If The Plames Get Hot, Could Bush Evoke the Power of the Pardon?

10/27/05) | fight_truth_decay

[Verginius Rufus]

Lawrence Walsh was a partisan who indicted Weinberger and others just before the election hoping to cause Bush maximum damage in the 1992 election. He later showed his loyalties during the Clinton scandals.

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.

[Spirited]

Can't use it if it might harm the Bush dynasty.

[fight_truth_decay]

ping

[Spirited]

In the view of a DC jury?

Interesting that this is a reward via Ashcroft.

[bray]

There are not going to be any indictments, period.

Pray for W and Our Troops

[RightWhale]

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.

[bassmaner]

Mr. Weinberger was scheduled to stand trial on Jan. 5 on charges that he lied to Congress about his knowledge of the arms sales to Iran

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.

[fight_truth_decay]

Can't use it if it might harm the Bush dynasty

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!!

[Cicero]

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.

[Dave S]

Bush shouldn't and won't use the pardon power, at least not until after a trial and all appeals have been persued. Acceptance of a pardon is an acknowledgement of guilt. Why should Rove or Libby accept a pardon if they are innocent. Hell at this point they've not even been indicted.

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.

[Dave S]

Usually you have to be convicted before receiving a pardon but I think Clinton changed the rules with his pardon of Marc Rich. Why not use it then - If it's needed.

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.

[meema]

...then tell me that a trial jury in the same locale wouldn't convict Rove and Libby just for showing up at trial. They would.

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.

[PzLdr]

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.

[Dave S]

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.

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.

[cgbg]

A pardon would save the defendents from the time and cost of mounting a legal defense.

If Bush felt the charges were frivolous (as many of us believe) he could make the case that even if there were technical violations the legal system should not be invoked.

Bush needs to figure out that the best defense is a good offense. The MSM and the Rats hate him anyway. He is a lame duck. My advise is simple--attack, attack, attack--no compromise, no prisoners.

[meema]

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.

[RightWhale]

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.

[FreedomCalls]

It would certainly hurt his ability to win an election to a third term as President.

[ReignOfError]

Usually you have to be convicted before receiving a pardon but I think Clinton changed the rules with his pardon of Marc Rich.

Um, Ford/Nixon, anyone?

[decal]

Well, there're also the wishes of anyone who IS indicted to be considered.

Would (for example) Rep. DeLay want a pardon right now? Doubt it; he'd rather rub Ronnie Earle's face in it.

Any others might feel the same way - post-conviction is soon enough.