Fitz could prevent pardons by naming * as "unindicted co-conspirator."

[Zen Democrat]

If Bush is named as an unindicted co-conspirator, he would be prevented from pardoning Rove, Libby, et al, because it would be an obvious cover-up in his case. He would face legal jeopardy after leaving office, and he wouldn't want to add to his woes by pardoning his gang.

That said, if Bush is out, and Cheney is out .... President Hastert?

[hiabrill]

1. Sounds good to me...

I think Fitz is likely to name * as a co-conspirator? Especially since he's started to dig deep....

[shockingelk]

2. playing ahed

All this talk is setting up for disappointment ...

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. Nixon was named and he could still pardon OTHERS

not himslf

[Zen Democrat]

24. Yes, but he didn't. And Bush wouldn't be able to either, IMO.

[shraby]

4. The people he might pardon can still be called

to testify in a case against him.

[longship]

5. The constitution prevents pardons.

Not explicitly but through the impeachment clause.

Abuse of power is a high crime. So is obstruction of justice. Bush pardoning his own staff's crimes would be such a flagrant abuse of the pardon power that no thinking person would doubt that he shouldn't be impeached and removed from office for it.

There's far too much talk about pardons on these forums. It is a clear indication that people have not looked deep enough into the subject. The historic context of the presidential pardon is very jaded. Recently the power is exercised so brazenly that presidents have taken to using it mostly on their last day of office.

The public has become clearly skeptical of this power. They likely see it for what it is, a political tool. They hate it and distrust it. If Chimp used it for this case to escape accountability there would be shear Hell to pay for it. I can't think of very many things which would bring on impeachment and removal for office faster. Worse, if impeachment didn't happen there are all sorts of worse repercussions from an administration which is clearly lawless, and has an unlimited get out of jail free card. I shudder when I think what might be in store under those conditions.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. He first has to be impeached

and tried and convicted

He could be prevented, if I read the document correctly, only after the Articles are introduced on the floor, care to tell me the odds of that hapening?

(though the pugs may do it for self preservation)

[longship]

14. Impeachment would be difficult.

(though the pugs may do it for self preservation)

This is my thinking. Plus, there is this problem with the pardon used in this context. If the Repugs are allowed to get away with it, the Dems could, too. Can you imagine the USA under such a rule? The administration can do anything, illegal or not. If the law steps in, just invoke the magic pardon and you can just keep on doing whatever you want.

The Repugs won't like it either. Many of them will support impeachment, and will vote to remove the bastard from office. They'll have little choice in the matter.

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. Oh the precedent has been set

with Clinton they set many precedents that will now come back to haunt them...

But from a very technical point... if the Cons introduce the articles... it will be only after the GOP Civil War gets far hotter than it is...

Now to pardons, a little known secret is that every president pardons his successor to ensure a peaceful transfer of power. Clinton refused it from Junior, as he said you want to go after me, go for it... but every president is (with the exception of Clinton)

I just hope Fitz can figure a way to INDICT a seating president if that is his choice and not set a dangerous precedent... for the stability of the nation.

That is why we call this a crisis, don't we?

[longship]

57. Clinton and others have pardoned.

But on their last days of office. That's because they know that they are doing something that people don't like, the only recourse for which is impeachment for abuse of power.

There is no precedent for a president pardoning his own men for illegal actions taken in his own administration. That would be a clear abuse of power, using the pardon to escape your own legal accountability.

No, Bush Sr. didn't do that. Cap Weinberger and company did illegal deeds in Reagan's administration and were pardoned by Bush Sr. If Chimp pardons his own people now, before the very end of his term he will be impeached for it and then the Senate will remove him from office.

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. Yes there is

Iran Contra, read about good ol' Caspar Weinberger, he NEVER got to trial... he was pardoned

[longship]

69. Actually, no there isn't.

Hi Nadin,

There is a difference.

There is no precedent for a president pardoning his own men for illegal actions taken in his own administration.

Cap Weinberger was pardoned by George HW Bush for crimes committed during the previous administration. Although it raised some eyebrows, it was let pass for two reasons.

1. The case had already been crippled by immunity agreements.

2. The president's pardon pushed the envelope of abuse of power, but nobody was willing to test that legally. Most important was the fact that the putative crimes occured in a previous administration. Regardless, nobody liked it, not even many Republicans.

Chimp pardoning his own men for crimes done on *his* watch is an entirely different matter. It is a *clear* abuse of power and an obstruction of justice for which there is no precedent.

Regardless, let's hope he doesn't try that. It would set a very dangerous precedent.

Headlines: "President Murders Opponent; Pardons self"

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wordpix]

54. but if Chimpee pardons on his last day in office

he can't be impeached. It's too late for that.

[Beacho]

6. Disagree

The constitutional power of pardon is pretty damn absolute, IMO.

I believe that the Nixon being named as unindicted coconspirator was tp set up articles of impeachment in the House.

[longship]

10. I spoke with a constitutional expert on this very topic.

He agrees with you that pres. pardon is not limited. But if you read my post (above) you'll get a sense of the rest of our conversation. It's unlimited, but Chimp could and would be impeached for using it here.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. Only if the CONs decide to do it

this is what impachement was written for, but the Founding Fathers NEVER planned on George and the present GOP... though the Civil War has broken out among the GOP leadership...

[longship]

15. Nadin, again you prove your brilliance.

I've got you to keep me in check and cut to some core truths in few words.

Thanks.
(Damn!) :-)

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. You welcome, been discussing this and readying

and re readying the Constitution and the Federalists... if there was any moment to do this....

This is why this Constitutional Crisis scares the living daylights out of me... in fact I will make the case that we are already in the midst of one... the leading edge of one... and it will be a national nightmare... even if we need to do this as a nation to clean the stench.

[leveymg]

20. Why do you think the loomingGOP vs GOP fight is a "Constitutional Crisis"?

Seems to me the Democratic leadership has decided to stay out of the way while the Polish firing squad (please forgive the term) takes its toll.

Why is this "a national nightmare", as you put it?

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. It is not the PUG civil war that is a nightmare

that is welcomed

It is the fact that we are about to charge an administration with a series of very serious charges (worst case for them is treason)... This will (already has) paralyzed government and as more details emerge into the national consciousness, this will lead automatically to instability. This is not Clinton and 1998... this is an administration whose reasons to go to war are now under the microscope

This is going to place even more acutely, neighbor against neighbor as the Revelations start to pile up.

It is a crisis of the system and of government... any way you slice it, and this crisis, due to the divisive tactics the GOP has used over the years, has the potential of leading to a hot civil war. In fact, I have my doubts this crew will leave peacefully into that good night and by god I hope I am wrong on that one and in the end they leave... peacefully and legally.

Oh and take into account, insofar as the horrors are concerned, we know... but your neighboors who only watch the MSM, are about to be introduced to them.

[leveymg]

30. I think the succession has already been accepted by Poppy.

Remember last summer, when he took up skydiving all of a sudden? An 80 year old man skydiving - why? That was right after Fitz had been appointed, the OSP was closed down, and Chalabi had been arrested by the CIA. He was called in and given his papers, and an 18 month contract to ease his idiot son out of the Oval Office.

They're already gone. There's not going to be civil war. The arrangements have already been made for caretaker government.

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. Will see

[eShirl]

36. nah, Poppy's been skydiving on his birthdays for years. n/t

[leveymg]

39. Wrong. It was a half century since he last jumped out of an airplane

George HW Bush - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The official White House portrait of President George HW Bush ... On June 12, 2004, he went skydiving in honor of his 80th birthday, his first skydive since World War II...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush

He bailed out of his torpedo bomber in WWII. Not a happy experience for him, as he's been dogged by (perhaps unfair) criticism for allegedly leaving his wounded gunner in the cockpit behind him.

[MikeNY]

38. And who will pardon Bush? Not the American people

You are both probably right that the President's power to pardon is unrestrained. I feel though, that in this case, and most cases, we need to look into the origins of this power and discuss why exactly it was created in the first place. The ability to pardon was not put into the law so that the President could get all of his friends out of jail when his administration is going down the tubes. More likely, in my opinion, it was put there in cases where the courts have been compromised and the will of the people has not been served. Another check in that great system of checks and balances, if you will (with so much of our government relying heavily on the court system for regulation). The President is supposed to be a person of great moral character and leadership; not someone who abuses his authority to get what he wants 90% of the time. I think Bush would be making a huge mistake to abuse that power, if he did, esp. with his approval rating so low.

[longship]

59. Precisely. You've hit the nail on the head.

You've put into words exactly what I've been trying to say here for some time about the pardon possibility.

Another way to look at it:
The use of the pardon in this context, although possible, would be a clear abuse of power for which if a president were not held to account would destroy our government from within. Any administration would be able to do whatever illegal deeds they wanted. Nothing would be off the table because the almighty pardon forgives all. I don't want to live in such a country.

[Buford Pusser]

7. No, not "President Hastert" -- you're forgetting one thing:

The 2006 congressional elections, which, if the Democrats can get grow a spine, will make Newt's takeover in 1994 look like a study in the status quo.

Meet "President Pelosi".

Buford Pusser

[longship]

12. Hey Buford! Welcome to DU!!!

I agree with you about 2006. But if impeachment becomes necessary before next year, we may have to take Pres. Hastert.

But don't worry too much. He will be the Speaker of the House who presided over a Congress which impeached a president of the Speaker's own party. Can you imagine what love and affection his fellow Repugs will shower on him? Can you imagine the fracturing of the party after a Repug Congress impeaches and removes from office one of their own?

If Hastert becomes president through impeachment, he will be totally ennervated by the situation. The Dems will be emboldened and may even unite (horror of horrors ;-)

[NancyG]

13. Not President Hastert or Pelosi...

More likely President Guilliani or McCain or Rice.

If it follows the Nixon model, Cheney resigns and one of the above or another is selected by * and approved by both Senate and House, then * leaves. I doubt that both would leave at the same time.

Could though. Hope so.

[peace frog]

16. That is the most plausible scenario

Definitely, an acceptable repug replacement for Cheney will be put in place to take over the office VP or even president if impeachment/resignation is inevitable for Junior. No way will they permit the possibility of a President Pelosi.

[leveymg]

22. Look at the Line of Succession - If not Hastert, then

Ted Stevens, President Pro Temp of the Senate. He's been around forever, and I've never heard a harsh word said by or about him. A complete cypher, in fact.

Anyone know anything about President, er, Senator Stevens?

[Me.]

51. Bridge To Nowhere

Drilling in Alaska and a son with sticky fingers who has his father's complete support.

[Blue_In_AK]

58. Oh, please,

in Alaska he's not so affectionately known as The Hulk for his ranting tirades whenever he doesn't get his way. Besides which he's at least 150 years old and probably doesn't have a nonshriveled brain cell in his whole cranium. President Stevens would be a disaster. Remember, he was one of the 9 senators who voted for torture.

And whatever you do, don't let Ted hear you call him a cypher. He has a very exaggerated opinion of his importance, and he'd probably seriously go off on you -- not a pretty sight.

PLUS he's corrupt as can be, using his power in Congress to set up all kinds of cozy deals for his equally corrupt son who is an Alaska state legislator.

No, Ted would be a bad, bad choice for prez.

[longship]

17. Not McCain or any CongressCritter from a state w/ Dem Gov.

Appointee ascends to veep. Vacancy in Congress is filled by Gov.
If Dem Gov, Congress appointee is Dem
If Repug Gov, Congress appointee is Repug

Veep appointee, if from Congress, will come from state with Repug Gov.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. Remember until bush is removed

he can appoint ANYBODY, no need for the accepted line of succession

They only have to be 35 years old and native born.

[leveymg]

25. Who does Bush trust, who would be acceptable to the GOP

establishment?

Remember, we're talking about the person who would likely be the Republican candidate for Prez in 2008. That's why I think Condie will not do, in their eyes.

So who's a loyalist but electable?

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. That is a good question, and I wuld not be too shocked

if the person chosen is NOT currently seriving in either the house, the senate or the Executive... in fact and this is a crazy thought, Governor Perry....

Now if you want to be really machiavellian and will not work, Jebbie Bush, depending on how detached from raelity his older brother is.

[leveymg]

31. Not Jeb - who's Governor Perry?

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. Governor of Texas

and as I said, Jeb is just a crazy thought

[leveymg]

34. I meant, what should we know about Perry?

Other than he looks good on television.

[flyarm]

41. a while back alot of controversy with his wife...

i don't want to go into it ..but lots of rumours..and lots of guessing in media and blogs...not pretty..noooo it would not be perry...too hot a button to push!!

fly

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

49. Hmmmmm... his wife? I thought it was about something his wife happened

upon concerning Perry and his closest aide???

Hi Fly!!!!

[flyarm]

56. it was.........but it was never confirmed as far as i am concerned

so i didn't want to post what the rumours were...i try to stay with confirmed stuff...but i still say..the rehthugs would not want to draw attention to all that crap..no sir...they will stay miles from it!

hi ommmmmmm!!

:hug: :pals: :loveya:

fly

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

62. You're right dear fly! As far as I think they want to keep far away from

** and Victor Ashe! (Sorry couldn't resist!) :shrug:

:hug: :pals: :loveya: right back! Love you lots!!!

[nadinbrzezinski]

66. Yes but he is part of the texas gang

that is why I would not be shocked, bear in mind Junior is NOT in touch with reality at this point

[RB TexLa]

52. he has gone off the right wing chart

Has Snotty Scotty's mom running against him for the GOP nomination and has moved even further to the right to win. Signed a bill into law in a private Christian school a few months back.

[elehhhhna]

65. Closeted gay Gov. Perry, btw.

[akarnitz]

40. I don't think Perry as VP would be legal

For the same reason Cheney had to move his legal residence back to Wyoming in 2000: President and VP can't be from the same state.
If Cheney goes I think Giuliani's the pick. Darkhorse: Orrin Hatch.

[RB TexLa]

53. It would be legal

the law only prevents an elector in the electoral college from voting for both a President and Vice President from their home state.

[akarnitz]

61. Thanks for the clarification!

:)

[Hardrada]

27. Given enough time

It will get down to me and I will ask everyone's pardon.

[Zen Democrat]

35. But what if they had to "GO" before the mid-terms?

It may be swift and clean. The powers that be, the corporate elite, the untouchables, may have to change out this government to avoid things getting too hot and costing them money. With the snap of a finger, Bush could be packing his bags for exile in Crawford.

I well remember Watergate. I "wallowed in Watergate" -- as Ehrlichman called it. There was the same underlying fear at that time. People were afraid that Nixon would never willingly leave, that he would take over the military. He announced over and over that he would never resign. Yet, that's exactly what he did. He exiled in San Clemente for years.

Rove was involved in the Nixon dirty tricks establishment. His activities were looked into by the Special Prosecutor in 1973-74, but his stuff was considered small-time compared to the big charges, and they already had Donald Segretti on the illegal dirty tricks charges. After 30 years, it may be time to tie up some of those Watergate loose ends. Rove should have been stopped 30 years ago. I hope we don't let any of the snakes slither away this time.

[akarnitz]

42. Go back 50 years further, to Harding

In the middle of the Teapot Dome Scandal old Warren just keeled over. Not that I'm, uhm, wishing ill on anyone, but I wouldn't exactly mourn a well timed coronary.
Btw- I never would have dreamed there'd be a sequel to "All the President's Men".
:popcorn:

[nadinbrzezinski]

67. More rencen that that

at the height of Iran Contra, Casey keeled over after going kayaking on the Potomac

[punpirate]

26. Apart from some of the obvious issues concerning pardons...

... there's the issue of timing. Some people think that because indictments are issued, it will be wham, bam, thank you, ma'am, and the offenders will be in jail.

These cases, if there are indictments, will likely take years to resolve, finally, especially if convictions and appeals are involved.

It's very likely that Bush will know who has won the 2008 election before any of these people wind up in jail. If another Republican like Bush wins, Bush can safely predict that they will all be pardoned in due time. He doesn't have to deal with the problem.

If a Democrat wins, Bush still has the option of pardoning them in his last days of office. People might scream and complain, but the 2006 and 2008 elections will be over, and Bush won't give a fuck about anything after that.

What this will do is present Bush with a problem: does he get rid of them because they're under indictment, or does he keep them on because he's a helpless, hopeless idiot without them and live with the shit he gets from the press and Congress?

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. Hence why I keep saying we are at the leading edge

of a Constitutional crisis.. a nasty one...

[punpirate]

37. Umm... don't know about that...

... because the hypothetical situation I described is pretty much what happened with Iran-Contra, in fact. Bush I pardoned those most in need of pardons and some of the others had their convictions overturned shortly before or shortly after the change of administrations. The few small fry (such as Richard Secord) were thrown to the wolves because they weren't important to the game plan.

Iran-Contra probably should have instituted a Constitutional crisis, and yet, it didn't--largely because Lee Hamilton killed the Congressional investigation into two sitting presidents. There was a conscious decision to leave both Reagan and Bush out of it.

If Fitzgerald names Bush II as an unindicted co-conspirator, that really leaves the problem to Congress. This Congress won't want to touch it with a long, long pole. If Fitzgerald ignores previous precedent and Justice department findings and indicts Bush, anyway, it's a whole `nother ball game.

But, as regards all the others, what counts at the moment is how Bush responds to the indictments, if and when they come. He's in a bind. If he suddenly backtracks and starts saying, "they haven't been convicted of any crime," it's probably enough to convince the public to change their minds about Republicans in 2006, which makes his last two years in office a living hell. If he gets rid of all these people, he's setting himself adrift. Neither of these instances represent a Constitutional crisis.

The Constitutional crisis comes about if Bush, in desperation, does something genuinely extreme that clearly he shouldn't do under the Constitution. For that, we'll have to wait and see.

Cheers.

[akarnitz]

43. The only constitutional crisis I foresee

is whether or not Cheney is indictable. It seems to me that there is an unresolved argument over whether the POTUS or VPOTUS can ONLY be impeached rather than be tried in a more typical trial(jury or judge deciding the guilt).

[leveymg]

44. That's why they invented the "Unindicted Co-conspirator" classification

during the Watergate matter. It would force his resignation, most likely. Once out, he could be tried.

[akarnitz]

46. Let's assume Chimpy and Cheney are both "Un-Indicted Co-conspirators"

I see it playing out this way:
1)Cheney resigns
2)Bush hand picks new VP
3)Bush sticks it out for impeachment
4)The chips fall where they will and we've got either Bush or Cheney's successor in the WH

OR THIS
1)Cheney resigns
2)Bush picks new VP
3)Bush resigns
4)Cheney's successor in WH

I just can't see both Chimpy and Cheney going down at precisely the same time, so as to allow Hastert to become President. Call it a gut feeling, but I'm not sure that the GOP has a enough confidence in Hastert to allow him to move into the WH.

[leveymg]

48. I think your second option is more likely to apply

Hastert isn't the guy to hold the country together. Besides, if Sibel Edmonds is right, he's going to end up being indicted, too.

I think what we're going to end up with is some kind of national unity government until 2008. Maybe a Republican President and a Democratic or nominally independent Veep, someone with a lot of credentials in the private sector or military.

It'll all be very centrist, very bi-partisan, very Establishment.

[Horse with no Name]

60. How would this happen?

I missed something along the way. In all seriousness, how will a Democratic person end up in the VEEP seat?

[akarnitz]

63. Dem VP would only happen

if Bush resigned after a Democatic steamrolling in the '06 elections. That means 1 year+ of Bush in the WH(this assuming Darth Cheney falls on his light saber, Bush appoints a moderate rethug as a replacement). The stars would have to be aligned just right. IMHO.
Honestly, I don't see a Dem in WH or Blair House until 01/09. Outside of Dean I don't see too many in the party leadership who'd be able to facilitate a rout in '06. But I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

[nadinbrzezinski]

68. Look for Aaron Burr, he was indicted

He could not enter two states as VEEP, but remained in office

So the precedent of indicting the VEEP has been set, not in Watergate, but it has

[goodboy]

45. that's what they did to Nixon, right? (nt)

[Neil Lisst]

47. I think Bush will not resign, WILL issue pardons, and will remain

Who can make him do otherwise?

I think they learned with Cap Weinberger to pardon rather than face trial.

Bush will pardon, but he may jettison Cheney in favor of new model at VP, and try to blame it all on Cheney's group. That would be the smart move.

cheney is not going to be happy either, as seen here

[kentuck]

50. Interesting...

The terminology is reminescent of Watergate...

[Catherine Vincent]

55. And that way he wouldn't do what Poppy Bush did.

I could go with that.