Olbermann's special comment to Obama re: FISA

[Flagg]

Again, political suicide. Bush cares too much about his legacy to risk a guaranteed thrashing in the history books. He may not be able to see why the Iraq invasion has already done that, but it's not hard to see how people would interpret a blanket-pardon.

Now that I think about the Libby situation more, I think you're right. He half-pardoned him ("commuted his sentence" makes it sound like he's still on the hook, which he clearly isn't) to keep him out of prison so he'd have no reason to sing like a canary.

[Flagg]

Are you sure ? As I understand it, legally a President ( probably ) CAN pardon himself. It's just that no President has had the gall/lack of dignity to do so. Yet.

I don't think so, but there is a perfectly sound way to get around that. Bush pardons Cheney and resigns on January 20, Cheney is sworn in as President and pardons Bush, then Obama or McCain is sworn in on January 21. It's just sleazy enough that it's perfect for the Bush administration. It also gets King George out of having to attend Obama's inauguration.

Such a scenario would almost certainly get dragged in front of the Supreme Court, who've already smacked him down on detainee rights more than once. It would essentially be the case that would destroy executive authority, and Cheney's neo-con buddies wouldn't approve of taking that risk.

By whom and what legal authority? I'm honestly curious about that since the Presidents ability to grant pardons is absolute, to my understanding. I imagine the only argument you actually make is that the President cannot simply resign on a whim, but there is precedent for that not being the case.

[Questor]

By whom and what legal authority? I'm honestly curious about that since the Presidents ability to grant pardons is absolute, to my understanding. I imagine the only argument you actually make is that the President cannot simply resign on a whim, but there is precedent for that not being the case.

But the executive CANNOT risk that section of the Constitution being reinterpreted, lots of constitutional rights are not in the wording of the Constitution, but in the interpretation. Marbury v. Madison would be a good example.

[Flagg]

By whom and what legal authority? I'm honestly curious about that since the Presidents ability to grant pardons is absolute, to my understanding. I imagine the only argument you actually make is that the President cannot simply resign on a whim, but there is precedent for that not being the case.

But the executive CANNOT risk that section of the Constitution being reinterpreted, lots of constitutional rights are not in the wording of the Constitution, but in the interpretation. Marbury v. Madison would be a good example.

And who would have standing to challenge this? The next President? If so, why would the next President risk losing that power himself?

The only legal argument anyone could make against a wretched scheme like I posited above would be that the President cannot resign at his own discretion, which doesn't seem like it's hold up too well. Unless there's something I'm missing, which could very well be the case.

[Glocksman]

I don't think so, but there is a perfectly sound way to get around that. Bush pardons Cheney and resigns on January 20, Cheney is sworn in as President and pardons Bush, then Obama or McCain is sworn in on January 21. It's just sleazy enough that it's perfect for the Bush administration. It also gets King George out of having to attend Obama's inauguration.

Such a scenario would almost certainly get dragged in front of the Supreme Court, who've already smacked him down on detainee rights more than once. It would essentially be the case that would destroy executive authority, and Cheney's neo-con buddies wouldn't approve of taking that risk.

By whom and what legal authority? I'm honestly curious about that since the Presidents ability to grant pardons is absolute, to my understanding. I imagine the only argument you actually make is that the President cannot simply resign on a whim, but there is precedent for that not being the case.

IANAL, but my understanding is that the presidential power to pardon is not subject to any kind of court or congressional review.
Didn't the subject come up after Clinton pardoned Marc Rich is what was a blatant quid pro quo, and Congress decided it couldn't do anything?

As much as I'd love to see Chimpy in isolation at Supermax, I don't think it'll happen.
One can hope, though.

[Darth Fanboy]

I don't think so, but there is a perfectly sound way to get around that. Bush pardons Cheney and resigns on January 20, Cheney is sworn in as President and pardons Bush, then Obama or McCain is sworn in on January 21. It's just sleazy enough that it's perfect for the Bush administration. It also gets King George out of having to attend Obama's inauguration.

In that scenario, Cheney couldn't issue Bush a pardon unless Dubya was impeached and/or charged with a crime IIRC. So if anyone is going to levy charges against Dubya I do not think it would happen before January 21st.

[K. A. Pital]

So the US president can pardon himself in case of trial, or only through a circumvent (the VP pardons him and vice-versa)? In case the president can just pardon himself as a person, that's... really out there.

[Flagg]

I don't think so, but there is a perfectly sound way to get around that. Bush pardons Cheney and resigns on January 20, Cheney is sworn in as President and pardons Bush, then Obama or McCain is sworn in on January 21. It's just sleazy enough that it's perfect for the Bush administration. It also gets King George out of having to attend Obama's inauguration.

In that scenario, Cheney couldn't issue Bush a pardon unless Dubya was impeached and/or charged with a crime IIRC. So if anyone is going to levy charges against Dubya I do not think it would happen before January 21st.

It's my understanding that you do not have to be charged, indicted, or even suspect in a crime for a Presidential pardon to be valid. They can essentially say "any crimes you may have committed". Nixon hadn't been charged or impeached, for example.

IANAL, but my understanding is that the presidential power to pardon is not subject to any kind of court or congressional review.
Didn't the subject come up after Clinton pardoned Marc Rich is what was a blatant quid pro quo, and Congress decided it couldn't do anything?

Essentially. There was some talk of giving Congress oversight approval or having some recourse in a situation like that in the future, but anything short of a constitutional amendment wouldn't have cut it. Plus by then the Republicans had control of all but the senate and weren't interested in taking power away from a Republican POTUS.

[Glocksman]

So the US president can pardon himself in case of trial, or only through a circumvent (the VP pardons him and vice-versa)? In case the president can just pardon himself as a person, that's... really out there.

The idea of a president pardoning himself has never been tested, but IIRC there's no real limitation in the constitution on him doing so.

Though I will say that even Richard Nixon didn't dare do so in his own case and instead relied on his successor to pardon him.
The one real limitation on the power is that a president cannot pardon impeached officials.
IOW, he couldn't prevent his or any other official's removal from office as a result of impeachment by Congress.

[Mr Bean]

There is a possible out, it's legal out in this case. A Presidential Pardon can be made invalid if and only if it can be demonstrated the President violated the law, and all his actions after that point were illegal.

This would involve the Congress Impeaching him the instant he does the first blanket pardon, quitting the job does not end the Impeachment charges, people forget at times that Congress does have the power of the court. So they impeach him, judge his actions illegal and "remove him from power" and pre-date that time before he can issue that blanket pardon thus all his actions after his official removal from power become invalid and thus prosecution go forward.

There's also the crazy option
President Obama says "I will pardon the man who delivers justice to the Bush Administration"

Let me say again before the SS descends on my house that, THAT is the crazy option, despite the fact that vigilante justice is still a popular American pastime it is illegal and wrong.

Stay in school kids.

[SirNitram]

Obama has declared he will investigate the Bush administration's actions during his Presidency if he wins. That's more than most Presidents ever do.

Are you so certain that he'll actually do it? I have my doubts, for the reason you stated above - most Presidents just don't bother with it.

I cannot be certain. However, the mere fact he said it is more than most Presidents have done. Hell, I can't name one example of a President who did even this much. That's more than we can expect from McCain, who'd not only expand this shit but actively plant more judges to continue it.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

This whole argument about Bush's pardons seems academic. Does anyone really believe that the telcom companies would ever be prosecuted, even if they don't have immunity? Any the idea that the Democrats would have the guts to go after Bush is just laughable.

[Elfdart]

I think I understand, now. If there are holes, please feel free to shoot this down. By accepting the pardons it would be an acknowledgment that the actions they performed were illegal. That would mean that they performed illegal actions under the behalf of Bush, thus opening himself up to criminal culpability. Bush can pardon the telecoms, Bush can pardon government officials, but Bush cannot pardon himself. By issuing blanket pardons, he is basically admitting that he has ordered people to break the law. And unless McCain wins the election, then there is no one to pardon him.

That's my understanding of it.

Ask Elliot Abrams and the other Iran-Contra convicts who were pardoned if their acceptance of those Get Out Of Jail Free cards hurt them in any way. Abrams was hired on by Dubya in 2001. There's nothing in the Constitution that prevents Numbnuts from pardoning himself and anyone else who tickles his fancy. After November he's going to grant more retroactive immunity than Jesus Christ, only without being nailed to a wooden beam.

Bush can't pardon himself. If he gives everyone else a pardon, the only fish left to fry is him, and those pardons would be used against him in criminal proceedings. Furthermore, if he issues preemptive pardons, his cronies have no incentive not to implicate him if federal prosecutors put the squeeze on them using whatever other illegal activities they've committed and haven't been pardoned for.

Nixon's pardon was for everything he did from 1968-74. I'd imagine that Dubya would do likewise to make sure his flunkies won't rat on him. Prosecutors won't have anything to threaten them with.

Are you sure ? As I understand it, legally a President ( probably ) CAN pardon himself. It's just that no President has had the gall/lack of dignity to do so. Yet.

That would literally put a sitting president above the law.

Only when Congress refuses to impeach him. The Founders could not have foreseen how cowardly the House and Senate would become. Franklin did, when he said we'd have a republic so long as we chose to keep it, but he was always an oddball.

Such a scenario would almost certainly get dragged in front of the Supreme Court, who've already smacked him down on detainee rights more than once. It would essentially be the case that would destroy executive authority, and Cheney's neo-con buddies wouldn't approve of taking that risk.

Bush's SCOTUS isn't going to make a ruling that might land him in the dock.

Again, political suicide. Bush cares too much about his legacy to risk a guaranteed thrashing in the history books. He may not be able to see why the Iraq invasion has already done that, but it's not hard to see how people would interpret a blanket-pardon.

Now that I think about the Libby situation more, I think you're right. He half-pardoned him ("commuted his sentence" makes it sound like he's still on the hook, which he clearly isn't) to keep him out of prison so he'd have no reason to sing like a canary.

Libby will get a full pardon before Numbnuts leaves office. Count on it.

As far as history is concerned, Bush gives not a flying fuck when compared to the risk of being held responsible for something once in his useless life.

So the US president can pardon himself in case of trial, or only through a circumvent (the VP pardons him and vice-versa)? In case the president can just pardon himself as a person, that's... really out there.

Clearly it never occurred to the Founders that the state would become so corrupt. Either that or they assumed that at such a point the Republic was lost anyway, so why bother?

[Guardsman Bass]

I don't think so, but there is a perfectly sound way to get around that. Bush pardons Cheney and resigns on January 20, Cheney is sworn in as President and pardons Bush, then Obama or McCain is sworn in on January 21. It's just sleazy enough that it's perfect for the Bush administration. It also gets King George out of having to attend Obama's inauguration.

Such a scenario would almost certainly get dragged in front of the Supreme Court, who've already smacked him down on detainee rights more than once. It would essentially be the case that would destroy executive authority, and Cheney's neo-con buddies wouldn't approve of taking that risk.

By whom and what legal authority? I'm honestly curious about that since the Presidents ability to grant pardons is absolute, to my understanding. I imagine the only argument you actually make is that the President cannot simply resign on a whim, but there is precedent for that not being the case.

Pardons are absolute, AFAIK; the last attempt to change that in the 1970s with a Constitutional Amendment failed in Congress.

[Guardsman Bass]

I'm only assuming that Bush won't do something that would so directly implicate him in criminal activity. The only thing his administration has proven good at is shielding him from direct implications of breaking the law.

And that's my point; you're assuming that someone would actually follow up on this. I doubt Bush would feel a threat in that, seeing as no one has ever shown much willingness to prosecute an ex-president (case in point - the Special Investigator assigned to Watergate, Leon Jaworlski, did not show much desire to prosecute Nixon after he had resigned in the face of incredibly strong evidence that he had been involved in the scandal and had resigned in the face of almost certain removal from office).

The fact that it would certainly almost implicate him in the affair probably doesn't mean much to him - he'll probably give the blanket pardon with the rationale that the Telecoms helped "protect Americans and some bullshit".

Isn't this all a non-question anyways, for the most part? Bush's Department of Justice is exceedingly unlikely to actually test out the criminal loophole, so unless Obama actually does go ahead with it (which, again, I find unlikely), it's blocked (since the Telecom immunity applies to civil suits, preventing someone simply suing the companies for this). Criminal prosecution actually requires the government to take an interest in investigating it.

Besides, a blanket pardon would almost demand a follow-up investigation.

It didn't when Reagan and Bush pardoned all of the Iran-Contra people, or when Clinton pardoned Marc Rich.

Like I said, the ball is going to be in Obama's court. Assuming he goes along with this on the vote after the 4th of July (the Telecom immunity from civil suits, assuming John Dean is right on that), then the Department of Justice will probably just sit on its hands until the end of Bush's term, when Obama has the chance to actually start up a criminal prosecution. I just think it's exceedingly unlikely that he will - Obama is an ambitious, political pragmatic type; he's,AFAIK in his career, never shown any type of willingness to go after something like this when he had something more important to do and when it would net him very little political gain.