DISQUS

tbhull · 1 year ago

Any chance that the chicken shit kangaroo chritian identity common law courts in Alaska pushed by old angry Alaskan miner man we got to know because of Palin's association with the successionist types will hold Stevens accountable in Alaska?

Mary · 1 year ago

How about Toledo, Ohio's favorite convict, Tom Noe?

LawMichigander · 1 year ago

Well how can you pardon someone for crimes they have not been officially accused of? You can't pardon someone before they commit a crime. Does this mean by issuing a pardon no matter what the language that each person did commit crimes, yes.

Steve_in_CNJ · 1 year ago

turns out you certainly can pardon before conviction. nixon was the most famous example.

naschkatzehussein · 1 year ago

You are right, but I am wonder how big of a blanket pardon can Bush give someone. I'm sure he will test that thought, but let's take Karl Rove, for example. Is Bush going to be able to say that he absolves Rove from any charges whatsoever? What about the Siegelman case? The WH denies any involvement in it so if Bush pardons Rove in advance for anything illegal he may have done in that particular case, wouldn't it be tying Rove's pardon to work he HAS done for the WH? I think the treason type charges would be too difficult to prove, e.g., Plame outing, but there is some real meat in the Siegelman case including live witnesses willing to testify against Rove.

Steve_in_CNJ · 1 year ago

i expect rove will submit a list of things he wants to be pardoned for.

Asterix · 1 year ago

It would seem to be the logical extension that if you can pardon someone for something that they may or may not have done (as was done with the Nixon crowd), one could, by extension pardon someone for something that they haven't done yet, but might do, such as commit a murder.

I always thought the Nixon pardons used some of the most contorted logic ever devised. Convict them first, then pardon them. None of this "I don't know if you did it or not, but I forgive you." The public is entitled to the truth and pardoning someone who "may or may not have" committed a crime is nothing more than interference with the workings of the justice system.

raine · 1 year ago

Randy "duke" Cunningham?

Gridlock · 1 year ago

Of course not. How can the people expect their leaders to be held accountable for the laws they break?

What a silly concept: responsibility

The Dems don't wanna do it because they were part and parcel to it all, they let it all happen and even joined in on some of it. THey just want it swept under the rug so nobody looks at it close enough.

*spits on them*

grandma · 1 year ago

The Bush administration should not be allowed to get away with these crimes.....think of what a precedent that would set for future administrations.....

From Sullivan:

Hilzoy proposes a special prosecutor:

"This prosecutor should be someone with an unimpeachable reputation for wisdom, rectitude, and non-partisanship. (Think Archibald Cox.) He or she should be given complete independence, and should decide, without any interference from anyone in government, whether or not to bring charges. That would allow charges to be brought if they are merited, while minimizing the chances that they would be seen as partisan."

That's better than leaving the precedent that a president can break the law and pardon himself later - especially when the law we are talking about is the prohibition on torture. But it might also be feasible for Obama to set up a Truth and Reconciliation Commission that, in return for legal immunity in the US, could at least unearth and publicize the full evidence and records of the past eight years. We would at least know more about who authorized what and when. And in a democracy, we need to know, when such immesne power is being exercised on our behalf.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily...

ComradeRutherford · 1 year ago

"The Bush administration should not be allowed to get away with these crimes.....think of what a precedent that would set for future administrations"

Reagan and Bush I set that precedent already. They pardoned everyone involved with unConstitutionally selling top-of-the-line US armaments to Iran to raise money to fund the illegal and immoral civil wars in Central America. Oliver North is a media celebrity for having violated his oath to the US Constitution. Cap Weinberger, the whole lot of them!

But even if they weren't pardoned, the Democratic Leadership had already announced (in a press conference after the Tower Commission report was released) that they would never prosecute a single Republican no matter how egregious their crimes. As far as I'm concerned selling TOW missiles to a 'terrorist' state to raise money to hire mercenaries to slaughter Hondurans and Salvadoran who dared to vote for their candidate in their elections is way, way up that list.

So Bush II is already safe, he doesn't have to pardon a single soul. The Democratic Leadership is obviously controlled by the GOP, the proof of that is the last Congress' stubborn refusal to uphold the Rule of Law (for which they were elected) and the promise of the new President and Congress to do the same: let the GOP get off scott-free for handing trillions of dollars to war profiteers so our soldiers can catch bullets and bomb weddings.

Steve_in_CNJ · 1 year ago

how about a posthumous pardon of Vitter's DC madam? also eric randolph.

John Aravosis · 1 year ago

How about Larry Craig

Steve_in_CNJ · 1 year ago

not craig. georgie holds homos to a higher standard. and i meant eric rudolph. eric randolph (whoever that is) is innocent!

prodigalbanker · 1 year ago

I agree with Mary, Tom Noe has to be near the top of the list.

Excellent change to the comments, John.

smiling_dog · 1 year ago

Well, can he pardon someone who hasn't been indicted or convicted of any crime? How can he pardon Rove if Rove isn't yet tried or accused of anything? Same with Cheney.

naschkatzehussein · 1 year ago

Ford pardoning Nixon--there's your precedent.

kooperman · 1 year ago

He'll probably remember his old pal Osama Bin Laden...

John Aravosis · 1 year ago

LOL okay that's funny

Indigo · 1 year ago

Free Leonard Peltier!

Ginger_FL · 1 year ago

Barney the bad tempered !!

tlsintx · 1 year ago

David Addington's gonna need one...

beemer · 1 year ago

Lynndie England and Charles Graner?

naschkatzehussein · 1 year ago

No, I don't think Bush will be pardoning the whitebait, just his big shot friends.

Amicus · 1 year ago

Bush and bush officials?

Did you notice how little this question got pursued, either in the primaries or in the general?

What does that tell you, maybe?

beemer · 1 year ago

Larry Craig?

Ann · 1 year ago

Well, could be worse. With GW, walking disaster area that he is, I would be relieved if he didn't pardon Charlie Manson.

CrackerDog · 1 year ago

Stevens won't be expelled from the Senate. He'll lose that seat.

John Aravosis · 1 year ago

Very true, though it's looking like a recount is coming

naschkatzehussein · 1 year ago

You think Stevens will request one, or (I am not familiar with Alaska's laws) would it be automatic? It would take up a lot of time, but my hunch is that Begich would still come out on top unless the recount itself is "fixed". Given the corruption up there, you never know, but the polls going into Nov.4 had Stevens anywhere between 7 and 22 points down. I think there was something fishing about the election itself.

carl · 1 year ago

Monica Goodling and all the Liberty Law alumni. Just hand them out at the reunion.

Driver · 1 year ago

There is no legal presadent for blanket immunity He cannot issue a pardon without first admitting that the person he is giving a pardon to has committed a crime which he could be prosicuted for. With that being the case if He issues a pardon for Rove He must first admit that Rove committed a crime then He can give him a pardon,He cant issue a blanket pardon saying that Rove is pardon for any crime he may have committed in the past.same with Cheney he would have to admit He committed a crime then issue a pardon for that crime.

KKT · 1 year ago

Now, therefore, I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or MAY HAVE COMMITTED or taken part in during the period from July (January) 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.

laketahoeblue · 1 year ago

There certainly is legal precedent for issuing a pardon without any admission of guilt. Gerald Ford's pardon of Nixon is the premier example.

othniel · 1 year ago

First post-election Pardon expected in a few days. Some turkey or another.

boloboffin · 1 year ago

I guess Scooter Libby doesn't even need to be mentioned, he's so in for a complete pardon.

Imlac · 1 year ago

Libby has already been pardoned.

Art · 1 year ago

Libby has NOT been pardoned. Only his sentence has been commuted.

boloboffin · 1 year ago

That's right. Libby's still a convicted felon, just like Ted Stevens, for at least a couple of months.

Imlac · 1 year ago

" Cheney and Rumsfeld are guaranteed."

Umm, I'm not a lawyer, but don't you have to be charged and convicted before you can be pardoned?

KKT · 1 year ago

No. Remember that Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon before Nixon was ever charged ...

ComradeRutherford · 1 year ago

What about Gonzalez and Meirs? What are your thoughts on them?

CJ White · 1 year ago

Here's my paranoid scenario:

Bush pardons everyone from Cheney on down. But he can't pardon himself. So, instead of attending the inauguration, he resigns; Justice Clarence Thomas swears in now-President Cheney, he pardons now-Citizen Bush, and Obama says; “So help me God.” Thus ends our national nightmare.

uess · 1 year ago

it is not at all clear that buxh cannot pardon himself. and i have been predicting for more than a year that he will pardon himself. in fact, there was a discussion of this very point last night on msnbc. jonathon turley said this subject is something of a parlor game with lawyers: can he or can't he? and he said nixon toyed with pardoning himself, but thought better of it. buxh would have no such second thoughts, i believe. the only exception in the constitution is that the president cannot pardon someone who has been impeached.

Ryon · 1 year ago

I don't think the President can pardon state crimes, i.e. Larry Craig and Ton Delay. Delay was indicted by a Texas grand jury. If I'm not mistaken the POTUS can only pardon crimes against the federal government. Delay and Craig would have to be pardoned by the respective governors, both of which happen to be Republicans.

Dave_of_the_Jungle · 1 year ago

Pardon Laura Bush for marrying a Complete Idiot.

BobInSanDiego · 1 year ago

Don't forget Duke Cunningham. He's begging for one.

Dave_of_the_Jungle · 1 year ago

Pardon Laura Bush for marrying a Complete Idiot.

Dave of the Jungle · 1 year ago

People will think you're a complete idiot for posting this twice.

sukabi1 · 1 year ago

do you have a multiple personality thing going on today??? 2 different gravitars... LOL.

High Crimes & Misdemeanors · 1 year ago

DOJ, has your name been hijacked??

Dave of the Jungle · 1 year ago

I wuz just fun'n with ya.

gumboman · 1 year ago

Paul Wolfowitz and some other neo-cons. All these pardons would set up a horrible precedent in which future presidents could say to hell with the law I'll just pardon everyone. Not good. But then again Bush doesn't care.

Dave of the Jungle · 1 year ago

Pardon Pat Buchanan for having such a whiny voice.

Webster · 1 year ago

Sorry, there's no excuse or pardon there--or for Sarah Palin's voice either. 1 million fingernails down a blackboard. Aaaagggh!

KKT · 1 year ago

isn't Tom Delay facing state charges. Let's not forget that Bush can pardon people for any federal crime he wants, but he has no authority to pardon them for state crimes.

bumpkis · 1 year ago

Pardons are on the table, Impeachment is off the table...Pelosi is ultimately responsible for any pardons as they cannot be granted to individuals facing charges as a result of impeachment investigations.

Bush does not need to be IMPEACHED...just bring charges.

Scottsdalian · 1 year ago

If the Prez issues a pardon to someone, isn't that person then compelled - if asked - to full testify about that which he is pardoned for?

So if Bush pardons, for example, Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld - aren't they compelled to answer questions about 9/11, invading Iraq & torture?

And while they may escape U.S. prosecution, can't other countries use that testimony to bring war crimes charges in the World Court in the Hague? (Think countries unfriendly to US - Venezuela, Russia, Iran, etc.!)

Might Obama be using the "rope-a-dope" strategy here???

laketahoeblue · 1 year ago

There is no law or regulation that requires individuals who receive pardons to testify about anything. They are free to go.

peacearena · 1 year ago

John, usually I can't comment because Disqus won't recognize my login, even though I'm log in fine at Disqus and other sites using it. I've tried clearing cache and deleting the old cookies, but no difference.

Webster · 1 year ago

Wouldn't it mean admitting that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove et al were indeed criminals if he were to pre-extend a pardon before he left office?

Another layer of meaning added to the "Bush Doctrine."

laketahoeblue · 1 year ago

If Bush issued blanket pardons to Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc., I'm sure he'd say it was in no way an acknowledgment of any wrongdoing on the part of these individuals. Rather, I expect he would probably justify his issuing of the pardons by stating he did so because there are those motivated to indict these individuals solely due to vindictive, ugly, political, partisan reasons and he wants to spare these individuals from such abuse.

Webster · 1 year ago

It's been a long eight years--you've got the rhetoric down pat!

;-)

Soundboy_jeff_meanie · 1 year ago

John, ted foley's charges never stuck... in fact, pardon the pun, he's trying to make a comeback.

.

bschilli · 1 year ago

The Constitution simply says that "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member." It doesn't say that any reason or explanation is required for expulsion.

sukabi1 · 1 year ago

John, even if Bush issues blanket pardons to everyone, including himself, does that negate a trial at the Hague for war crimes??

Soundboy_jeff_meanie · 1 year ago

nope. they can still try bringing them up on war crimes charges... good point though, Obama wouldn't have to be involved at all, let the Hague go after them.

the problem is, they wouldn't be albe to extradite any of these guys... the US wouldn't let it happen.

otherwise, cheney and rumsfeld would already be in jail in Germany.

.

Soundboy_jeff_meanie · 1 year ago

as for stevens... a pardon isn't an exoneration is it? that doesn't wipe the record, just the punishment.

laketahoeblue · 1 year ago

If the pardon is issued prior to any conviction, then there would be no conviction on the individual's record. But since a pardon means the crime is "forgiven", I do not believe a crime for which a person had been convicted will still appear on the person's record, or be counted against the person, if the person later received a pardon. I believe the pardon, in effect, wipes the slate clean for that person.

nainam · 1 year ago

I can think of a lot of possible options:

--Presidents should not be able to pardon anyone responsible for murder of civilians, mass or otherwise

--Presidents should be limited to no more than 2 pardons

--Presidents who themselves have committed crimes should not be allowed to pardon anyone


Obama has a lot on his plate and it's common wisdom that he will not "go after" the murderous "Bush gang" for a while. But I think he could get any of the above suggestions passed by Congress and then prosecute them after he gets the economy and unemployment and inflation under control.

Of course by then they will have all fled to countries where they can't be extradited.....but on the other hand, it's hard to be banned from your familiar home country forever. So in some way, the bad guys can and should be punished.

naschkatzehussein · 1 year ago

I know Ford pardoned Nixon preemptively, but I think everyone knew what Nixon would have been charged with if he hadn't been pardoned. In Bush's case, it will be interesting to see how far he is going to go with the meaning of the word "blanket". Is he going to pardon people in advance for torture specifically, for example, because they thought they were just "serving their country", or is he going to try and pardon them in advance for any and all work they may have done for the WH on the basis that they were working for the WH and serving the president and country?

laketahoeblue · 1 year ago

A President does not need to specify the particular acts (such as "torture") for which he may be pardoning someone. In a blanket pardon, the President can indicate that the individual is being pardoned for "any crimes" the individual may have committed against the United States. This is the way President Ford specified the pardon he granted to Richard Nixon.

Frankly, my dear, ... · 1 year ago

Frequently asked questions:

Can the president pardon anyone for any crime?

No, the president can only pardon "offenses against the United States". He can't pardon violations of state law and he can't fix parking tickets.

Does someone have to be tried and convicted before he can be pardoned?

No, the president can pardon anyone for "offenses against the United States" regardless of whether they have been convicted of a federal crime or not. See <http://www.slate.com/id/2195689/>.

Can the president issue a blanket pardon for any and all offenses a person may have committed against the United States?

Yes, this is precisely the form of the pardon that Ford granted to Nixon. See <http://www.ford.utexas.edu/library/speeches/740...>

tigergrrldc · 1 year ago

So, basically, a president and anyone in his/her administration can break the law because the president can pardon them before leaving office. I'm sure this is NOT what the founding fathers intended. If Bush does do this, there has to be a way to make sure this doesn't happen in future administrations.

SAOIRSEFH · 1 year ago

My bet is on Bush issuing pardons to all, especially Cheney, and then resigning before January 20, so Cheney can pardon him.

KenB · 1 year ago

How about we just REMOVE the ability to Pardon (except for the turkey), and REMOVE signing statements altogether.

Both of these go against democracy and the rule of LAW that the rest of us have to follow. Just try adding a signing statement to your insurance contract sometime. :o)

Scottsdalian · 1 year ago

Any chance John or someone could do a post on how the Hague/World Court initiates war crimes investigations and prosections?

For example: Can the WC initiate a war crimes investigation or does some country have to initiate? Can ANY country initiate? Who investigates? Who prosecutes?

I would love to get a professional explanation on how this all works.

Frankly, my dear, ... · 1 year ago

For example: Can the WC initiate a war crimes investigation or does some country have to initiate? Can ANY country initiate? Who investigates? Who prosecutes?

I would love to get a professional explanation on how this all works.

Go to Humanity against Crimes (http://humanityagainstcrimes.blogspot.com/) and read the letter from the court in response to a complaint filed against Bush et al. It comes down to a matter of jurisdiction.

Scottsdalian · 1 year ago

This blog apparently doesn't exist anymore, or so says the message I got when I clicked on your link ((http://humanityagainstcrimes.blogspot.com/)). Thanks for the effort, tho.

Frankly, my dear, ... · 1 year ago

That's funny. I clicked on the link in your message and it took me straight to it. I hate it when computers go random.

Scottsdalian · 1 year ago

You're right - it works now. Previously I just got a blank Blogger page. The tubes have been a little clogged today.

coolcatdaddy · 1 year ago

Doesn't the Prez have to specifically name people he's issuing a pardon to? In other words, Bush couldn't do a "blanket" pardon for people involved in carrying out an order or torture, right?

Frankly, my dear, ... · 1 year ago

No, a blanket pardon, covering unnamed individuals, is called an amnesty. This is what Carter granted to Vietnam-era war resisters and draft dodgers.

aravir · 1 year ago

No list like this would be complete without Gonzo. All that minor stuff on torture, using the Justice Department as a political squeeze toy, and so on. Oh, and that he probably knows where all the bodies are buried, since he was there with a shovel. Think of all the work he's done on Sesame Street. That should count for something.

T. · 1 year ago

Jeff Skilling - he paid his law firm 30 million for what? a conviction? he'll walk

VJBinCT · 1 year ago

OK, here's a hypothetical... Supposing W blanket pardons minion X, who being a bit dyslexic, misses his own name on the pardon list, and on January 21st 2009, does W an injury of some kind. Can W rescind X's blanket pardon? Does the pardon extend to civil suits as well (a separate and very pertinent question)?

tas · 1 year ago

Mark Foley has never been convicted of any federal crime. Tom Delay is under indictment for violating Texas laws, not federal laws. George can't pardon him and truthfully probably hates him as much as we do.

LADawson · 1 year ago

Doesn't one have to admit a crime was committed before they can pardon someone? Handing out preemptive pardons to anyone who might be later convicted would be tantamount to admitting wrongdoing... and well, if there's one thing Bush is not about, it's not about admitting wrongdoing. I don't think he thinks he has done anything wrong to warrant a pardon, and if he pardons Cheney and Rumsfeld, he will have to pardon himself too. That's something even Nixon couldn't bring himself to do, and something like that would be the icing on the cake for those who already think he's the worst president ever.

laketahoeblue · 1 year ago

It is not necessary to admit to a crime, to be indicted of a crime, nor to be convicted of a crime to receive a presidential pardon. Gerald Ford proved this when he became President of the United States after President Nixon resigned. After he took office, President Ford issued a blanket pardon to Nixon for any crimes he may have committed while in office or for any crimes for which he may be indicted. This pardon was issued even though Nixon had not admitted to committing any crimes ("I am not a crook!) and no indictments had yet been issued on Nixon.

The pardon put an end to the pursuit of any legal proceedings against Nixon for any illegal acts he may have committed while President. Nixon did not "bring himself" to pardon himself because, in the end, he didn't need to. President Ford pardoned him. So, yes, a person can be pardoned by the President without receiving any indictment or conviction of a crime.

lost_nacf_gop · 1 year ago

Don't know about pardons, but maybe Shrub and his Church of the Poisoned Mind will try to cannonize Lee Atwater before 1/20/09?

Me, A Name I Call Myself · 1 year ago

Is Henry Lee Lucas still alive?

Ninong · 1 year ago

He will pardon former Louisiana governor Edwin Edwards.

Gandalf1954 · 1 year ago

Pardon Cheney? Don't you have to be convected of some crime and either serving time, or be on parole, or probation before you can be 'pardoned'?
That said, I do think that Bush will try and issue so sort of 'immunity' for those crooks on his staff that he thinks might be indicted after he leaves office.

Pavane · 1 year ago

Seems to me there is no justice.

MaudGonne · 1 year ago

the Bush Administration's intervention in Somalia in the name of the War on Terror. It has helped to destroy that wretched country's best chance of peace in a generation, left more than a million Somalis dead, homeless or starving, and achieved the precise opposite of its original goal. Far from stamping out an Islamic militancy that scarcely existed, the intervention has turned Somalia into a breeding ground for Islamic extremists and given al-Qaeda a valuable foothold in the Horn of Africa.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/column...

james k. sayre · 1 year ago

Pardons are a leftover from the age of English royalty and English kings. We should take away the power of the Presidential pardon. It is just another form of corruption in our corporate royalty-police state, aka, "democracy."

ivyfree · 1 year ago

He can't pardon people from other countries' judicial systems. His dad was the first to pardon people who hadn't been indicted or convicted; there was a huge flap about preemptive pardoning at the time. But other countries? They can prosecute.

wmforr · 1 year ago

Can Bush pardon himself? There is no precedent, but then again the Constitution, that scrap of paper, doesn't really forbid it. Not that it wouldn't have the Founding Fathers doing the Watusi in their graves.

But since it would be tantamount to an admission of guilt, he would do Nixon one better by saying, "I AM a crook. Well, paaaaaaaaaaaardon ME."

wmforr · 1 year ago

I just wish that Obama had come down hard on him and said, "Okay, no indictiments--IF you stop burrowing and changing the rules and doing everything you can to fuck up the government even more before you leave. Otherwise, it's open judicial season on your ass come January 20."

TomJoad · 1 year ago

If we can do something about it, we ought to. If we can't legally stop the pardons, we should hold their damn feet to the fire, immidiately start making ads for next rounds of elections "the republicans, pardoned the following people" and then list why they eve needed pardons...

Steve · 1 year ago

Posthumous ; ) pardon for Kenny-boy?

jeri · 1 year ago

How about Scooter? No, I don't mean Springsteen, I mean Libby. Or can he just pardon anyone who's worked in his administration and get it over with at one time?

RB · 1 year ago

Bush should pardon the border guards Ramos and Compeon, as well as Ted Stevens and Martha Stewart, who were convicted of non-serious infractions. His Administration team should not be indicted, as it would likely set a precedent for all future administrations, and potentially set us up for political prosecutions, like in Malaysia. Every administration beck to at least Nixon has had some people who were indictable.

Bush · 1 year ago

I love how everyone is talking about Bush pardoning people.Clinton pardoned TWICE as many people as Bush did. Every president in history has pardoned people. It is part of their right before leaving office. People just talk about it now because of the blatant disrespect this country showed for our president of 8 years. And you wonder why countries don't respect us, when we don't even show respect to our TWICE ELECTED leader.

SHAME ON BUSH · 1 year ago

MORON, Bush was appointed to his first term, he didn't even win that election after all, and his second "election" was so fraught with election irregularities as to make it a farce. Foreign countries don't respect us for our isolationist and aggressive illegal international policies which have been mostly driven by greed, not to mention our deplorable human rights abuses and the bush administration's destruction of civil rights. Obviously you get your opinions from talk radio and your news from FOX. People like you make me sick, take a hint from the recent election, your time is done, do us all a favor and go soak your head.

mike · 1 year ago

I think that a blanket pardon should be done on every american citizen in jail or prison that has not commited a violaent crime. Clear out the jails and prions and put those people to work paying taxes instead of sitting around. You would not have to keep building bigger jails and prisons saving many of millions or billions of dollars!

JJ · 11 months ago

I love all the people on here that think water boarding is so bad, Been there had it done to me it is a very useful tatic. Maybe you should think about what is done to us if we get cought they cut off your head and post it on websites all over....... Think ill take the water.