Constitutionally, the power of the president to grant pardons for federal crimes comes from Article II, Section 2, which says in pertinent part:
“The President…shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
There are all sorts of charges which have been leveled at Mr. Clinton, and the Justice Department has given the appearance of dragging its feet on many of them. I don’t want to get into whether any of the charges are true–that’s another subject, and I’m not looking to start a partisan war over it. But if George W. Bush is the next president, his Justice Department would have no reason to cover up for Clinton, and every motivation to “get” him. For that matter, even if Gore wins, it might become politically necessary to turn the hounds loose.
So…either to stay out of prison or to short-circuit vindictive attemps to smear him…is there anything that would prevent Clinton from granting himself a pardon for any federal crimes he did or might have committed, come say January 19, 2001?
I know of nothing that would prevent a president from pardoning himself. The only thing that makes me wonder if I’m wrong is that Richard Nixon didn’t do it-- but then he was facing impeachment resolutions in the House of Representatives, which could have arguably put the issue into the “in Cases of Impeachment” exception.
Does anybody have any thoughts on this possibilty? Could it be done, legally? Have I actually found a loophole which would allow a retiring president to excuse himself for any and all federal crimes he has committed?
To pardon himself, he would first have to be convicted, but to be convicted while still having the power to pardon himself, he would have to be impeached, so he couldn’t pardon himself.
So he can’t pardon himself.
To make it less complicated:
After he is president, he cannot pardon himself, so if he’s convicted then, he cannot pardon himself.
If he’s still in office, then he can only be convicted if he’s impeached, in which case he couldn’t pardon himself.
So he either cannot do it because he hasn’t the power or he’s forbidden to.
An interesting case would be if Eugene V. Debbs (socialist) had been elected President while in prison for sedition. He could have pardoned himself.
I sold my soul to Satan for a dollar. I got it in the mail.
The power is to pardon offenses against the United States, not convictions. While I am sure that it would get a whopping set of reviews and interpretations over many years, the Constitution has no language specifically preventing the President from pardoning himself, or anyone else for any and all offenses committed prior to the pardon. Even unspecified offenses. Blanket “get out of federal jail free card”.
That would not prevent state prosecutions, or civil lawsuits.
From the point of view of how much good or harm would be done to the country in the reflexive witch hunting of outgoing presidents, I am not so sure that it might not be the best idea. Nixon did us all a favor by slinking off into obscurity, I hope Clinton, and the Republican Party can see beyond their own self-interest to follow the only good example Nixon ever set.
Tris
Imagine my signature begins five spaces to the right of center.
You don’t have to be convicted to be pardoned, as we learned with Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. Look it up if you don’t know the story.
There is a tendency to forget in this country that the Constitution by which we live sometimes has unwritten clauses, which, when breached, result in amendments or legislation to prevent the breach from happening again. The classic example was the unwritten rule that no President would serve more than two terms in office. FDR shot that to hell, and we made it so no one else would violate the rule by writing it down.
So, in short, no President would pardon himself simply because not only would there be one jim-dandy legal fight over whether or not a person can pardon themselves, but because it might well result in the pardoning power being substantially circumscribed thereafter by amendment.
>>>Triskadecamus wrote: “From the point of view of how much good or harm would be done to the country in the reflexive witch hunting of outgoing presidents, I am not so sure that it might not be the best idea.”<<<
I agree that we don’t want to get into a situation where a new administration goes after the old one in a political witchhunt. At the same time, criminal acts are criminal acts–if there is truth to the allegations, they should be investigated and punished. We elect presidents, not emperors. Would there be more hesitation on the part of corrupt politicians if Richard Nixon had served time in prison for obstruction of justice? I think maybe.
>>>DSYoungEsq wrote: “So, in short, no President would pardon himself simply because not only would there be one jim-dandy legal fight over whether or not a person can pardon themselves, but because it might
well result in the pardoning power being substantially circumscribed thereafter by amendment.”<<<
And, for that matter, it would be political suicide–there are rumors to the effect that Clinton would like to run for US Senator (pick a state, any state), a la John Quincy Adams serving in the House of Representatives after being president. (It doesn’t seem likely…but then a lot of what’s gone on with Clinton didn’t seem likely.)
But let’s say for a moment that the assorted accusations are true, and that Bush wins the election–mightn’t Clinton decide it was better to provoke a jim-dandy legal fight over the pardon than to end up in a jim-dandy federal pen? And…is there really any evidence Clinton would care whether the powers of the Presidency were circumscribed after he left office?
I agree that there would be a push to restrict presidential pardoning power if Clinton tried this manuever–or, for that matter, if he issued a raft of pardons for members of the administration. Considering the possibilities for abuse, by Clinton and by future presidents, maybe that’s not such a bad idea. At the very least, blanket pardons for untried crimes should probably be eliminated. (And thanks for bringing the subject up, Mr. Ford.)
Remember when George Bush (senior) lost the presidential re-election in 1992? And how he was passing out pardons like cheap candy? One popular bumper sticker in some circles was, “Who’s gonna pardon you, George?”
And guess what? After Bush’s term ended and Clinton began, not one allegation of wrongdoing against Bush was followed up on. There was no longer any reason to. He wasn’t president any more. Without political power, no man will have very many enemies.
The same thing will probably happen to Clinton when he leaves office. The slew of allegations hurled at him while he was President were attempts to remove him from power. Once he no longer holds the most powerful office in the world, nobody’ll give a flying f*ck anymore.
Well, now, that could depend on whether or not his carpetbagger wife wins our open Senate seat, couldn’t it?
Also, there’s a major distinction between Bush (and Reagan, for that matter) and Clinton. Whatever wrongs Bush’s political opponents might have perceived against him, for the most part, he didn’t run a massive PR smear campaign against them and he came off looking like a decent person afterward. Clinton has manufactured quite a few grudges, and a good many people who see him as a mean SOB, and it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if those grudges get held.
“Sherlock Holmes once said that once you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be
the answer. I, however, do not like to eliminate the impossible.
The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it that the merely improbable lacks.”
– Douglas Adams’s Dirk Gently, Holistic Detective
Are you forgetting the whole “willie horton” smear tactic against Dukakis, (I know that Gore strated it, but Bush had no qualms about using it). There were other smear campaigns in the Bush and Regan era. I’m not trying to vindicate Clinton, he’s a pretty awfull president. But Bush and Regan certainly didn’t come off looking anywhere near decent at the end of their presidencies.
I also recall Bush’s repeated accusations of Clinton “waffling” during the 1992 election campaign. (I particular, I remember Bush going to a restaurant for breakfast and eating waffles. Darn it, now I’m hungry for waffles. Where’d I put those Eggos?)
For what it’s worth, Woodward and Bernstein allege in “The Final Days” that Nixon’s lawyers advised him that the presidential pardon power allowed him to pardon himself before leaving office.
Oldscratch – The Willie Horton thing wasn’t a “smear campaign,” but it may have been racist. It was a criticism of an offical act taken by the Dukakis administration. In general, a candidate’s past job performance should be an appropriate basis to help evaluate his ability. Dukakis had the opportunity to respond to the issue and defend his decision to release Horton.
Unfortunately, some of the Willie Horton ads were perceived as racist by some observers. It was the accusation of racisim that they were criticized for.
“Smearing” is a personal attack, like Joseph McCarthy calling Democrats “Communists” or like Hillary Clinton calling her adversaries “Vast Right Wing Conspirators.”
When a candidate is running for public office, it’s fair game to bring up one’s opponents’ policy positions, because it can be assumed that if that opponent is elected, his policies will reflect those he espoused in the past.
What offices were Ken Starr, Paula Jones or Linda Tripp running for? Certainly their interests were in opposition to President Clinton’s, but that’s dirty laundry that was supposed to have been addressed in a congressional trial…not in the press.
