On January 19, 2009............
Get Klinton to issue the pardons. He is an expert at it.
Can the President use his pardon for anyone regardless of the charges? Does he have to wait until the jury verdict? This might be the only way to stop this criminalizing of political activities.
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.
I can't see why he'd go out of his way to pardon anyone for this. They are likely to be acquitted, even if charged, and if not, I can't imagine that they'd receive any signficant sanction. This is a very weak case, from what we know.
It would be a brilliant and breath-taking display of power. If he could speak well, he could rally public support and win it hands-down.
What would be really crazy is if Joe Wilson gets indicted and W pardons him out of mercy!
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.
ping
Pray for W and Our Troops
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.
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.
It would certainly hurt his ability to win an election to a third term as President.
I think Libby will be indicted for witness tampering, because of the letter he sent to Miller which sounded like he was coaching her on what to say.
If there was anything he would be indicted for, I think that would be it -- because if true it would make the prosecuter mad.
If he is indicted for that, I don't think the President should pardon him.
If he is indicted for perjury, that that perjury is because of multiple appearances before the grand jury which he did only because the president ordered it, he should be fired and pardoned.
That way the president can say he has gotten rid of people who had any possibility of being linked, but that his people won't face prosecution for testifying -- since it was Bush that essentially ordered them to testify.
After all, if it wasn't for everybody trying to cooperate because they were in the White house, none of these people would have testified, nobody would have released the journalists from their confidentiality, and nobody would get charged with perjury.
Yes, but he will not because he is an Honorable man unlike Bill Pure Scum Clinton. He should though.
The number of prosecutors who have indicted members of sitting presidential administrations and gone on to the top post at the FBI is exactly zero.
.....Asked about the notion of becoming FBI director after Robert Mueller, another prosecutor who quit private practice to put bad guys behind bars, he laughs. 'That's probably Director Mueller when he's having a bad day, trying to unload it on somebody else.' He did not say he was uninterested...