Dems should propose legislation to make Pres. pardons of treason and/or

[gardenista]

revelation of state secrets illegal.

Many theories are floating around that Fitz has more, and I believe he does. The thought is that his strategy is to get Libby to turn, and this makes sense to me. However, there is one big glitch in the plan.

The broad powers of the President to pardon in cases like Libby's make it almost impossible for the prosecutor to get past him to the real players- Rove, Cheney, Bush. If Libby stonewalls and refuses to turn, the investigation can go no further.

This presents Democratic members of Congress an opportunity to reveal to the public what this story is really about- treason. The deliberate exposure of a CIA asset to the enemy. If they propose legislation of this sort, naturally it won't pass, but the idea is to publicize the purpose of Bush's pardon, which of course has already been written and shown to Libby, and will go into effect as soon as he's been convicted, as long as that's after Nov. '06.

Bush will probably still pardon Libby's crime. But the true nature of the crime, and true purpose of the pardon, will be exposed, and will cause major damage to the GOP.

[hang a left]

1. There should be legislation introduced that prohibits pardons for

crimes committed while working for the federal government.

[Pab Sungenis]

2. Can't be done.

Unconstitutional. And I doubt we'd be able to get an amendment through changing the pardon power.

Honestly, the pardon is one of the President's most important powers. It lets him intervene when the Law and Justice are on opposite sides, and lets him temper Justice with Mercy when called for. Limiting it except in the most extreme circumstances is a bad idea.

[gardenista]

5. Tell me more. Could there be an amendment to the constitution?

I believe that the founders did not intend for the pardon to be used to promulgate a cover-up.

edit: spelling

[madeline_con]

14. Yours is an interesting point...

Wouldn't being able to pardon those in one's own administration, when said administration controls the House, Senate and WH make the power to pardon unfair?

IOW, isn't this an extreme circumstance?

[gardenista]

17. I'm learning now that the PPP (Presidential Pardon Power)

is meant as a check and balance to the Judicial Branch, but your point is an excellent one, too. In such an unbalanced government, like we hae now, the power can easily be abused.

Mondale proposed a Constitutional amendment to give Congress 120 days to overturn a pardon.

I'd like to hear from others about why this would be such a bad idea.

[TechBear_Seattle]

19. Article, section and paragraph, please

The pardon is a traditional power, but I am pretty certain it is not a constitutionally mandated power.

[madeline_con]

22. Article II, Section 2

The President's pardon power is established under the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 2:

The President ... shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

[gardenista]

24. "Except in cases of impeachment".

Does that mean that if the President is impeached, he/she cannot continue to pardon others, or that the President may not be pardoned if impeached?

I imagine it's the former.

[madeline_con]

26. Sounds like the former to me, too.

Could be either, or both. :shrug:

[NNadir]

27. Um, the supreme court will interpret this article.

Do you really expect much from Scalia and Thomas and Roberts and the next neo-whatever to be enthroned?

[NYC Liberal]

29. It means that the president cannot pardon someone of an impeachment.

I.e., if the House were voting on Cheney's impeachment, Bush could not pardon him from the impeachment or conviction in the Senate.

[gardenista]

30. Ok, thanks. But prior to Cheney's impeachment, he could be pardoned, thus

impeding the impeachment process. Do I have that right?

Wouldn't this obstruct the impeachment process for anyone but the President?

[NYC Liberal]

31. No, that's the point.

It's saying you can't use a pardon to stop an impeachment (or conviction in the Senate). Only in "regular" courts.

[gardenista]

32. Ah, ok. Thanks!

[TechBear_Seattle]

33. Dang it, I checked and missed it anyway. Thanks. n/t

[shraby]

3. I think the legislation should be written so that

the president can't pardon any wrong doing from the white house period.

[Walt Starr]

4. Only way to do that is amend the constitution. n/t

[gardenista]

6. Walt, do you think that is so far-fetched?

Furthermore, I don't have any illusions that this would actually pass in this Congress. The point is to publicize the fact that this important Presidential power is being used to promulgate a cover-up.

[Walt Starr]

13. Bushs will never pardon so long as the investigation is still ongoing

If Libby is pardoned, he can no longer plead the fifth amendment protection in any grand jury proceeding and thus, would be compelled to testify about others.

Bush CAN pardon Libby, but he won't, at least for the time being.

[gardenista]

15. And would it be double-jeapordy if he were again indicted for new

crimes of perjury that occur during that testimony?

If so, I imagine he could again be pardoned. Interesting scenario, either way.

[Walt Starr]

18. Nope, it would not be double jeopardy. It would be a new crime.

And pardning him for lying a second time would be so politically damaging, Bush could face impeachment by his own party.

[gardenista]

23. Hmmm... another interesting scenario.

Well, we're in for quite a show.

[madeline_con]

16. Agreed, excellent point. eom

[rzemanfl]

7. I agree the pardon is already signed and is probably in Libbys

lawyer's safe deposit box.

[NYC Liberal]

8. They should propose an amendment, whether or not it gets passed.

Just like the anti-torture amendment/bill. You'd have to be nuts to vote against it.

[gardenista]

9. Found an interesting article on the subject. It's been tried recently.

The author would not agree with me, but it's still interesting:

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew16.HTM


In the wake of the firestorm over President Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon in 1974, Congress prudently ignored proposals to curtail the pardon power, permitting time to cool passions. In particular, Congress failed to act on Senator Walter Mondale’s proposed constitutional amendment to permit Congress to nullify a pardon by a two-thirds vote within 120 days after its issuance and Senator William Proxmire’s proposal for an amendment to limit pardons to persons already convicted of crimes. Although the Nixon pardon remains controversial, the present verdict of history is generally much kinder to Ford than was public opinion a quarter of a century ago. Even if Ford used the pardon power unwisely, his misuse of it would not have justified the curtailment of a power that generally had been used with prudence for nearly two centuries.

[gardenista]

10. I didn't realize that Pres. pardons could be given before one is convicted

of a crime. So even if Fitz extends the investigation after 2008, if there is an indictment, the crime could be pardoned even before a conviction.

Edited to add: The pardon can even be given without an indictment.

[Yupster]

11. Ford pardoned Nixon

before he was even indicted, and Clinton pardoned Mark Rich while he was still on the run from the police.

The pardoning power is way too broad in my opinion.

[gardenista]

12. I agree, and must admit that until now, I never understood just how

broad it is.

It can be used as an instrument to obstruct justice.

But I imagine that in many cases, it has been used for good reason.

Nevertheless, it is not farfetched to think that an amendment could be proposed. It would at least shed light on the subject and educate the public, open up a debate, and expose the Bush strategy.

[Marr]

20. A question: does the president lose his pardon power the moment he's

impeached?

[gardenista]

21. That would make sense, but the assumption is that a member of his own

party would take his place, and would continue to do his dirty work, i.e., Ford and his pardon of Nixon.

I imagine that if Nixon could have pardoned himself, he would have.

x(

Never thought I'd miss that guy.

[Marr]

25. Ah, that's true. Even if he and Cheney were removed at the same time,

Hastert would surely pardon them in a second.

[Walt Starr]

28. No.

He/she loses it the moment he/she is convicted in the Senate. At that point in time, he/she is no longer the president.

Remember, Clinton was impeached, but he was not convicted. He had full powers to pardon while the trial in the Senate was ongoing.