.
First off, it’s not clear if the president really isn’t allowed to pardon himself, I believe the law reads that he is prevented from pardoning himself from impeachment but can in all other situations;
Art. II Sec. 2 of the Constitution states, in part, that the president “shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
that seems pretty clear to me, the clause carves a specific exclusion againt a pardon for himslef in the case of impeachment, I conclude other crimes are specifically exempt from the exclusion.
the way I read it he can indeed pardon himself from other indictments, the theory has never been tested. (ianal)
Even if I’m wrong it’s simple enough to avoid the entire question, all he has to do is first pardon Cheney, then resign, then Cheney pardons him, simple stuff
This can all be prevented.
Even though an impeachment process would never be completed if we started today, initiating that process prevents anyone from being pardoned named in the impeachment.
All Pelosi has to do is begin a hearing researching the possibility and that ends to worry for us, Rove couldn’t be pardoned, Cheney, Bush would all be exempt from pardon regarding high crimes and misdimeanors
[edit]
NorskeFlamethrower has pointed out that he’s been saying this for two years…smart man that flamethrower
16 Comments
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About The Seminal
Advanced search
I would have liked to have seen Kucinich more successful. Pelosi could put him in charge of a special committee but I really don’t see where the “WE” comes from.
the we comes from posts like mine foothillsmike
I am hoping to get a groundswell beginning here, ending on the table of one nancy pelosi
Damn… I knew that there would be an insurmountable impediment somewhere…
Anything related to warcrimes should be an impeachable offense so pardons cannot be granted. However I put nothing past Scalia.
However there is a lot of stuff on Hugh’s list that while not war crimes should be slam dunks to prove and make a case for impeachment.
I think that easy to prove stuff is the way we sell it to the American people we make it obvious to the American People that Bush is guilty. The harder to prove or politically unpopular stuff we save or later.
We need to get Valerie Palme back in the news and in court Congress could open up impeachment hearings with the outing of Valerie as a spy by the White House which I believe is Treason.
Treason in time of war is the Death Penalty. I wonder if the MSM will mention that fact this time?
Valerie is White, Attractive, well spoken and OUR OWN FREAKIN SPY she will get us the headlines we need.
Unless you think that we have a better case with another charge? I wonder what Hugh thinks is the best slam dunk conviction?
Perris Digg your own post next time so that I can Digg it later with just a click if Everyone would do that I think everyone would get more Diggs.
We on the lake are much more magnanimous than that. Say no to any talk about death penalty but the Padillia treatment seems appropriate ,you know no human contact with anyone the blinders, the silent ear phones, no natural light but not the death penalty.
That is worse in my opinion:)
Ha! Anytime the name Pelosi comes up we can expect the wrong outcome. Unfortunately.
Obama, Obama…put Bush in the Slamma!!
Perris,
Excellent point that impeachment is so important for the reason that even its initiation will prevent Bush from issuing pardons!! How can this be made into something that MSM would pick up?!
Somebody from the Obama camp needs to send a lawyer down to the courthouse to get a court order to keep the Bush people from destroying evidence. Or did you think that they began their side of the transition early because they wanted more time to party with Barack Obama?
Yes they want to convince Obama of their cause I’m sure Judy Miller has designed a Presentation on WMD for Obama that will scare the socks off anyone of course its as fact free as her normal reporting.
My (simple) reading of that “pardons clause” won’t be to your liking…
I’m pretty sure that excepting “impeachments” means that when congress impeaches an official (not just the president, but also Secretaries, judges, other officials), the president can’t stop the impeachment…since that isn’t really punishment, but removal from office.
Bush can TRY to pardon himself, but would he really trust that the pardon would stand up in a court fight? In any case, it wouldn’t keep him from being sent to The Hague.
BUT, one issue: to be valid I’m pretty sure that a pardon has to be PUBLIC, like in “published in the Federal Register”. Otherwise an outgoing president could leave with a pocketful of blank pardons to fill in later (backdated to his term). If there’s not an explicit federal law on this, it should be passed PDQ, including a prevision that
the pardon state *exactly* which offenses are being pardoned. No carte blanche. This may already be in the federal law, and I certainly hope so.
Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld could all be charged with kidnapping (after Jan 20) for any detainees that were “disappeared”. Even if pardoned of kidnapping prior to Jan 20, the crime would be ongoing until they produce the detainee, and if they say “whoops, killed them” and they DON’T already have an explicit pardon for murdering that person, they’re hosed.
That’s how Pinochet and gang were tripped up. So BushCo would be in “good” company.
this was probably the law until ford created a precedence which was not challenged
the scotus could decide either way, if they wanted the person to face charges they would say the ford pardon of nixon was not enforceable since it was to big an umbrella, if they didn’t want the person tried they would say the presedence is set
in the case of scalia, roberts, alito, I believe this president will get whatever ruling he wants, obama will get whatever ruling he does not want
Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7–”Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.”
Thus, as I read this, a President, even under impeachment, could grant reprieves and pardons against CRIMES, but not acts under the process of impeachment.But impeachment cannot result directly in imprisonment or other penalties (the death penalty).
Congress could impeach any civil officer and deny them the ability to hold office ever again, or from receiving the any benefits derived from the United States -grants, scholarships, contracts, or any other position of “honor, trust or profit under the United States”. They could not lobby Congress, or very likely, receive a pension. They could be denied the right to use their titles of Office, symbols, or remove materials from the White House for things like a “Presidential Library”. An impeached and convicted President would likely lose control of the secrecy elements of their Presidential papers.
Now some might read the second part of the clause “but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.” to suggest that an individual impeached would be subject to prosecution after the impeachment.
Could a President override this by a pardon given prior to the impeachment? Does this clause implicitly suggest a limit to the pardon power…placing those under impeachment in a period of limbo?
I personally think that the sole recourse at the Federal level is impeachment if a unspecified pardon is granted. However, conviction can be made at the level of an international or other foreign court.
BTW State law and civil penalties (lawsuits) are not subject to pardon. Injured parties could still demand damages.
The Ford “Pardon” was unspecified as to the range of activities it was supposedly covering for Nixon. It stated that it pardoned Nixon for “any crimes and misdemeanors committed while serving as President”. That’s a pretty wide brush! It may have been too broad.
The problem was that the only case brought against the pardon was by a Minnesota law Professor…and the lower court rejected the case because it held that only Congress had standing in the case. Congress did not act…thus the action became moot.
Any relation to Norskeflamethrower?