Obama’s meeting with Bush today. I hope Obama tells Bush to stop that shit. Obama’s just going to reverse everything in a couple of months anyway. It just makes Bush look petty and spiteful, like Saddam’s men torching the oil wells when they left Kuwait.
Or John Adams making the “Midnight Appointments” that led to the Marbury vs. Madison decision.
Without putting words in oliversarmy’s mouth, I think his point is that people have made a lot of wrong and inflated predictions about what Bush is going to do over the years, including “he’ll invade Iran,” “he’ll rig/suspend the election,” or the things oliversarmy mentioned. Since a lot of those things didn’t happen it’s hard to take something like this seriously. I don’t think he’ll pardon himself or Cheney. For one, he doesn’t think they’ve done anything wrong, and he has also had years of legal counsel about this. And besides, he knows Obama would have a disincentive against doing this - if he prosecutes Bush it’ll set a precedent where future presidents get put on trial by their successors.
Keep in mind that everyperson he pardons looses the ability to plead the 5th when called before a grand jury or Congressional committe. At least there’s a silver lining.
I understand how the president can pardon convicted criminals, but how can it be possible to pardon preemptively in the case where the person has not been convicted or even prosecuted yet?
Because the pardon constitutes forgiveness of a crime - the fact that prosecution of that crime might or might not be pending is irrelevant to this power of the executive.
Ford set the precedent and it stuck. (Actually I do not know if that was the first “pre-emptive” pardon a POTUS had ever granted, but it is the one best remembered.)
Sure - Bush has pardoned for the most part moonshiners, gamblers, petty crooks, and dopeheads whose crimes were long behind them and who would use the pardon to reestablish a far cleaner record to go about their lives. This is a pretty well-established use of that power, and isn’t controversial for the most part.
Ford’s action was hardly precedent-setting. Washington pardoned many of the Whiskey Rebels even though no indictments had been brought against them. That established the precedent far more than what Ford did nearly two centuries later.
That is quite the silver lining. I, for one, think these SOB’s are going to get ‘away with it’. It would be a happy trade to let them off the hook if we could, once and for all , pull the covers off and see, conclusively, what exact misdeeds have been done in the name of ‘Liberty’.
I have no problem with any of that, but what the thread is really about is whether W will pardon anyone in or connected to his Administration.
Frankly, I expect that he will - since this seems to be the pattern of recent presidents in general.
Can you pre pardon? They are not charged with anything yet. But Bush, Cheney,Rove,etc may be nailed later. I want Cheney to go to Europe. They may put him on trial there. He can hold Kissingers hand as they get led away.
Answered above. If Washington can do it, there is no reason any other president can’t.
Doesn’t a pardon imply that you committed the crime you were charged with? That is, if you accept a pardon and the forgiveness it brings, you’re also proclaiming your guilt? Yeah, getting the sentence waived would probably be great, but if Scooter Libby genuinely believes he didn’t commit a crime, he might not want to accept a pardon.
Yes. Andrew Johnson also pardoned whole categories of former Confederate officials, officers and soldiers who hadn’t been charged with any crime.
Do we have to trot out this argument every time a question of ethics is asked? Does it make it more ethical that others have done so before him? Does it make it less contemptible that he wouldn’t be the first? Is there some sort of magic button saying that because it’s extra-legal, it’s essential?
I recall a lot of family members and friends, all Republican, complaining about Clinton’s pardons. Now suddenly because Bush may do the same thing, it’s alright? I don’t accept that. If it was wrong then, it’s wrong now. Especially considering all those who claimed to have found it so disgraceful when the last guy did it.
No, I think we have to draw distinctions. For better or worse the cat is out of the bag when it comes to pardoning government officials - it seems to be accepted that presidents of both parties will do this from time to time in order to get things accomplished. And it even crosses party lines and administrations - Clinton pardoned Fife Symington, and Reagan pardoned Mark Felt (later revealed to be Deep Throat) for actions committed during the 1970s in the “black-bag jobs.”
The Clinton pardons are different because in the case of the Rodham lobbied pardons and in the case of the Rich pardon there was pretty solid evidence that people had paid money for the privilege of having their cases considered. Frankly, I can’t even find Democrats who will defend that practice - though they will defend the pardon power in general, as will I.
I think Bush actually believes that history will vindicate him for the Iraq invasion, etc. Believing that history will vindicate him for pardoning himself may strain even his capacity for self-delusion.
Although the Consititution doesn’t say that the President can’t pardon himself, it does say that the pardon power can’t be used in cases of impeachment. Any criminal charge against a sitting president will take the form of an impeachment, and it may be that the Founding Fathers just neglected to consider the case of a president being pursued by the law after leaving office. And I can’t see any reason for limiting the pardon in cases of impeachment, if the intent wasn’t to prohibit the President from pardoning himself.
The only penalties for conviction in an impeachment case are removal from office and disqualification from future office – it’s not a criminal prosecution in the usual sense. Someone might be impeached and then criminally prosecuted for the same acts, and a pardon would override the latter.