Will Bush pardon him self before leaving office?

Does anyone else believe Bush will take the historic step of pardoning him self of any and all crimes before he leaves office? If so, should a constitutional amendment be passed reversing the pardon?

My vote is YES he will pardon him self, and afterwards a constitutional amendment needs to be considered to prevent abuses carried out by whoever holds the office.

Read the constitution. There is no limit to who or what can be pardoned.

Here is ALL the constitution says on the matter. It does NOT have any limitations given except he can not pardon an impeachment.

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

Show me where it says he CAN'T. All it says is he has the power to pardon. It gives no limitations or restrictions to that power except for cases of impeachment. Of course once out of office that is not a concern.

We have had this discussion here before.

The First president in history to Pardon himself.

:puke: :nuke:


As it says - 'except in cases of Impeachment' it would appear that the only way to prevent the asshole from pardoning himself would be if PELOSI GROWS A PAIR AND IMPEACHES THE BASTARD

He'd pardon himself anyway. He'd still be impeached, but immune from criminal prosecution.

Just guessing here but I read that as:

if the president is under impeachment - he can't pardon anyone, including himself.

it means he can't pardon himself from impeachment.

Now, just for fun - how about this?

Bush pardons Cheney for everything - then resigns making Cheney President.
Cheney pardons Bush for everything

"Ha ha. Sucker. Now off to Gitmo, rich boy, while I finish looting the Treasury."

and btw, the impeachment reference in the pardon clause wasn't specifically so that a president could pardon himself - it was so that he couldn't pardon OTHER federal officials facing impeachment, thus saving their jobs.

Wait -- don't answer. I really don't want to know that our laws are SO screwed that a President can pardon himself of any crime he chooses to commit while in office.

the constitution gives no limits on the power to pardon. It basically says you the president can pardon any crime against the united states. It does not limit WHO or WHAT can be pardoned. The ONLY thing it says that can't be pardoned is an impeachment, and once he is out of office that won't be an issue for him.

It will be very interesting to see if he does so, either publicly or via signing statement. Automatic admission of guilt there. And I don't think the world cares about laws twisted by psychopaths to justify the murder of millions...if the Nuremberg war trials were any example.

After all, if a President could pardon himself, that would provide a blanket exemption to having to adhere to any law. The USSC would not uphold a self-granted pardon.

The pardon power is absolute by a plain reading of the Constitution.

would render the reading of much of the rest of the Constitution nonsensical. If a President can break then law then pardon himself, then he, and not the Congress, is effectively the lawgiver.

which exonerates him and his cabal from any charges of wrongdoing. If I'm correct, there would technically be nothing to pardon himself FROM.

It's my fervent desire that the Dems do whatever it takes to make it null and void and go after them as soon as they're in the WH.

I knew I didn't really know what I was talking about. Thanks for the enlightenment. I guess I'll stop spreading that around now. :7 :hi:

but it will look pretty awkward trying to pardon himself for crimes he claims that he didn't commit and is not charged with yet.

I picked the first one and I'm alone in the voting. lol... I believe millions would call and demand action either by Congress or taking it to the supreme court.

I think B*sh personally believes he's done nothing wrong - however, counsel KNOWS he's done plenty wrong (a B*sh counsel has said, "everything we've done hasn't been illegal) and will encourage some type of protection for him - that is of course, believing that the election won't be stolen again. of course, I do believe the people will not permit that to stand either... I'm a hopeless 'romantic' in believing we won't allow any more big f-u's...

Hillary's twin...

Our wonderful Democratic Congress decided to expand his authority to declare martial law. The Empress trusts the Emperor. So why shouldn't we?

About the only thing the grandson hasn't done that the grandfather attempted to do is overthrow the government.

All it will take is a catastrophic attack on one of our cities or riots in our cities which is becoming a worry for some as the price of oil continues to climb and the cost of living continues to climb which will make basic necessities a luxury for quite a few in this country. Some are finding even "fixed" electric rates have "variable" fuel costs hidden away in the contract and in the bill. Those on assistance are already finding the assistance doesn't cover everything. For those on fixed incomes, they simply do without. The anger will only be worsened by this "so what?" attitude by both the Emperor and his Empress. Perhaps she will suggest the poor be thrown in jail along with the homeless. They will be homeless anyway at some point. Why not ensure they at least have a nice hard mattress and some food and water?

As for children, well, if you can't take care of your children, they will be put in foster care. They need a stable environment. And the foster parents of course can supplement their income by taking them in.

"It cannot happen here." That is what quite a few Germans said once.

Assuming the pardon is signed and notarized, I don't see why he couldn't keep it in his back pocket in the extremely small chance he is ever indicted.

Can the president be tried for any reason while in office? If he can, then I agree with previous statements; a pardon could be in the works. If he cannot, then there is nothing he can pardon himself for. Aren't pardons and/or reprieves only given for past crimes? That would mean that he would have to have someone else pardon him for his crimes.

Secondly, isn't this the reason why the international criminal court was instituted? Anyone know what Obama thinks of the convention?

Q3JR4.

All civil officer of the US shall be removed from office upon impeachment. Shall means they must be removed. I don't know what the republicans did to Clinton. But it wasn't an impaechment. They would be constitutionally required to remove him from office. They didn't so it's wasn't an impeachment.

Clinton was impeached.

He wasn't convicted in the Senate. Removal only occurs upon conviction, not upon impeachment.

Similarly, President Andrew Johnson was impeached, but not convicted.

If he'd been convicted, he would've been removed from office.

His Arkansas law license was suspended for 5 years as part of an agreement to settle the Whitewater/Lewinsky cases. As a result, he was banned from arguing before the Supreme Court - more of an insult than an actual punishment, as the odds that ever WOULD argue before the supreme court were pretty slim.

He was never charged with perjury. He was never convicted of any crime. And he certainly wasn't convicted in the Senate in his impeachment.

So theoretically speaking. The incomming President, who is also the nations Top Cop, could order Bushs' arrest on trumped up charges. Then have Bush brought before him/her and execute him. Then pardon him/herself for all the crimes involved in the execution. If Congress didn't like it. They could not impeach the President for that. Because a pardon prevents ANY court from punishing him/her for the pardoned crimes. When Congress sits for impeachment. They are functioning as a court. So they would be unable to impeach for the pardoned crime. Personally, I think Bush would be better off taking his chances in court.

A pardon has no effect on impeachment. It says so right in the constitution.

It was late and I was loop hole mode. He could be impeached. But he couldn't be removed from office. Because he could not be convicted of the crime he pardoned himself for. So the impeachment would be little more than a censure. Bad President.......even if the whole world would cheering him/her.

Wrong again.

He could certainly be convicted in the Senate of any crime, even one he pardoned himself for. The senate trial is not a criminal trial. Being "convicted" in the Senate is not a criminal conviction, and the only remedy is removal from office and a prohibition on holding office in the future.

They would not have to pay the award. A pardon applies to ANY court in the US for ANY offense. Except impeachment. Including Congress when they sit as a court.

But I ran across this interesting tid bid at wikipedia under Pardon.

It appears that a pardon can be rejected, and must be affirmatively accepted to be officially recognized by the courts. Acceptance also carries with it an admission of guilt.<3> However, the federal courts have yet to make it clear how this logic applies to persons who are deceased (such as Henry O. Flipper - who was pardoned by Bill Clinton), those who are relieved from penalties as a result of general amnesties and those whose punishments are relieved via a commutation of sentence (which cannot be rejected in any sense of the language.)<4>

So maybe Congress could reject the pardon. Who knows? But I would like to find out.

The President cannot pardon for State actions

to show a pardon can be used in a civil case?

I don't see how. A criminal case is the state against the individual - as a representative of the state, the president can pardon. A civil case is citizen against citizen, and I don't see how a president can "pardon" in that case. The constitution gives him power to pardon "offenses against the United States".

Specifically violations of environmental law. I doubt the wildlife injured went out and hired lawyers. ;-)

to show that the President has the power to "pardon" Exxon.

With all due respect, you've been flat-out wrong in every assertion you've made about the power to pardon in this thread.

Are you saying the President can pardon the defendant in ANY civil case, or only those where the federal government is the plaintiff? Either way, what supports that claim? I've never heard of such a thing.

Where did you get the idea that a President can pronounce someone as "guilty" and sentence them to death??

The President can put a bullet between his eyes and pardom himself for the murder and filing false charges against him to bring him in.

Look at how broad this dude has spread Executive Privilidge. It's still not certain that Judge Bates (whose rule in favor of this regime before) will uphold that interpretation and/or the Supremes doing it...and then the manchild executive ordering this immunity to himself and his regime after his departure. Somehow I get a strong feeling an Addington or Mukasey have already done the heavy lifting here.

The game here that many in the beltway are playing is to wait out the clock and then pounce after 1-20-09. Our most dangerous time will be from 11/6/08-1/20/09...be assured any indictment will be pardoned away and his assholiness will make any transition difficult....even with Gramps. Remember, his old man sent troops to Somalia after he lost...and we know how well that worked.

or is that wishful thinking? Any input or scuttlebutt? I don't want to get my hopes up. :7

A lot depends on the election...of course...but if Democrats gain in this election and win the White House, I see a big change ahead. This election will be the repudiation of the boooosh regime and there will be a noticable shift of power and influence in the beltway.

Senator Obama has said that he will support ongoing investigations and I can imagine that Congressmen Conyers, Wexler and Waxman have quite a bit already assembled with more that could come with a functional Justice Department. Conyers has said on numerous occasions he's in favor of defacto impeachment and with this regime gone and no longer able to obstruct, I think we'll see some follow through. It's gotten personal and a matter of restoring the balance of power and respect to the Constitution.

Keep optimistic, but keep feet and ears to the ground. To make the first part of this dream/scenario happen, Democrats need to win this November.

Cheers...

It would be weird for him to pardon himself for things he hasn't been charged for.

You can get a pardon with OUT a conviction. Think Nixon.

We're talking 'War Crimes' here after all

I'll save you time - nowhere. Any crime is pardonable.

However, a pardon wouldn't carry any weight in a non-US court.

and prosecution by US Courts prevented. However, the ICC wouldn't recognize such pardons, and the US could be requested to turn over war criminals. Whether such requests would be complied with depends on how big the cojones in a new administrations DoJ.

And that is not going to happen.

no you don't.

Nixon was pardoned without ever being charged.

Ford's pardon was a blanket one. The difference between then and now is that Nixon would surely have been impeached if he had not resigned. Probably convicted too.

and the pardon were entirely different things.

Yes, Nixon resigned because he was about to be impeached (and would've been convicted). The pardon protected him from criminal prosecution. Two entirely different matters.

:argh:

If Laura's civilized him that much.

or whatever it was after Hamdan, that none of them could be held liable for war crimes, at least with regard to the torture? I think that was mentioned at the end of the movie "Taxi to the Dark Side."

Bush runs under the construct that if the president (or Bush, in this case) does it or orders it, it's legal.

That didn't work for Mussolini, Tojo or Pol Pot, and I don't think it will work here. By the time Bush realizes he needs to pardon himself, he won't be president anymore and won't have the power to do it.

I'm pretty sure the president can't pardon anyone who hasn't actually been brought up on charges and then convicted.

I can't think of any precedent for a sitting president pardoning someone who hasn't even been charged yet.

How young are you? Remember Nixon?

...but charges against Nixon were inevitable, whereas the current congress hasn't shown any willingness to do anything more serious than send strongly worded letters to this administration.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/pardon"> Wikipedia - Pardon

It appears that a pardon can be rejected, and must be affirmatively accepted to be officially recognized by the courts. Acceptance also carries with it an admission of guilt.<3> However, the federal courts have yet to make it clear how this logic applies to persons who are deceased (such as Henry O. Flipper - who was pardoned by Bill Clinton), those who are relieved from penalties as a result of general amnesties and those whose punishments are relieved via a commutation of sentence (which cannot be rejected in any sense of the language.)<4>

it is absolute.

What's up with that?

which could have been written by a 10th grader for all we know.

A pardon can not be rejected by the courts. High school students are even taught this.

and a self pardon may hold up in US courts for violation of US Laws. However, the ICC would not recognize pardons for war crimes, and probably consider the US War Commissions Act illegal. So, given sufficient cojones within the beltway, BushCo could be shipped off to The Hague for prosecution, and that act would probably hold up in US courts.

He will likely also pardon some of the industries that aided and abetted his domestic spying.