For my part, if the RW is prepared to drop all that bullshit now, I’m prepared to stop rubbing their noses in its stupidity.
Of course he will; he won’t want to risk them getting jailed, or executed for treason, or give them an incentive to talk.
He’ll pardon people left and right, in my opinion; probably including himself.
Well, hell. I had composed this elaborate reply and apparently exceeded the window to respond.
I guess what I was trying to say in the post that didn’t make it this: Bush isn’t going to pardon Cheney for war crimes or suspend the Constitution or enact martial law so that his neo-con Nazi buddies can rule the world for the next Millennium.
I’ve been on this boards, and others, for awhile and I’m always astonished at what people believe Bush will do to the United States.
And, he’s not going to pardon Stevens.
Bush is going to do what every other President has done and pass the office to the rightfully elected successor. If you really think otherwise, you haven’t been paying attention.
What does Bush deciding to “suspend the Constitution or enact martial law so that his neo-con Nazi buddies can rule the world for the next Millennium” have to do with pardons ? He won’t pardon people out of a desire for world conquest; he’ll do it to avoid them and himself ending up being prosecuted.
And if he had the political power to suspend the Constitution and grab world power, he’d do it, and not worry about pardons.
This is a complete and utter hijack, and I apologize:
A person on an Livejournal community I was reading put it the best way–President Bush will get up onto the stage, intone with impressive solemnity and gravity, “My fellow Americans,” and then fling his arms wide, and say:
“The Aristocrats!”
Back on topic: what about Jeffrey Skilling?
Dusty Foggio
He had better not pardon Jonathan Pollardor the FBI and CIA will go apeshit.
Do you really think that? Why? What has Bush done to indicate that? He may have done things within his purvey that you disagree with, but do you want to take those powers away from a president that you agree with?
Congress and the courts are always a check and balance and if Bush, or any other president, exceeds presidential authority, they will correct his excesses.
Do you really think that Bush is going to pardon anyone to protect himself or others for whatever crimes you may imagine that he has committed? I’m sorry, seriously? You know as well as I do that Bush is no more or no less the same than every other President that has come before him and he will step down when his time is over.
I’ve been reading for eight years that he would suspend the Constitution and declare himself dictator. I see no indication that will do that. And, are you prepared to try him for crimes against the nation?
And my previous respsonse was to Der Trihs, not those who posted afterwords.
The power to have people kidnapped and tortured, to lie and get away with it without punishment, to expose intelligence agents for political punishment, to spy on American citizens, to do all the other things he’s done, and to pardon the people who did that for you ? Of course.
Dream on. We just had an 8 year example showing that they won’t.
Of course. Why wouldn’t he ?
He’s one of the worst Presidents we’ve had, far worse than most. And he’ll step down because he has no choice. And again, what does that have to do with pardons anyway ?
He lacks the power, or I’m sure he would. And again, WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH PARDONS ?
Certainly. He should have be impeached long ago.
In the context of pardons, it’s almost impossible to exceed his authority. It’s a truly plenary power-one that the President has complete discretion to apply. (though presumably, he couldn’t legally take a bribe to give a pardon).
And as he’ll have quit, he’s unimpeachable.
So there really are few checks and balances on this. If a republican was taking office, he might worry about the new president’s reputation, but not here.
Jeffrey Skilling and Scooter Lewis are quite possible.
I doubt he’ll pardon himself, or the VP, but I wouldn’t at all be surprised by a pardon of “any U.S. intelligence or military personnel who used enhanced interrogation techniques on terrorist suspects by order of superior officers, and in reliance upon Justice Department advisory opinions, from Sept. 11, 2001 through Jan. 20, 2009,” or the like.
Can the SOB really pardon himself? Legally, that is?
I suspect he will pardon whomsoever Cheney suggests he pardon, including Cheney himself.
On review, I doubt that Bush lacks the ability to even consider that he has done anything remotely deserving of a pardon. After all, I think he really believes that God directed him to do everything he has done.
And I’m always astonished that there are people willing to ignore what he’s done to the United States already. Every time we think he can’t possibly screw us over worse, he sinks to new lows.
That has never been tested. To date no POTUS, not even Nixon – the only one who left office alive under circumstances that might lead to his own criminal indictment – has dared to try it. But, Nixon knew he had Ford in his pocket (the two of them were much closer longtime friends than was widely appreciated at the time).
This has been endlessly hashed over, both here and by legal scholars. As far as we know, no President has ever done so, but the pardon power is virtually absolute. Although some argue that the Framers never intended a President to be able to pardon himself or herself, the Constitution does not prohibit it. In a democracy under the rule of law, what is not prohibited is permitted. The judgment of history would be harsh, but IMHO that has not particularly troubled Mr. Bush up to now.
Although not pardons, Bush apparently is looking at using his last few weeks as President to gut environmental protections. Cite
Personally, I hope President Bush pardons lots of people - so far he has pardoned relatively few, and I don’t think that is particularly wise. There are times when justice demands an executive pardon, and for this reason I hope he’s saving a lot of them for the end.
Many of the more controversial Clinton pardons were controversial because there was pretty clear proof that Clinton had sold the pardon in some way - this is true of the Marc Rich pardon and the pardons that Hugh and Tony Rodham lobbied for. I don’t think we will see that sort of blatant corruption in the Bush pardons.
There may well be pardons of administration figures or other people close to Bush - these pardons may be controversial, but I doubt they’ll be much different in scale from what previous presidents have done. Clinton, Bush I and Reagan made use of the pardon power in this way. I’m sure it will be a topic of conversation at the time, but it won’t amount to much in the end.
Care to expand on that, and apply it to Bush Admin cases?
Why do you keep harping on that? It is completely unrelated to the thread topic.