Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

George W. Bush and the Presidential Pardons

Posted by Tom Degan, The Rant at 6:03 AM on November 20, 2008.


No, it's not a new punk band.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

One of the latest Washington parlor Games seems to be spectating as to whether or not Bush will grant a full pardon to convicted felon Scooter Libby before his administration mercifully comes to an end two months from tomorrow. I say "seems to be" because, trust me, I am not nor have I ever been a member of the Washington Beltway, cocktail party circuit - in good standing or otherwise. All of the info you read in this site I receive second or third hand. Truth be told, I have not even set foot in the District of Columbia since April of 2000. 

Recently, however, the Princes and Princesses of D.C. are starting to ask a somewhat different question: 
 
Is the First Fool going to issue a blanket pardon for all of the criminals in this disgusting administration who have committed crimes against the American people in general and humaity in particular? 
 
Expect a major Constitutional crisis between now and January 20. In the months following the dawn of the 110th Congress in January of 2007, I couldn't understand why the special prosecutors weren't forthcoming. What the hell is the matter with these stupid Democrats? Can't they see that this is the most murderously criminal administration in American history? Are these nitwits blind? Are they part of the conspiracy? What gives?
 
Then in early July, I was finally able to figure it out the reason behind the Dem's hesitancy. The moment Dick Cheney's chief-of-staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice, Bush commuted his sentence. What's the sense of prosecuting these homicidal clowns for anything if the asshole in the Oval Office is simply going to render their convictions invalid?

 

 

 

The plan, I am sure, is to wait until Bush is out of office, then initiate the prosecutions. As I predicted on this very site almost two years ago, Bush would initiate a blanket pardon in the early hours of Christmas Eve "in the spirit of this glorious holiday season" much like his father did in the case of Casper Weinberger and everyone else convicted of crimes committed in the Iran Contra affair. 
 
Here's Bush's problem: No one in his administration has been convicted of or even charged with anything. A president cannot merely pardon someone in anticipation of an indictment, right? Right??? Of course he can't. Explain that, though, to the knuckleheads within the GOP who issue the talking points. You see, the idea is subtly being put forth that, not only can a president pardon anybody for anything - indicted or not - he even has the legal ability to vindicate himself.
 

 

 

Beg Pardon??? (No pun intended).

 

 

Is he really going to attempt something as hideously arrogant as that? Are you kidding me? This is George W. Bush we're talkin' about here! Of course he's going to attempt it. It would be uncharacteristic for him not to try it. At the very least, he's thinking about it - COUNT ON IT. 

 

 

Consider this: Do you think that the Founding Fathers gave the chief executive the power of the pardon in order that he or she would be able to conduct a criminal enterprise for four long years - and even longer - and then have the ability to walk away from their crimes scott free? If that were the case, why in the hell did they give the Congress the power of impeachment in case of presidential "high crimes and misdemeanors"? What earthly sense would that have made?

 

 

As the late, lamented Molly Ivins once observed, the founders of this country were "just about the smartest sons-of-bitches that ever lived". No article in the Bill of Rights and Constitution was meant to be self-defeating - of that you may be sure. If Bush attempts to do what I think he's going to do, the proverbial shit is going to hit the Constitutional fan.

 

 

If a president had the legal right to pardon himself, why didn't it ever cross the mind of Rhoades Scholar Bill Clinton when he was charged with the "high crime" of lying about a fling with a half-witted intern? Why didn't President Andrew Johnson consider it when he was impeached in 1869? Because to have attempted as much would have been considered arrogant and laughable. In 1974, Dick Nixon and company considered this very maneuver - for about two minutes. Say what you want about the Nixon Gang, they may have been a bunch of arrogant thugs, but they were also a fairly intelligent bunch. As soon as the idea floated by, it was immediately dismissed as ludicrous. That's the funny thing about Dick Nixon. Say what you want about the hideous old bastard, compared to George W. Bush, he's starting to look like Thomas Jefferson. No, it just doesn't any stranger than that.

 

 

If our commander-in-disguise attempts to let himself off the hook via the dubious means of a self-pardon, how would the Supreme Court rule on something as extraordinary as that? How would they rule on the subject of a mass pardon of people for crimes that are not even named? My prediction would be seven to two, with Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia being the only two holdouts. Seriously, you don't think that those two could possibly render any intelligent judgment, do you?

 

 

America is about to come to the end of the most criminal administration in our history. We cannot allow these people to escape the justice that is their due. What would it say if Bush pardons everyone for the torture that took place under his watch at Guantanamo Bay? It would say that he knew what was going on there was illegal all along! He would be virtually declaring himself a war criminal!

 

 

Think about this for a minute or two: How is it going to look if this disgusting little guttersnipe is able to say, "Yes, I tortured; Yes, I committed war crimes; Yes, I looted our national treasure; Yes, I my Justice Department conducted political persecutions under my orders; Yes, I authorized warrantless wiretaps in direct violation of the written law; Yes, I lied this nation into an unnecessary war; Yes, I did all of those things and then some. But guess what? I pardon myself. I'm innocent! TAG, YOU'RE IT! NYAH! NYAH!"
 
If we allow him and the people around him to walk away from the carnage they have created, then justice in this doomed country will forever be rendered a farce. Never again will any of us be able to say with a straight face that we are truly a nation of laws and not men. These people have committed serious crimes against humanity - not only in this country but abroad. In 2003, they presented the Congress with falsified evidence that led this country into committing the stupidest military blunder in our history. As a result, as many as one million Iraqi men, women and little children are dead. Almost five thousand American kids now rest in cemeteries all across the land. That, my friends, is a crime of the worst order. The perpetrators of that crime need to be punished - severely. We have no other choice. Justice denied is justice mocked.

 

 

We'd all be better off just handing him over to the Hague. Let them deal with him. We would be able to avoid the partisan earthquake that would certainly come with the criminal prosecution of George W. Bush, Dick Chaney and the tsunami of human incompetence that comprises this nightmare of an administration. Also, they would surely be able to avoid the death penalty - something I vehemently oppose. They would be able to spend the rest of their miserable lives contemplating their sins. Sounds like a plan!

 

 

Gosh! I'm sure gonna miss George W. Bush. Aren't you? He certainly has provided us with gales of unintentional laughter these many years, has he not? More than one person has asked me, "What are you going to rant about when he's gone?" Good question. Fortunately for me, the Republicans won't be going a way any time soon. Fortunately for me, those idiotic Democrats are way far from perfect. Yeah, as America heads into the post-Bush era, I'll have plenty to "rant" about, thanks just the same. But I will tell you this: If America survives into the turning of the next millennium, It'll never again get as good as George W. Bush. Don't hold your breath. It just won't get that weird again. Then again, I said the same thing when Reagan left office.

 

 

Never mind.

 

 

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
tomdegan@frontiernet.net

 

Digg!

Tagged as: bush, pardons, final days


Obama: 'If Paul Krugman Has a Good Idea … Then We're Going to Do It'
Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman has been a frequent critic of President-elect Obama.
Post by Amanda Terkel. January 9, 2009.
Kucinich Speaks Out Against Congress' Blind Support of Israel
"We must take a new direction in the Middle East.
Post by Staff. January 9, 2009.
TVA Responsible for Yet Another Toxic Coal-Related Spill
So, now is it time for clean energy?
Post by Tara Lohan. January 9, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
oldfreedomdude2
Posted by: oldfreedomdude2 on Nov 20, 2008 4:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My sentiments exactly! The only way we can restore our Democracy is for the Bush Administration to be held accountable for their crimes. Unfortunately, most of the Democrats in Congress are complicit in those crimes. I had great hopes for Obama, but now I see him filling his Administration with war mongering neocons and Clintonites. Not promising for the American people. Obama also supported the bailout, which is a pure taxpayer ripoff, further enslaving Americans with debt, just the way all the 3rd world dictators have always done it. Borrow money for weapons and bribes to support their regime, and leave the peasants with the debt.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Where's the line!
Posted by: 2thepoint on Nov 20, 2008 6:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tom - as you well know Pardons are a way of life and an American institution - one only needs to look at the criminals Clinton pardoned to see every President has their "list" for what ever personal reason.

As for Bush and crimes, I personally think (I'm no lawyer so someone on here might have a better technical view odf this) that considering that other Presidents, namely FDR and Lincoln, have already set precedents with many of the actions you take exception to, it would be hard to say Bush has crossed the constitutional line!

I'm glad though to see your articles posted here on Alternet! - It's a great accomplishment!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Where's the line! Posted by: Tom Degan
one quibble
Posted by: wal55 on Nov 20, 2008 6:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"They would be able to spend the rest of their miserable lives contemplating their sins."

Tom, no matter how this tragedy plays out I doubt that Bush and company will ever accept any blame (even if they make public statements, their fingers will be crossed behind their backs). In their fantasy world, they are patriots being maligned for defending the cause of freedom; anything that's gone wrong was someone else's fault.

What scares me is the percentage of the American population who have supported their criminal enterprise...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: one quibble Posted by: Tom Degan
» RE: one quibble Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: one quibble Posted by: robert.noll
Going To The Source
Posted by: QQOblivion on Nov 20, 2008 7:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I thought I read somewhere that a US president can't pardon himself.
I went to the source to make sure:

From article 2 of Section 2 of the US Constitution:

"... and he [the president] shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, EXCEPT IN CASES OF IMPEACHMENT..."

So, there. IF the Congress had impeached Bushie (or Cheney), President Bush would have been powerless to grant himself (or Cheney) a pardon.
(In theory, anyway. Since when does Bush follow the US Constitution???)

But unless there is something else in the Constitution I missed (anyone know of anything?), Bush COULD pardon himself, since he wasn't impeached!

I'm sorry, but the Founding Fathers are looking rather foolish to me right now for letting this loophole through.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Going To The Source Posted by: Xynyx
cvtemptor
Posted by: cvtemptor on Nov 20, 2008 9:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tom,
As usual your writing and position are on point and kudos to getting a post on Alternet. Unfortunately I do believe your prediction for punishment of this band of thieves will be a reliable as your prediction that Bush would be impeached a year or so ago. This criminal regime will vacate the White House and present their middle finger to the world. No punishment will befall them. The more shame on all of us, especially the 25% or so that still support these hideous people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Of course he can.
Posted by: oregoncharles on Nov 20, 2008 10:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"A president cannot merely pardon someone in anticipation of an indictment, right? Right???"

Wrong. That's exactly what Gerald Ford did for Tricky Dick. It stuck, too; but it also stuck to Ford - he lost for re-election and his name is still Mud.

Bushbaby doesn't have to worry about any of that.

Tom is also confusing impeachment, which is a job action, with prosecution, which can send someone to prison. That's why the pardon doesn't apply to impeachment (besides the obvious self-contradiction.)

The big questions are whether he can pardon UNIDENTIFIED people, like the CIA torturers, or himself.

The Founders weren't THAT smart: many clauses in the Constitution aren't all that clear. Both of those are open questions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tom!
Posted by: Quannah on Nov 20, 2008 12:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Loved your article! Great piece of writing and I love the points you made. These are the things we have all spent countless hours right here debating. It's good to see your points "above the fold," to use a newspaper term! Congrats!

With a compliant Congress, I wonder exactly what will be done if W decides to try an end-around on the Constitution? Who will file the suit? Perhaps a non-government group like the ACLU? Or will someone from Congress step up and do the right thing... like, perhaps, Leahy of the Senate Judiciary Committee? I don't know the answer. But I hope someone does. They cannot be allowed to get away with blatant lawlessness!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Should he do as you predict...
Posted by: drmflorida on Nov 20, 2008 12:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...then we should hand them over to the Hague, or somewhere else where international law can be enforced.

Yes, he will to retreat to that small nation sized estate he has purchased in South America. But I am willing to settle for exile.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Agreed
Posted by: nerotic on Nov 21, 2008 7:02 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am also staunchly opposed to the death penalty however I am more opposed to hypocrisy.

If the rule of law calls for the death penalty in cases of treason then there is no greater exclamation point on the return of our Constitution then to have it enforced on this chimp.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Say it ain't so Tom
Posted by: Mrswhit on Nov 21, 2008 8:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Flipping his finger,smirking a smile, pardoning the whole gang? Is that what we're going to see at the end of this bloody administration?
I pray not, and as you stated so well, these people all deserve punishment.
Using one of GW's phrases, "Bring it on!" Impeachment, that is. I much prefer trial and punishment be meted out in America, but if not I'll settle for The Hauge.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ford Pardoned Nixon PRIOR to prosecution
Posted by: TKirwin on Nov 21, 2008 8:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is mentioned in other comments below, but it is too important to not repeat. Ford's preemptive pardon of Nixon was never challenged in the courts. Precedent is set.

Are there enough decent Republicans with genuine moral standards and Democrats with backbone to stop Bush? I am not confident that there are.

Bush/Chaney and the rest of the Republican party still do not recognize that this election was a continuation of the rebuke of Republican policies and tactics that started in 2006. Bush has raided every last penny in our treasury, sullied our good name internationally, made a mockery of our Constitution and destroyed our economy just to line the pockets of his friends and play cowboy. At some point, even Republicans will have to acknowledge that or risk being marginalized as a party.

The fact that Republicans are not challenging Bush's midnight raid on our government and regulations shows that they have learned little from this election and still place being Republican over being American.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Life Sentence: Death by Public Humilation
Posted by: Lifesabeach on Nov 21, 2008 9:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tom, your writing is thoughtful and hopefully does what words should do: Influence the readers. Hopefully those of us reading are inspired to take action.

There are plenty of opportunities to provide direction to the Obama administration and congress to take action and charge these criminals with the crimes they have committed while they pretended to be public servants. Treason is just one of the charges that could stick, to be sure.

Let us consider the number one fear of humanity as we contemplate whether or not these charges will be made and the resulting accountabilty. The number one fear is "public humiliation". Whatever happens in the future with regard to congressional/court action, the Bush administration is already being charged and sentenced in the eyes of the world political theatre:

I see Alternet has published a video that is well worth watching that demonstrates that Bush's sentence is already beginning: http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/107918/

In the meantime, Cheney and Gonzalez are in line for indictments. http://www.alternet.org/blogs/rights/107660/

Use Tom's words to inspire and empower you to action and influence. Take action. Send your requests to Obama's transition team, calling for legal action. Call congress. Write your local editors.

Psssst....Do Something...here:

http://democrats.com/pardon?cid=ZGVtczc0MDI4ZGVtcw==

or here: http://closegitmo.com/

Contact Obama to provide your suggestions here:
http://www.change.gov/page/s/yourvision

Pass it on. Use Tom's words as I believe they are intended: to inspire passion and action.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]