Posted on 10/27/2005 1:35:47 PM PDT by fight_truth_decay
J. James Estrada editorializes in The American Daily:"
"Working in the U.S. Attorney’s office in the Southern District of New York, James Comey investigated and declined to indict Hillary Clinton in Pardongate, a case involving pardons for votes in the New York town of New Square. In his final days in office, President Clinton pardoned four rabbis from the town and Hillary went on to win the votes of the village: 1200 to just 14 for Rick Lazio, her New York Senate opponent."
"Comey went on to prosecute Martha Stewart and from there then went on to become Deputy Attorney General in the new Bush administration. I suppose Bush named Comey to show he would be tough on Wall Street corporate crime."
"When it came time for the Attorney General’s office to name a prosecutor in the celebrated Plamegate, John Ashcroft recused himself, leaving it to Comey to name the prosecutor. He named his long time friend and former associate, Patrick Fitzgerald."
"Fitzgerald is hot on the trail, apparently, of I. Scooter Libby. Libby is VP Dick Cheney’s chief of staff. Libby is also a former lawyer for Marc Rich. Yes, the same Marc Rich who also benefited from the last minute Clinton pardons of January 2001. His case was pursued and dropped by Mary Jo White, then U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York."
"Will this circle of intrigue roll past the White House walls of secrecy of both the present and former administrations in the form of indictments, or, is Fitzgerald just spinning his wheels? If the pattern holds true to form, when it involves the Clintons (and Libby can spill the beans on the Rich pardon), all allegations of wrong doing will be dismissed."
"Stay tuned."
Now let's talk about pardons. Pardons have not been discussed, as far as I know, by the media as a "what if" to an end.
Bush could stop judicial proceedings by simply pardoning those close to him indicted of a crime, or even those not yet convicted or even formally charged with a crime. What the President does depends on the alternatives if he does not act. Talk about being between a rock and a hard place. The President's pardoning power would be held off as long as possible, for obviously he must dodge as few tomatoes as possible for several more years. This of course would bring the expected political backlash from the Left where he is already whipped on a daily basis..so what else is new?
The fact is, the Framers created a power to pardon.
Worse case scenario only: If these high level indictments take place, could Bush be called as a witness and placed under oath? The best way, whether popular or not, is to make sure that no criminal trial ever occurs.
Clinton, when at a news conference in Little Rock, Ark., to announce his remaining Cabinet selections, said he wanted to learn more about the pardons, adding, "I am concerned by any action that sends a signal that if you work for the Government, you're beyond the law, or that not telling the truth to Congress under oath is somehow less serious than not telling the truth to some other body under oath."(always nice to add a little humor to a piece).
Then The Wheel Turned, and Clinton while in the last moments of his Presidency (had the clock struck Midnight yet?)pardoned several of his closest political supporters: Marc Rich, Pincus Green, Carlos Vignali Jr, Braswell.
Independent prosecutor, Lawrence E. Walsh stated: "Although it is the President's (Mr. Bush's pardon of Mr. Weinberger ) prerogative to grant pardons, it is every American's right that the criminal justice system be administered fairly, regardless of a person's rank and connections."
Thus,in a single stroke, Bush Sr. swept away one conviction, three guilty pleas and two pending cases, virtually decapitating what was left of Walsh's effort, which began in 1986. Mr. Bush's decision was announced by the White House in a printed statement after the President left for Camp David, where he will spend the Christmas holiday. Mr. Walsh bitterly condemned the President's action, charging that "the Iran-contra cover-up, which has continued for more than six years ($$$$$$), has now been completed."
Professor Brian Kalt [Michigan State]: says that "No president should have the power, immune from meaningful responsibility to the electorate, to impose his or her own version of the law without democratic accountability." But we let judges do that every day. The point of pardons is to allow exceptions to be made when the law is too rigid to do the right thing."
I don't know why we don't read scholarly quotes that include, ".. that it is, therefore, in the best interest of the country and her citizens..."
Sometimes, you just gotta bully up to the pulpit!
A President can issue a pardon even before an indictment, as Jerry Ford did to Nixon in Sept. 1974, a month after Nixon left the White House.
Can't use it if it might harm the Bush dynasty.
ping
In the view of a DC jury?
Interesting that this is a reward via Ashcroft.
Pray for W and Our Troops
Well, okay. My main question was whether the President could kill this move to criminalize political activity by using the pardon to neutralize the endless investigations case by case. Charge: pardon. Charge: pardon. Charge: pardon. Charge: pardon. Repeat until the cows come home.
Iran-Contra was one of the biggest farces of the last century. IMHO, the PINKO LEFTIST 'RATS in Congress that cut off the funding to fight Communism in Central America were the real criminals, while Weinberger, Ollie, and the rest did what they had to do to get the job done.
People forget, reporters race to another story..becomes old news..life goes on and the Democrats would be just beside themselves; but hey, you can always point a finger right back. As someone said.."don't go casting that first stone,if you don't want it to ricochet back at you"..or something along that line.
If you have the Power under the hood why not use it once in a while. Bush's approval rating might just go up in fact!!
Certainly he could, if the eventuality arises. We don't know if there will be any indictments.
The DNC and the MSM would use it to lambaste him for the next twenty years. But they might have a bit of trouble doing it, after giving clinton a pass on his notably sleazy and profitable pardons.
Additionally, until someone comes to kart Rove or Libby off to jail there is no advantage to a pardon (other than possibly negating the need to continue to pay legal fees). Neither will be allowed to resume their duties in the White House and they would still be liable to a civil suit should the Wilsons attempt to persue one. Fact of pardon (which implies guilt) would make it easier to win civil suit. So as much as it pleases the author to stick in the libs face by pardoning Rove or Libby, there really isnt any advantage to anyone unless they are convicted and their convictions are not overturned by appellate courts.
You don't have to be convicted before receiving a pardon. In 1974, President Ford pardoned Richard Nixon for any and all crimes and Nixon never stood trial for any. He was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator but he was never indicted.
Exactly. I have some memory of Republicans being tried in DC some 30+ years ago, and since.
I have no faith in any Republican getting a fair trial there.
He doesn't run again. Pardon 'em all, send Fitzy back where he came from, transfer all the CIA idiots to the Dept of Education or Agriculture, and rock on.
Doesn't help those he pardons. They dont get a chance to prove their innocence in a court of law and there is no way that they can go back to work in the White House of this President or any other if they've been pardoned.
Yep. Weinberger never went to trial.
Remember, GHWB lost that election in no small part when Walsh charged Weinberger the weekend just before that presidential election. He was pardoned a month or so after the election.
Would a Speaker of the House have to step down? Seems like the Speaker has a thick enough skin that he could just shake it off. The President would nullify any charge, and if he said he was doing so because of the political nature of the charges, the person could continue on like it hadn't happened. The Constitutional means of removing a judge or other official by impeachment would still be available, but whether that would work would depend on the Congress, also case by case. This is a time for a show of power.
It would certainly hurt his ability to win an election to a third term as President.
Um, Ford/Nixon, anyone?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.