Dubya and the Presidential Pardon

[Tims]

I'm not sure the best place to post this. Things on GD seem to move so fast now that many topics can get pushed way down on the stack if not responded to quickly. I would like every one to think about what I am proposing because I think it is important and I think we can have some effect if we push our congress people to act. If someone has a better idea where I should place this post where it will remain visible for a while, let me know.

For the first time since before 9/11, I feel there is a good change Dubya will not serve a second term. Of course there is still the Diebold issue and a possible October Supprise , but my sense is that Dubya is on the way out. Unfortunately people like him and his staff do not go quietly and will do everything in their power to protect themselves before the January inauguration. I predict that their main task during the Christmas Holidays will be to issue as many Presidential pardons as possible as a preemptive strike against any legal action ever being taken against them. Like his father's pardons for everyone associated with the Iran-Contra scandal, it will not only be to protect his friends, but prevent any fingers being pointed his way. I predict it will be on a scale that will make his father's pardons pale in comparison.

This is why I think something must be done now to prevent this potential travesty of justice. I'm not sure if a simple bill could be used to limit the scope of the Presidential pardon or if it would require a constitutional amendment. Regardless, a bill could be introduced and passed and would be effective unless challenged in the Supreme Court. Because of this and the time factor involved, I believe introducing a bill to limit the scope of the Presidential pardon needs to introduced as soon as possible.

It should be directed at blatant abuses of the pardon power and not an attempt to simply eliminate the pardon. As such it would be harder for the pResident to oppose it without appearing to support abuses. The outcry by the Republicans over the Clintons pardons will work against them in opposing reform. I think that regardless of the outcome, introducing such a bill will work politically in favor of the Democrats. Bush would have a hard time defending any opposition to the bill, it would be political suicide if he were to issue pardons in advance of the bill coming to vote and any late preinaugural pardons would not pass unnoticed as they have in the past.

Below is my thought on a possible Presidential Pardon Reform Bill. If we could agree to a form and get it it to sympathetic congress persons, we may get enough public attention that it could indeed be an issue for the November election.

Presidential Pardon Reform

Article I. Preemptive pardons

Section 1. No pardon may be issued in advance of an actual conviction and to which all judicial appeals to that conviction have not yet been exhausted.

Section 2. All pardons must name each and all convictions to be pardoned in sufficient detail that there can be no ambiguity as to what specific crime is being pardoned.

Section 3. The scope of the pardon applies only to the named convictions of Section 2. The pardon may not be extended to include related, unrelated, similar or dissimilar and unnamed convictions of the past or present or future.

Article II. Cronyism and indirect self pardons and protection

Section 1. No pardon may be issued to any person for any crime committed anytime during the President's current or previous term in office if that person at any time served as a member of the President's staff, his cabinet or his advisors, or was the Vice President, a member of the Vice President's staff or advisors or was an appointed official of within the executive branch or served in any official or paid capacity to the President, the Vice President, or to any member of their staff, their cabinet, their advisors or to any appointed official within the executive branch.

Section 2. No pardon may be issued by the sitting President to any person for any crime committed during any prior Presidential or Vice Presidential terms of office for either the prior President or the prior Vice President or for anyone who at any time was a member of the prior President's staff, his cabinet or his advisors, or was a member of the prior Vice President's staff or advisors or was an appointed official within the executive branch or served in any official or paid capacity to the prior President, the prior Vice President, or to any member of their staff, their cabinet, their advisors or to any appointed official of within the executive branch if and only if the current sitting President also was a member of the prior President's staff, his cabinet or his advisors, or was the prior Vice President, or a member of the prior Vice President's staff or advisors or was an appointed official within the executive branch or served in any official or paid capacity to the prior President, the prior Vice President, or to any member of their staff, their cabinet, their advisors or to any appointed official within the executive branch.

I also considered a third article which would subject any Presidential pardon to judicial review on a two thirds vote from the House.

[Caution]

1. Where in the Constitution

Does it say that Congress can put a limit on the Presidential power to pardon?

[Dookus]

2. It would require a constitutional amendment....

No simple law could change the Presidential pardon power.

I wrote to my reps years ago proposing much the same thing you proposed. This was right after Bush I pre-emptively pardoned half his administration. It was a travesty (and got about 10% of the press attention that Clinton's pardons did).

[BostonTeaParty04]

5. Bush 1 did that? boy, I missed that one.

Basically gave them diplomatic immunity in the US... bastids.

[Dookus]

8. Yup..

pardoned most of the Iran/Contra players... including Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, who was about to stand trial for lying to congress.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/06/29/reviews/iran-pardon.html

[mike_c]

3. doesn't a pardon require prior indictment?

If so, how can dumbya and crew protect themselves from future prosecution if they haven't yet been charged with crimes? Can they give themselves blanket dispensation for crimes not yet indicted?

[Dookus]

6. No, it does not

a president can pardon for crimes that may or may not have been committed. Nixon was given a blanket pardon without ever being indicted for anything.

[Amerpie]

7. Nixon

was pardoned before being indicted. For some people we just have o be satisfied that they burn in hell for all eternity instead of going to prison.

[arcane1]

14. that, sadly, won't work for many of us.... :(

I WISH I believed in hell at times like this :evilfrown:

[BostonTeaParty04]

4. Great idea!

This subject has concerned me as well.

I was just thinking of making it damn clear to Kerry that IF he so much as thinks about pardoning any of these crooks....that he could consider himself soon to be run out of the white house!

but your approach is excellent.... Though, how do we get something like that passed? Repuke congress and all.

constitutional amendment???

[Bandit]

9. Your ideas are well thought oput except for the fact that the GOP is in

control. What you suggest would take an Amendment to the constitution and that won't happen before Bush* is long gone and pardons already given. What needs to be done is some preventive measures. Start talking about the Bush* Pardons and see if we can limit them before the fact. The one consistant thing about Bush* is that he always backs down when the noise gets too loud. Let's get some noise going now.

[KharmaTrain]

10. If Manchild Loses, Nothing We Can Do...

Others have pretty well nailed it...except to mention that getting such a motion through committee and onto the house floor for a vote (the very first step) is as possible as Bin Laden attending synagogue. And then which committee? Judiciary? Remember what a wonderful group of Repugnican thugs were there. Oversight? Ethics? FEC? The Hammer's got his people all over those places...in a virtual "hammer lock".

Pardons work both ways. I feel Clinton's pardon of Susan McDougal was vindicated for her stand against Starr, but not for her conviction on bank fraud (don't forget that one kids)...people did lose money from the slipshod practices of Madison "Guaranteed" Trust. Also the Rich pardon was very dubious (yet I'm sure nothing like what we'll see on the GOOP "hit parade" if the manchild goes down).

The only chance to prevent another Bush Jan 19th pardonathon is to get the media to expose those most worthy of investigation, indictment and trial...and to do so in those days between the election and Bunnypant's last days.

Also, it'd be nice if those folks in the Hague woke up and started comparing what's happened in Iraq on the war crimes model Justice Jackson used as a model for that court in the 40's.

[Tims]

11. A contitutional ammend might be required

but then again there are many bills that clarify or alter constitutional powers without amending them. It is up to the Supreme Court to determine if a bill violates the constitution or unduly restricts it. Because of this I would think that it wouldn't matter, even if it where later struck down by the court. Anything can be introduced as a bill in congress regardless of it's ultimate constitutionality. My whole point is to bring it to the public's attention quickly. The pResident or the Republican congress would have to justify their opposition to it and even if they claimed that a constitutional amendment was required, they would have to justify their opposition to such an amendment also. Either way it opens a whole can of worms for them.

My Article I of the bill is simply a clarification of the term "Pardon" and should not be viewed as altering the Presidential Pardon privilage itself and thus may not need a constitutional amendment.

Article II could be debated as to whether it places unconstitutional restrictions on the pardon privilage.

My idea for a judicial review of a Presidential pardon would indeed require a constitional amendment in that it would clearly restrict the Presidents power in all pardons.

The point is that even if the bill never passes or if an amendment is required and could not pass for years down the road, it would be political suicide for Bush to issue such pardons while the subject is in open debate.

Lets work to get the issue on the floor and debated. The actual success of the bill is secondary. We may need to persuade our congress people to put aside their misgiving on its constitutionality in order to bring the subject to the public's attention force the issue and put the republicans on the defensive.

[unblock]

12. in the long wrong, unrestricted pardons are probably best

if the president can't pardon his own staff, and can't pardon preemptively, then his entire administration could be subject to endless, baseless investigations.

imagine how horrible it would be to throw aways, say, $70,000,000 on a series of pointless investigations based on lies from publicity-seeking nobodies being manipulated by the opposition party solely to derail and distract the administration.

oh, nevermind.

[lapfog_1]

13. The Xmas Surprise...

IF, as we all hope, * loses the election, he will issue blanket
pardons for all involved. But I don't believe that he can pardon
himself. So the plan will be a resignation followed by Cheney
pardoning Shrub. The complete CYA.

But there is one question. I don't believe that even a presidential
pardon can cover FUTURE actions. So congress (hopefully with a
majority of Democrats) holds hearings on the Iraq war and the
reallocation of funds and other "war crimes" and issues subpoenas
to members of the previous administration, including the president.
Even though they are protected for the crimes committed via the
pardons, they simply won't be able to help themselves from committing
perjery... and then we can indict.

[Peregrine]

15. Your "bill" is a restriction on presidential pardon powers

which is unlimitted. If such a bill passed, within hours a federal court would issue and injunction preventing it from taking effect. And I doubt a federal court would give any defense of the bill the time of day, probably would summarily rule in favor of the plantif without hearing arguments.

Doubtful if the Supreme Court would take the case out of the hands of the lower courts. And as long as the lower courts upheld the constitunional authority of the president to grant pardons, wouldn't even bother hearing the case.