Can * himself be indicted in Plamegate, and if he is, then what happens?

[begin_within]

[wtbymark]

1. He can, and if so....

his priviledge of 'pardons' should be revoked

[redacted]

44. I think that is an unanswered legal question. Here is analysis from the

various Clinton investigations.



WP: Pop Quiz: can a President be Indicted?
---------
<snip>

Consider the questions, zany though some may be. Can a president be indicted? Many scholars think not, but the Supreme Court has never been called upon to rule on that issue. Until it does, Starr and a grand jury could not be stopped if it chose to accuse the president of crimes.

If indicted and found guilty, can a president be punished? And if so, how? A jail sentence, visiting hours 9 to 5, would effectively deprive him of his office, usurping the authority that is vested solely in the Congress to remove chief executives. Even putting him on probation would raise serious constitutional issues: Can the head of a coequal branch of government be placed under the supervision of an officer of another branch? How about hooking up a president to one of those new-fangled electronic monitoring devices?

Such implausible potential consequences are among the reasons many scholars think indictment impermissible.

But what they say doesn't really count. What counts is what the Supreme Court might say, and this we don't yet know. Given the opportunity to opine on the question when Richard Nixon was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Watergate scandal, the justices ran for cover. The court said in U.S. v Nixon (the 1974 Watergate tapes case) that because the co-conspirator issue was not relevant to deciding whether or not Nixon had to turn over the tapes to the special prosecutor, it need not be addressed.

more . . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/legal020198.htm

[shraby]

2. He would be an unindicted co-conspirator.

He can't be indicted, only impeached.

[berni_mccoy]

3. Not likely

The results are here:

http://salo.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/10/2/141445/581

And the final conclusion is here:

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/sitting_president.htm

[ananda]

5. umm

In 1973, the Department concluded that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.
-------

But what if the sitting President is a dangerous idiot who never has had the capacity to perform his constitutionally assigned functions?

Impeachem I say.

Sue

[soothsayer]

6. ken starr thought he could. looky:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/jan-june99/indict_2-1.html

MARGARET WARNER: Independent Counsel Ken Starr is coming under fire again. The latest controversy was triggered by a story on the New York Times articlefront page of yesterday's New York Times. It reported that Starr is weighing the possibility of asking a federal grand jury to indict President Clinton while he's still in office. The article said that independent counsel has not reached a decision but that, "Starr has concluded that he has the constitutional authority to seek a grand jury indictment of president Clinton before he leaves the White House in January, 2001." The article cited as its sources several associates of Mr. Starr. The reaction from senators conducting the impeachment trial of Mr. Clinton was overwhelmingly negative.


much more at link

[stepnw1f]

17. 'dangerous idiot' - Thankyou! (nt)

[never_get_over_it]

18. And what about the Extreme Courts decision

that a sitting President could be sued....the argument against this was that it would take away from the President's responsibility - but the Court decided 9 to nothing that a sitting President could be sued while in office - a decision I don't agree with btw

[Garbo 2004]

25. A Pres can be prosecuted, after removal from office, for violations of law

that led to the removal.

[Rosco T.]

39. You'll note that it says the Vice-President CAN BE INDICTED..

.. since his position is not critical to the functioning of the government.

[dogday]

4. What if this has been proved a Conspiracy?

What if the SP has evidence that this was a conspiracy reaching up to the highest office in the land. What then? If it was just a matter of loose lips sink ships type of crime or high crimes of conspiracy to uncover a covert agent that go all the way to the top.

[Javaman]

7. Before or after the popping of the champagne?

[longship]

8. Presidential powers

I think that he *can* be indicted. But I do not think that has ever happened.

In Watergate, the grand jury added a sealed addendum that named him as an "unindicted co-conspirator". I do not know why it was sealed since its contents were know within hours of the grand jury releasing its findings.

Some people on these forums take the defeatist position that Rove and Company (including Chimp and Crashcart) will escape justice by presidential pardon. I don't know why anybody would take such a position. Certainly it is not anything to be wished. It would be exceedingly stupid for Chimp to attempt such a thing. There's absolutely no reason to expect that it would work and the downside is a situation so grave that I sudder to consider the consequences.

Such naivete shows considerable ignorance of the gravity of what they are suggesting, to say nothing of unprecidented historic context. On top of clearly being an impeachable abuse of power, there are so many unknown consequences of a rampant, lawless, and unaccoutable executive branch that it truly shakes me to the bone every time somebody makes the claim. Bush invoking presidential pardon in Rove/Plame should bring on an immediate call for impeachment from all corners of the country. If that does not happen, we may be in very grave danger as a republic because the rule of law in this country will have utterly broken down.

[havocmom]

9. Um, about the pardon issue: his daddy did it for Iran/Contra felons

who certainly did some serious damage to how the government is supposed to work. Or am I naive and devoid of understanding grave situations?

Lil Boots will do it too.

[longship]

10. Um! No he DID NOT!!

GHWB pardoned people for crimes committed during the Reagan administration, not for crimes committed during his own administration. Although in a grey area, it was held to be at the edge of, but within the scope of the presidential pardon.

Are you seriously stating that Chimp pardoning people from *his own* administration is the same? Do you not understand what a gravely serious abuse of power it would be? Do you not comprehend the possible consequences of such an action?

[havocmom]

11. He pardoned 6 Iran/Contra felons on Dec 24, 1992, after his defeat by Bill

Those six were involved in and busted for enterprises which George the First was involved in. That is a pretty serious abuse of power. And abuse of power runs in the family. Since nuance is lost on Lil Boots, I doubt he, or anyone save a very few, would think it is any different doing it for people in his own administration as opposed to his daddy doing it for crooks busted for deeds done while HE was running things in the Reagan administration

Timeline on bottom of page
http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/presidents/george-hw-bush/

<snip> 24 Dec 1992 President George HW Bush pardons six Iran-Contra principals: Weinberger, Abrams, Clarridge, Fiers, George and McFarlane.

[longship]

12. Reagan was the chief executive during Iran-amok.

Reagan!! Not George HW Bush. Get it?

There was a lot of talk about this. But the concensus was that the pardon was on the edge, but appropriate because there were no formal proceedings against Poppy during the scandal. These were past sins of a previous administration. The pardon was therefore legal. Also, George HW did not pardon himself. There could still have been charges against him, if some investigator had something to go on.

The Rove/Plame affair is entirely different. This is a scandal that Chimpy is deeply involved in. It's in his *own* administration. If Chimpster pardons his own people it would correctly be construed as an abuse of power and an obstruction of justice. It would mean the end of rule of law in this country.

I do not understand why anybody would wish such a crisis on this country.

[havocmom]

13. No one is wishing 'such a crisis on this country'. We are bracing for it.

And do you really think Reagan was running things? GET IT?

[longship]

14. I get it.

Who you *think* was running the Reagan administration is totally irrelevant. Reagan was the only one who had the power to pardon. He did not, for a very good reason. He did not want to be impeached for abuse of power. It was up to his successor to pardon, which George HW Bush did. I did not like that either, but there were no active investigations into Poppy's role in Iran-amok so the matter was grudgingly dropped by all concerned.

So, trust me, my friend. I get it.

The presidential power of pardon is not, and cannot be, a magic carpet ride for any criminal who aspires to the office of president.

I agree that we have to prepare for such an event. But there is far, far too much casual talk about it on DU--like it was an easy thing to do, or that somehow Chimpy might get away with it. Neither is true. I assure you that if it was attempted, we'd be in deep shit very quickly.

[texpatriot2004]

15. Good points you make there.n/t

[burrowowl]

37. Our country can take an impeachment

much better than 3 more years of Bu$hCO!

[never_get_over_it]

20. Excuse me but the Pardon power is absolute

the only exception to a Presidential pardon is that a President can not pardon for impeachment - so unless we amend the Constitution ANY pardon Bush makes short of someone being impeached may be on the edge but is perfectly legal.

[kestrel91316]

23. We DON'T "want it". But we sure as hell can see it coming.

[longship]

27. I sympathize with your fears.

Chimpy would be a complete fool to try and pull such a stunt. It would plunge this country into a huge crisis. I pray that these idiots are not willing to risk that much to escape accountability. But I fear that they might think that it might work. Let's all hope that they have the minute amount of sensibility it takes to understand that consequences would be grave.

[never_get_over_it]

16. Hello GW Bush has been abusing power for five years

and his father pardoned folks for Iran Contra to protect his sorry ass. Lets think this through - If Bush has done things that could cause him to end up in jail and Rove more than anyone knows it all - and say Bush pardons him to keep hin quiet - then the worse thing that could happen and it would take time is that Bush could be impeached and removed. Do you think Bush would give a rats ass about being impeached and removed if it keeps his sorry ass out of prison. Also the likely hood of impeachment proceeding even starting before January 07 I believe are slim to none and then you need 2/3rds vote in Senate which I don't think will ever happen.

These people have done so many outrageous things I put nothing past them - they are arrogant SOBs and they just don't care what we think.

[kestrel91316]

22. LOL, WHAT consequences, pray tell?

[longship]

28. Let's begin with the flagrant abuse of power

Exercising the presidential pardon to excuse your own administration for its crimes is impeachable. Reagan didn't do it. Nixon didn't do it. No president who's been under investigation has ever done it.

You might not believe me, but believe me if Chimpster tried to pardon his own men for the crimes done on his watch, the country would be plunged into a constitutional crisis of the likes we have not seen since the Civil War. It would mean that the executive branch was flagrantly working outside the rule of law, casually disregarding their oath of office to uphold the Constitution and enforce the law. There are many in Washington who would look at it the same way. Many of them are Republicans.

If Chimpy did that and the Repugs held with him, which is doubtful, our republic would be in very grave danger. With a government so flagrantly and totally unbeholden to the rule of law we would risk actions both from within and from without. There's no other way to portray it.

The question one might want to ask is, why in the Sam Hell do you seem to *want* this to happen? Please use your head for something other than a hatrack and think about it for a minute. And while you are at it, you might want to pray for it to *not* happen.

[kestrel91316]

32. Where in the Sam Hill did you get the idea I or anybody else on DU

WANTS this to happen????? Don't put words in people's mouths, please.

I know full well how unacceptably evil it would be for Bush to pardon the Plame crowd and go on his merry way. I also don't happen to think the Republicans will do a damned thing to him if he does. They are all a bunch of Christofascist dominionists as far as I am concerned, and they treat him like he's the Second Coming of Christ. If you don't understand what these religious fascist nutcakes are about, it's a pity.

Don't be naive. They are not going to stand in his way. They are going to roll out the red carpet.

[longship]

34. It just seems to be a major topic of discussion.

And people are arguing that it will happen. I say, no it won't because it's a very dangerous move. Then they argue again that Chimp will do it anyway, that he doesn't care. Blah, blah, blah.

Your attitude is precisely what I'm talking about. Are you actually arguing that these guys would knowingly attempt something with such disastrous consequences? Are you actually arguing that people in Congress will stand mute while that happens? Do you actually believe that the public will stand still for it? And presuming nobody around this country did anything about it, with a demonstrably lawless administration where its able to do anything without fear of accountability, do you honestly think that other countries would sit by and do nothing?

Sometimes I am shocked at the lack of depth in the thinking on this site.

[kestrel91316]

41. I do think that there won't be enough in Congress to fight Bush,

he has too many loyalists there. I think that what the American people want no longer matters to Bush and Co, since they control the voting machines.

I HOPE I am wrong. I FEAR I am right.

[kestrel91316]

33. "...our republic would be in very grave danger.." LOL

Our republic, dear reader, has been in very grave danger for 4 1/2 years and you are only now noticing?

Bush's plans are now reaching fruition. He KNOWS he is doing the work of God. Be afraid.

[longship]

35. kestrel, I am afraid.

I have been afraid for all 4 1/2 years. But I refuse to believe that Chimp administration has completely lost its mind so as to cast the whole rule of law overboard.

If that *does* happen, we'd all better be ready for some heavy shit.

[kestrel91316]

43. The rule of law hasn't applied to Republicans for quite a while.

Any in the administration who don't go along get the boot. He then replaces them with more unqualified cronies. He has packed the government with his Christofascist, Dominionist friends and we are in big trouble.

[longship]

45. This is very true.

But he hasn't yet pardoned anybody under indictment. That, my good friend, is a horse of a different color.

Please talk to somebody who's knowledgeable about the constitution. (I certainly am not an expert.) I have two friends who I want to contact about this myself, because I am curious about the origin of all this talk of Chimp using the pardon to extricate himself from his problems. I really don't think Chimp will do it because he'd be getting very good advice not to.

[longship]

46. Interesting discussion with a knowledgable friend.

One of my close friends is an expert on the Constitution. We had an interesting discussion on this matter.

First, he said that the presidential pardon would be on the table. In other words, that Chimp and Company would be thinking of using it.

But if Chimp invoked it prior to his end of term (i.e., to escape accountability for his people, or for himself) it would be clearly an impeachable abuse of power. My friend's was fairly certain that this would result in impeachment proceedings.

The public is already very cynical about presidential pardons. Its use in this instance would be viewed very negatively. Congress would act on it because there are many CongressCritters who would be aware of the dangerous precident it would set. His measured words were, "People wouldn't like it."

Regardless, he told me that these guys will be out of office in about 2 1/2 years. He believes that it will take a turnover in the House to accomplish that. New situations may change that, but he had little doubt that it would happen. It is only a matter of when.

He agreed with me that if Chimp/Crashcart were impeached prior to the new congress in 2007, the new president, Hastert, would be fangless and ineffective politically. After all, he would be the guy who could not hold the House against impeachment. Altogether that would be a much improved situation over what we have now.

BTW, this man's qualifications are beyond dispute. He's a PoliSci academic. He has appeared on CNN as an expert on the Constitution, including at least one appearance on Larry King Live.

And, if you're reading this, thank buddy.

on edit: clarification and clean up wording.

[kestrel91316]

47. I sure hope your friend is right. I do NOT trust the RW to do anything

right or ethical. They are a greedy, power hungry pack of wolves (apologies to wolves everywhere).

[never_get_over_it]

19. Why is it if someone believe that Bush would pardon Rove

that they are naive and show ignorance - how about just accepting that they disagree with you - I happen to think that Bush and this administration are capable of doing anything including pardoning Rove - they stole two elections - they ignored warnings of 9/11 - they lied us into war - they did nothing while people died in NOLA - they have looted the freaking treasury - and much much more - so why in the world is it naive and showing ignorance to believe they will stop at nothing - they are bullying - arrogant freaks who think they are entitled....

[kestrel91316]

21. Why would it be stupid for * to pardon Rove and others??

You know full well that his friends in the House will NEVER vote to impeach him, no matter how bad he gets. To them, he is the Second Coming of Christ.

[lovuian]

24. Yes lets make it simple It goes to the very premise of the

Magna Carta



Abuses by King John caused a revolt by nobles who compelled him to execute this recognition of rights for both noblemen and ordinary Englishmen. It established the principle that no one, including the king or a lawmaker, is above the law.

Just substitute George for John!!!

There is a precedent since 1215

[Samantha]

26. I don't think he would be indicted because he cannot be removed

from office through a criminal proceeding.

Jonathan Turley talked about contesting the Ohio election proceedings and the ramifications of obtaining proof before the Inauguration as opposed to after. If one obtained the literal proof of election tampering prior to the Inauguration, one could prevent Bush* from being sworn in. However, if one obtained absolute proof following the Inauguration ... oh well. The only way to remove a sitting president is through the impeachment process ... Constitutionally. No Federal law supersedes the Constitution, the highest law in the land.

During the Clinton crisis, it was determined a president could be sued and could be subpoenaed. However, there was talk of "trying" Clinton for criminal deeds after he left office, since there would be no consequences during his tenure in the Oval Office. Clinton was in fact subpoenaed, and the question of perjury arose during his testimony. Many attorneys said he walked the line during his testimony, and it would be difficult if not impossible to prove he committed perjury. Since the purpose of the whole debacle was to remove him from office, indictment for perjury was not pursued inasmuch as it was a dead end to evict Clinton from the Oval Office and a risky maneuver politically after he left the White House.

[MiniMe]

29. Actually, it would be an impeachment.

Any charges would go before Congress instead of a grand jury, and they could vote to impeach (yeah, right). Then, if impeached, it would go to the Senate, that would be like the trial, and found either guilty or not guilty.

Clinton was impeached by the congress, but found not guilty in the senate, thats why he stayed in office.

I don't think that Fitzpatrick can indict him.

[garybeck]

30. it would end up at the Supreme Court and that's why Bush appointed

another cronie. just watch.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

31. Patrick Fitzgerald will become the most vilified man in media history

The major Republican gunships that will set sail to smear him will make the Swiftboaters look like they were paddling a raft. Fitzgerald will be functioning in one of the most highly scrutinized and criticized environments we've ever seen in jurisprudence. The corporate media will be looking at ever dotted 'i' and crossed 't' for any errors. If Bush gets nailed, it will mean enormous setbacks for the Republican Party for years to come. I think they will do everything they can to avoid Bush getting convicted or even having the prosecution go forward.

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. Un Indicted Co Conspirator

the onky way to get rid of bush is for the hosue to do its job, but that unindicted may open the way

[redacted]

38. Right. That label alone could sink his approval rating down into the 20's,

like Nixon's were before he resigned, and at that level, to use Tom Oliphant's term, Shrub's presidency is no longer "viable."

Specifically, assuming fair elections, his coattails will so damage the campaigns of other Republicans running for office that the GOP leadership, fearing catastrophic losses, will try to get him to resign first. Meanwhile, other GOP elected officials will vote against his legislation at an increasing rate in an attempt to distance themselves as damage control.

In this scenario impeachment proceedings may be sufficient to force a resignation from office, but they may not be necessary.

[cassiepriam]

40. His pals on the SC get him off the hook. He is untouchable.

[mmonk]

42. I have a problem with

an elected official being above the law.