Two questions:
- Who will Bush pardon? (there are no leaks so far, so I wonder …)
- If Obama can take pardons back will he do so?
Back to Main
January 19, 2009
Bush Pardons
Comments
Do the pardons have to be made public ?
Can the president create a pre-emptive pardon for crimes that someone has not actually been charged with ? And if so, does that have to be made public?
And would he bother with pardons when it seems quite clear that Obama is not going to do anything anyway?
Posted by: swio | Jan 19 2009 13:55 utc | 1
swio, it isn’t all up to obama, congress and the judicial branch are all separate branchs of government. obama would have the option of pardoning anyone he wanted, but he can’t stop congress if they choose to hold hearings or whatever, if that was the case presidents could stop their own impeachments.
as far as i know all presidential pardons are public info.
Posted by: annie | Jan 19 2009 15:27 utc | 2
I don’t know if it has been mentioned here before but I think the absolute coolest thing would be for Bush to grant pre-emptive pardons to Reid and Pelosi for their cooperation in illegal wiretapping and torture.
it would be beautiful.
Posted by: dan of steele | Jan 19 2009 16:14 utc | 3
Another thought, even if Bush pardons anyone, it only applies within the US. Any criminal leaving the US would be subject to prosecution internationally.
Posted by: Mikhail | Jan 19 2009 16:32 utc | 4
Dan, I’m sure Reid and Pelosi will change their tune, because tomorrow change will finally be here–hooray! I believe just proximity to our new commander will have positive effects on everyone in Washington–how could it not? I mean, the guy has a darker shade of skin color than all those other guys (and gals) in Washington, so I really don’t see how he could do anything bad.
some people have been focusing on things our president elect “says” or even things he hasn’t. Hey, we only have one president at a time, and today is the final day of that jackass holding the highest position possible. Sure, maybe there’s some guys behind the scenes, pulling strings, but our new president will transcend them as surely as he has transcended everything else.
O happy days are here again. What can Bush do with just one day remaining, bomb Iran? Who could he pardon in the final hours of his reign of terror that would really matter? That guy who knew about Ohio is dead, and that slippery Karl has wiggled out of every compromising position so far. Most of the neocons have jumped ship (or switched teams) and thankfully us merrycans have a very short memory span.
It’s time to clean the slate for our incoming prez. Through him we will all be reborn and absolved the criminality we have tolerated for the past eight years. Praise Jesus!
Posted by: Lizard | Jan 19 2009 16:45 utc | 5
Former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens
Former dick cheney henchman Irving Lewis “Scooter” Libby
ALL Central Intelligence Agency Operatives involved in Torture, Black Prison Sites and Illegal Renditions.
ALL Blackwater Mercenaries.
cheney
donald rumsfeld and all of his henchmen at DoD / Pentagon, douglas feith, paul wolfowitz, stephen cambone and a host of others.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jan 19 2009 16:49 utc | 6
Is that sarcasm is dripping down from above or is your bath-water running?
Posted by: David | Jan 19 2009 16:50 utc | 7
Obama can not change any of Bush’s pardons.
Posted by: Pitchforks,Torches&Pikes World | Jan 19 2009 16:57 utc | 8
Ah yes, sarcasm, that’s what happened to me this morning. For a second I truly believed I was having a come-to-jesus moment, but I guess it was just too much caffeine.
I remember thinking at the end of Clinton’s term that he would pardon Leonard Peltier, a political prisoner this country has incarcerated, to its shame, for decades. Then Mark Rich was pardoned, and so began my slow realization that Clinton was just like all the other greedy, opportunistic fuckers who get “elected”
Bush doesn’t need to pardon anyone, because no one from team Dem will even try to apply the law of the land to the criminals leaving office. He will sleep the sleep of the unafflicted, warm and comfortable, surrounded by family and paid protectors.
I’m still trying to figure out what kind of materials will be housed in his presidential library? I’m thinking coloring books and snuff films.
Posted by: Lizard | Jan 19 2009 17:17 utc | 9
Obama is not going to prosecute anything Bush and Crew did.
In return, he gets to be President, and he gets to live.
Posted by: Antifa | Jan 19 2009 17:17 utc | 10
Did anyone answer the question: can a President pardon someone who hasn’t been charged or convicted yet?
Some Patriot Act type legislation has already granted various types of actors “immunity” from prosecution — the telephone company that illegally provided its customer database to the feds, for example.
Posted by: seneca | Jan 19 2009 17:29 utc | 11
haven’t looked at to see if it answers some of the questions posed here, but there’s a copy of the 7 january 2009 congressional research service rpt “An Overview of the Presidential Pardoning Power” linked here
Posted by: b real | Jan 19 2009 17:35 utc | 12
If the boyking can sign secret executive order’s approving the use of torture, what’s to stop them from doing the same with secret executive order pardons? I mean, if little Ol’
Governors can do it…
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jan 19 2009 17:46 utc | 13
Bush cannot pardon many, otherwise he looses control over them. Their pardons would allow them free rein to testify about anything related to the pardon, without fear of prosecution, at least in the US.
When one runs their administration with fear and threats, these are the kinds of corners one paints oneself into. Had he read any kind of history, he could (would) have taken other paths.
But, then, the lack of considering ramifications and historical consequences seem to have been a “feature” of his administration, so, maybe, with luck, he will nail his own coffin.
Posted by: IntelVet | Jan 19 2009 17:54 utc | 14
Speaking of Clinton, just googled and found this interesting…
700+ signing statements? I wonder how many secret pardons he granted?
Remember all the heat Clinton got for his last minute pardons? In one or two cases, I probably felt the same way as many others.
Now, given the secrecy of this administration, the refusal to properly report to the American public, their refusal to even release data to COngress, and even their claim that the NSA can’t be investigated because the investigators’ security clearances are not high enough, who believes that Bush and Co. have NOT already pardoned most of the players in the runup to the Little Iraqi Invasion? And torture? I’ll bet that Gonzales, Ashcroft, Feith, Cheney, and others are already scott free; they are simply keeping mum.
Further, and more to the reason for the addendum, I’m reminded also, of the Cheneyco understanding, aka new classification of, classified secrets, or Treated As: Top Secret/SCI.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jan 19 2009 18:04 utc | 16
beq @15, you score!
Bush commutes sentences of former US border agents
In his final acts of clemency, President George W. Bush on Monday commuted the prison sentences of two former U.S. Border Patrol agents whose convictions for shooting a Mexican drug dealer ignited fierce debate about illegal immigration
Posted by: DharmaBum | Jan 19 2009 18:13 utc | 17
Seneca:
Did anyone answer the question: can a President pardon someone who hasn’t been charged or convicted yet?
The answer is a definitive yes.
Posted by: steve | Jan 19 2009 19:05 utc | 18
So, Dh at 17,
The agents are guilty of shooting an unarmed person, not knowing until afterwards he was a “drug dealer”.
It sorta gives carte blanc to shoot first, ask questions later.
Great!
Posted by: IntelVet | Jan 19 2009 19:47 utc | 19
IntelVet @ 19–Actually, the way the law treats police shootings, this seems to be how things work. Unless the shooting is almost unbelievably brazenly illegal and unwarranted. This may apply to the recent shooting at point blank range of a man already on the ground and subdued by the transit cop. Law enforcers seemingly do have carte blanche to shoot first, ask questions later. And answer questions about the shooting much later. Taser to death as well.
This article references Poppy Bush’s pardon of Weinberger, which appeared to be a direct attempt to protect himself. Ugly pardon and far worse than the Marc Rich pardon.
Posted by: jawbone | Jan 19 2009 20:11 utc | 20
waiting for bill conroy to write something on the pardons – it’s tied into the ‘house of death’ mess – Border Patrol agents’ case, House of Death go to the heart of Justice scandal
Posted by: b real | Jan 19 2009 20:22 utc | 21
I have difficulty understanding the general acceptance among amerikans for the notion of presidential pardons. It is one thing for some independent body a sort of tribunal of last review, made up of lay people to take another look at cases where the law may have been applied unfairly or inappropriately, as long as everyone gets the same shot, but the notion of a prez picking favourites particularly from amongst friends and associates and pardoning them flies in the face of what democracy is meant to be about.
Mix in with that the potential pardoning of those investigated for treasonous acts such as the aipac mob or pollard and you’ve got a real conflict of interest. How can any head of state pardon someone who was guilty of acting against the interest of the state ? This issue goes well beyond narrow interests like the power of the executive relative to other branches of government because it legitimises acts that could bring about the total destruction of the state.
I have no idea if we have pardons here in the same sense in NZ if we do they aren’t utilised. The head of state is the vice regal authority who occasionally (about once a decade) will intervene in convictions where there is big public disquiet. But even then the person doesn’t go scot free, when the convicted person, who has usually spent a considerable time in jail is released after the conviction has been struck out, the matter is referred back to the judiciary to decide whether it is in the public interest to have another prosecution. In other words there is no one person who can overrule judicial authority, not even the head of state who holds a quasi-judicial position.
Posted by: Debs is dead | Jan 19 2009 20:56 utc | 22
@Did – I have the same problem with that pardon power. We do not have anything like that here in Germany. How is that, and who put it there, anchored in the constitution? It is not “just”.
Just announced that Irving ‘Scooter’ Libby will NOT get a pardon. Talk about shock and awe!
Posted by: Ensley | Jan 19 2009 21:45 utc | 28
thanks beq, laughter is still good, free medicine (until big Pharma patents it and puts it in pill form)
Posted by: Lizard | Jan 19 2009 21:45 utc | 29
In the case of presidential pardons, the one case which sticks out clearly to me is Leonard Peltier. He is a Lakota/Ojibwa American activist who was sentenced to two life terms in the 1970s for killing two FBI agents. The trial was deeply flawed, the evidence was fabricated, and exculpatory evidence was suppressed. He was found guilty by an all-white jury and sentenced to two consecutive life terms. Seventeen years later the prosecutor admitted to the reviewing court “We don’t know who killed the agents”. This man is still in prison today, largely because of prejudice against native peoples both in the US and more specifically in North Dakota. Any intelligent person could look at this case and see a man who was railroaded, simply because the FBI wanted it. You can read more here . This is a case that cries out for intervention, yet I’m quite sure Peltier will die in prison. Justice is not always served, that is supposed to be why presidential pardons exist (not for pardoning your cronies or saving your own sorry ass).
Posted by: Jim T. | Jan 19 2009 21:53 utc | 30
OK, so I’m a novice at this html shit. You can read more at http://www.dickshovel.com/pelhome.html . In fact, there’s a very interesting site at the root of that link, for those interested in First Nations issues.
Posted by: Jim T. | Jan 19 2009 21:59 utc | 31
” flies in the face of what democracy is meant to be about.”
This ain’t no stinkin’ democracy. this is essentially a banana republic where you can select bought and paid for MIC stooge 1, or bought and paid for MIC stooge 2.
anyone who’s not on board with us running the world at gunpoint and doing whatever we want to any person or country for whatever reason we pull out of our ass is not going to get anywhere near the presidency.
Posted by: ran | Jan 19 2009 22:52 utc | 33
antifa —
1) Obama is not going to prosecute anything Bush and Crew did.
2) In return, he gets to be President, and he gets to live.
The problem here is that (2) assumes Obama actually disagrees with the Bush/Cheney Admin, while the evidence surrounding His Barackness indicates that he intends fully –and by all lights, has intended for his entire adult working life– to continue American Exceptionalism and the Last Gasps of Empire. So there’s no bargain being struck, no “in return” aspect in play here. It’s actually unfolding precisely how His Barackness wants.
Whether you like his writing style or not, Arthur Silber has done a fine job of chronicling the truth about His Barackness and what an incredible liar and impeccable fraud is the Obamiracle.
So I’m inclined to side with Lizard @ post 5, and I’ll have an extra order of sardonic humor on the side, thanks!
Posted by: micah pyre | Jan 20 2009 2:30 utc | 34
Endsley, #28–there’s a good reason that Scooter doesn’t get his pardon.
Pardoning him would confer immunity from prosecution–and remove any Fifth Amendment claim he might make if called to testify. That would be very bad news for his buddies.
Posted by: Obelix | Jan 20 2009 6:48 utc | 35
contrary to the many contrarians here, i think there is a very strong likelihood that there will be an investigation that leads to pardons. there is congressional support, the msm is jumping on (even the moonie times published bruce fein on this today), there are encouraging new doj appointments in neil katyal as deputy solicitor general and marty lederman to lead the office of legal counsel, and there is widespead public support.
if you haven’t done so, please sign the petition to holder to appoint a special prosecutor. http://www.democrats.com/special-prosecutor-for-bush-war-crimes
Posted by: sharon | Jan 20 2009 15:42 utc | 36
Sharon, please take care to distinguish theatre from real action. Please also get better informed on who are the go-along lackeys and sycophants (those you list with naive optimism), and which people actually will do something to preserve integrity (nobody in Obama’s Admin).
I’m not buying what Sharon’s selling. It’s overpriced, and it’s made of sawdust and string.
Posted by: micah pyre | Jan 20 2009 17:28 utc | 37
Micah’s right, even Arabs who (deluded American racists) might assume are enraged at Israel:Palestine, are in many cases bellying up to the Obama bar any way they can, and look severe askance at any (deluded and mentally retarded American militant) who even dares breath the “I:P” word before the $845B f’fest. With oil in the gutter, the DJIA broke 8,000 and house of cards collapsing, it’s laissez les bon temps roulez!
Posted by: Norm Sutter | Jan 21 2009 2:54 utc | 38