt as well as a remission of any criminal liability.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Why would he do that? When he has the power to pardon the others, why not use it? Anything they might be forced to say in the course of a prosecution would reflect on him, and his legacy is all he’ll have after January.
Besides, one virtue W actually seems to have is personal loyalty. It would have been more convenient for his Admin not to commute Scooter Libby’s sentence, but he did it anyway.
[/QUOTE]
I thought the expected loyalty was 100% towards him and that it wasn’t always fully reciprocal going the other way. Not saying there’s any reason to only pardon himself but the idea that loyalty when it comes to Bush is always 100% in both directions doesn’t always hold up.
[QUOTE=BarnOwl]
If he says he’s innocent, he denies guilt. Says Bricker, "…because acceptance of it (the pardon) carries an admission of guilt as well as a remission of any criminal liability.
[/QUOTE]
Read Gfactor’s post.
But even if it technically and legally required admitting guilt, so what? If you “knew” you were innocent and had the choice of a) facing jail time or b) admitting guilt and not facing any jail time (or any other punishment at all), which would you do? Would you consider yourself guilty or innocent? How about your friends and family who also “knew” you were innocent?
But even if it technically and legally required admitting guilt, so what? If you “knew” you were innocent and had the choice of a) facing jail time or b) admitting guilt and not facing any jail time (or any other punishment at all), which would you do? Would you consider yourself guilty or innocent? How about your friends and family who also “knew” you were innocent?
[/QUOTE]
b, of course, just like everyone else.
So Bush followers would believe him. How many is that - 28%?
[QUOTE=BarnOwl]
b, of course, just like everyone else.
So Bush followers would believe him. How many is that - 28%?
[/QUOTE]
I’m not sure if he would consider this as a factor in such a decision, but as has been indicated, I think, even in the hypothetical, Bush would do what he feels ensures his legacy most.
In this case, it would be no pardon. In keeping with his stubborness and blinkered view of everything, he’s so sure that time and history will vindicate his presidency and the surety of his viewpoint and decisions, anything on the record which belies that outcome and would create a blot is unacceptable.
[QUOTE=BarnOwl]
b, of course, just like everyone else.
So Bush followers would believe him. How many is that - 28%?
[/QUOTE]
Well, I already said that. But it may be higher or lower in the future. Plus, how many people are aware of the “accept pardon = admit guilt” deal (which, may not even be true)?
Besides, his detractors probably already think he’s guilty. What’s to lose?
How big a blanket is cast when a president pardons himself? Does he have to at least specify the crime he is pardoning himself for, or can he just pardon himself for any crime he may have committed over the last 8 years?
Why would he do that? When he has the power to pardon the others, why not use it? Anything they might be forced to say in the course of a prosecution would reflect on him, and his legacy is all he’ll have after January.