lthuedk
(551 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-28-05 11:27 PM
Original message |
Can an indicted Bush pardon himself? |
|
Aside from that, the unstoppable performance we're about to witness might be this country's finest hour. Fitzgerald said something today like "...take a deep breath..."
-sp
|
flowomo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-28-05 11:29 PM
Response to Original message |
1. it's not clear a sitting prez can be indicted.... |
|
and he could pardon himself so far as I can tell.
|
mountainvue
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-28-05 11:30 PM
Response to Original message |
2. I don't think so. I mean Nixon would have if |
flowomo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-28-05 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
4. Nixon never indicted; Ford did the job immediately |
|
Nixon was an "unindicted co-conspirator"
|
Kagemusha
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-28-05 11:31 PM
Response to Original message |
3. The constitution says "except in cases of impeachment" |
|
Bush wouldn't need to pardon himself; he could simply order the charges dropped. Or not laid in the first place. He's President. Impeachments come from Congress.
|
onenote
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-28-05 11:44 PM
Response to Original message |
5. bush won't/can't be indicted |
|
The Department of Justice has issued written opinions, once during the Nixon years and once during Clinton's presidency, that the Constitution does not permit a sitting president to be indicted. While those opinions aren't necessarily the final word, there is no way Fitz is going to go against them. onenote
|
Floogeldy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-28-05 11:44 PM
Response to Original message |
6. A sitting president cannot be indicted. |
|
OH the irony contrasted to my last post.
|
longship
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-29-05 12:34 AM
Response to Original message |
7. Please sign below and post. |
|
Edited on Sat Oct-29-05 12:34 AM by longship
I <DU handle> agree to never again start a thread at DU about Bush pardoning his own criminal White House. It's a lame conjecture because if a President could exercise the pardon in this way every single President in history would have used it to escape from all sorts of criminal activity. This has never happened because it is a clearly impeachable abuse of power. (And I agree that Bush 41 didn't do it either, because although a gray area, the crimes he pardoned were those that occurred during the *previous* administration.)
I will never again waste bandwidth with such lameness and I apologize for wasting bandwidth by posting this lame idiocy, too.
Signed,
-------------- Sign with DU handle
:-)
Merry Fitzmas.
|
Floogeldy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-29-05 01:23 AM
Response to Reply #7 |
8. And Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon how? |
longship
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-29-05 01:34 AM
Response to Reply #8 |
9. Pshaw! You didn't read it, did you? |
|
Nope! I didn't think so. Well, read it again. I'll even type it again for you.
No president has ever used his presidential power to pardon criminal activity in his own White House. It's never happened. Ford pardoned Nixon for activity in NIXON's White House. Bush 41 pardoned people for activities in REAGAN's White House.
Again, No president has ever pardoned criminal activity in HIS OWN White House.
Got it? Bush better get it. If he tries it, he'll be impeached very quickly. People will not like it at all. The pardon is not there to allow one's own White House to get away with crimes.
BTW, neither Ford nor Bush 41 were reelected. People did *not* like those pardons.
Merry Fitzmas.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Mon May 06th 2024, 10:40 PM
Response to Original message |