A pardonable issue?

Haven’t I warned about this? Joseph diGenova (see below) is a shill for the Bush administration. And I wouldn’t doubt that he’s been hired by Libby and/or the administration to float the idea of a pardon for Libby, so it won’t come as such a surprise when it happens.

But Democrats can pre-empt this pre-emptive strike, if they have the courage to do so. The only limitation on the presidential pardon is that it can’t be given “in cases of impeachment”. If Democrats were to find some way to start impeachment proceedings against Dick Cheney, based on his authorization to leak classified information for political reasons, they might be able to say that Libby can’t be pardoned because he is part of the impeachment proceedings. At least they can try. Does anyone think the Republicans wouldn’t be spouting about this 24/7, if the shoe were on the other foot?

From New York Newsday:

A pardonable issue?

Now that top White House aide Karl Rove is off the hook in the CIA leak probe, President George W. Bush must weigh whether to pardon former vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the only one indicted in the three-year investigation…

"I think ultimately, of course, there are going to be pardons," said Joseph diGenova, a former prosecutor and an old Washington hand who shares that view with many pundits…

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

to start impeachment proceedings.

An Illinois state legislator found in the U.S. House rules that a state legislature can force the House to start impeachment proceedings. She has a bill before the legislature, and similar bills have been prepared, if not introduced, in California and Vermont.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

Under House rules, the judiciary committee conducts impeachment hearings. This has been a rule since the impeachment hearings of Andrew Johnson in 1868.

If the committee votes no by a simple majority, it ends there and it doesn't even get a floor vote.

They could receive the transmission from the state legislature, refer it to the Judiciary Committee, and be done with it, like most bills that are introduced.

Article I Section 3 of the Constitution says the House has the SOLE power of impeachment. Jefferson's manual is a book on parliamentary procedure and takes this "rule" from an interpretation of what Jefferson wrote on impeachment. Even if the Parliamentarian said there was such a rule it would be referred to the Special Rules committee and the House would simply change it.

Now if 30-40 Governors start making calls . . . .

Bush, after all, has a relationship with power along the lines of "if I have it (the power), I'm gonna use it... and even if I don't got it, I'ma gonna use it anyway, cuz I's the Decider! (and anyway, those wimps in Congress work for/obey me and wouldn't dare try to stop me)".

No doubt way back when, when he claimed he was a "Uniter", what he thought he meant was that he was going to bring back the much weakened "dictatorial powers" to the Presidency and therefore restore the "Uniterary Executive".

Impeachment itself can't be pardoned, not that pardons can't be granted to those involved in such investigations.

... but you may be wrong. It's at least worth a shot.

Can you imagine the Republicans saying, "Oh, well, it's not worded exactly right for what I want to do, so I'll just give up and go home."

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

I don't believe in scorched-earth politics. It rebounds viciously on the practitioner. After all, who today remembers John Bricker or Benjamin Wade?

There is no judicial review in the case of pardons.

And Libby is not being impeached.

If the shoe were on the other foot, I don't think such a thing would be mentioned except maybe once or twice on a RW website in the middle of the night, because the idea really has no merit.

impeached (but not convicted) and still was able to pardon people his last day in office.

... who could have testified against him in an impeachment trial.

But George Sr. did. He pardoned Caspar Weinberger before Weinberger even went to trial. But he did it so late in his tenure that there was no time to impeach him.

I never thought DUers would be such defeatists.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

Unfortunately there is zero ability to reverse a pardon. Even the Republicans tried this with Clinton. And Clinton was even an impeached president.

Remember that Nixon was pardoned by Ford.

There is no precedent whatsoever in stopping a pardon. And neither the legislative nor judicial branch have any constitutional authority to stop it.

overturn an impeachment. The pardon is exclusively a presidential perogative like Impeachment (accusation)is an exclusive power of the House of Representatives or the power to try Impeachmentments voted by the house belongs exclusively to the Senate.

... "except in cases of impeachment" is meaningless if the president can pardon in advance those who would testify in an impeachment process, and by pardoning them making it unlikely they would testify against him.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

impeachment of anyone in the executive or judicial branch by a pardon.

To start talking about a presidential pardon the way they have been, even before the trial has begun let alone a jury verdict...well, it must not be looking too good for Scooter even with his highly paid legal team on the case.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.