Block Bush's Pardons

posted by Peter Rothberg on 11/24/2008 @ 3:54pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (69)

Subscribe Now

Our friends at Democrats.com have launched a campaign in support of Rep. Jerry Nadler's H.Res. 1531. The New York City Congressman and Chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties' bill demands that President Bush refrain from issuing any pre-emptive pardons of senior officials in his Administration during the final 90 days of office.

The Resolution, which aims to prevent undeserved pardons of officials who may have been co-conspirators in the President's unconstitutional policies, such as torture, illegal surveillance and curtailing of due process for defendants, is a sensible legal remedy to an administration that widelyabused its power.

Beyond preventing pre-emptive pardons, the Resolution also recommends the establishment of a special commission or select committee to investigate the potentially illegal activities of senior Bush Administration officials and also calls for the next Attorney General to appoint an independent counsel to investigate and prosecute any crimes.

Nadler's bill represents a major step towards holding George Bush, Dick Cheney, and other senior officials accountable for their crimes. Ask your elected reps to co-sponsor and support the bill.

Comments (69)

How silly, President Bush has the constitutional power to grant pardons, period, just like President Clinton did. The only way to stop this is to amend the constitution and that will never be done, nor should it.

Posted by pyeatte at 11/24/2008 @ 4:09pm
Sorry, PETER, but the Righties...are right.

Nothing except literally impeaching Dubya AND Cheney (the old HSUB dream) can legally or even politically stop Bush from pardoning anybody he wants.

This isn't even a windmill you can tilt at.

Posted by Mask at 11/24/2008 @ 4:12pm
One more reason why John Conyers should have delivered on his promises to hold hearings to impeach Bush and Cheney instead of just using it as a fund raising ploy.

Posted by LER1188 at 11/24/2008 @ 4:18pm
I don't think the bill tries to strip the presidency of the constutional right to provide pardons. Rather it's an effort to convince this president to refrain from pardons at this time and an attempt to get Congress to investigate the pardonees if Bush does grant relief to members of his Adm accused of crimes.

Posted by Peter Rothberg at 11/24/2008 @ 4:26pm
"Rather it's an effort to convince this president to refrain from pardons at this time and an attempt to get Congress to investigate the pardonees if Bush does grant relief to members of his Adm accused of crimes."----Posted by Peter Rothberg at 11/24/2008 @ 4:26pm

I'm sorry, PETER...

"convince Bush"? Okay, well that's unlikely, isn't it?

and "get Congress to investigate"?

To what end? Once pardoned they can't be re-accused ("double jeopardy") and Bush can't be "post-Presidentially impeached" if their testimony proves something "sinister".

Posted by Mask at 11/24/2008 @ 4:36pm
Rather it's an effort to convince this president to refrain from pardons at this time and an attempt to get Congress to investigate the pardonees if Bush does grant relief to members of his Adm accused of crimes.

Posted by Peter Rothberg at 11/24/2008 @ 4:26pm

silly.

Care to make a bet?

Posted by Benchrest at 11/24/2008 @ 4:38pm
While I tend to agree with mask and lvliberty on this, what do the rules say then? A sitting president can pardon someone who *hasn't been legally accused of a crime* just in case he/she is? If that's true, that's a loophole I don't think I'd mind seeing closed, unless I'm just missing something. After all, if a crime is perceived to have been committed, then burden of proof effectively robs either party of going on a witch hunt. And again, if true, just where is the line drawn? Will it apply also to acts committed in the future?

Posted by ender21 at 11/24/2008 @ 4:45pm
Edit: on second thought, burden of proof has never stopped witch hunts before, so strike that part!

Posted by ender21 at 11/24/2008 @ 4:46pm
Yes, LL, this is politics.

MASK -- You never can tell.

BENCH -- No.

END -- Good questions. I'll think about them.

Posted by Peter Rothberg at 11/24/2008 @ 5:00pm
Yes, LL, this is politics.

MASK -- You never can tell.

BENCH -- No.

END -- Good questions. I'll think about them.

Posted by Peter Rothberg at 11/24/2008 @ 5:00pm
Has anyone ever used a pre-emptive pardon before? The law shoud not be changed; the world court should take over any criminal prosecution and we should hand them over with a silver plate for their war crimes. Pinky and the Brain. Be careful about taking away Presidential or Governor pardons, you may want one some day.

Posted by truthandjustice at 11/24/2008 @ 5:14pm
To what end? Once pardoned they can't be re-accused ("double jeopardy") and Bush can't be "post-Presidentially impeached" if their testimony proves something "sinister".

Posted by Mask at 11/24/2008 @ 4:36pm

Actually, Bush can be impeached after he leaves office. If convicted, he will lose his pension. ($400,000 per year for life.) He can be impeached if his pardons are determined to consitutue "high crimes and misdemeanors".

And I personally would relish the thought of the Dems taking their new 58 (or 9) vote Senate majority and pissing it away on a political witch hunt of absolutely no consequence.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/24/2008 @ 5:32pm
Has anyone ever used a pre-emptive pardon before?

Posted by truthandjustice at 11/24/2008 @ 5:14pm

When George H. W. Bush (a.k.a. Bush 41) pardoned Cap Weinberger, wasn't that a pre-emptive pardon?

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/24/2008 @ 5:34pm
Has anyone ever used a pre-emptive pardon before?

Posted by truthandjustice at 11/24/2008 @ 5:14pm

Duh! I forgot the most obvious. Ford's pardon of Nixon was pre-emptive.

Interestingly, Congress could have still impeached Nixon (and cost him his pension). Ford's pardon only got Nixon of the hook for criminal offenses.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/24/2008 @ 5:36pm
I think it is morally wrong that Bush can pardon all his old buddies,when they should spend their time in jail just like other folks!!! Something about these folks getting away all manner of crimes that is really sickening and seems so unfair. I also think Bush should be impeached for his part in this trumped up war...they went after Clinton, and his crime was no where near as devastating and really silly in comparison.

Posted by Caj at 11/24/2008 @ 5:42pm
I think it is morally wrong that Bush can pardon all his old buddies,when they should spend their time in jail just like other folks!!!

Posted by Caj at 11/24/2008 @ 5:42pm

I feel the same way about the thousands of murders and pedophiles the ACLU has dumped on our streets.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/24/2008 @ 5:47pm
Why bother with this pretty ridiculous legislation? Just turn the bastards over to The Hague.

Posted by onthehelm at 11/24/2008 @ 6:54pm
I think that might actually be unconstitutional. I don't think American citizens can be made subject to systems that lack some of the Constitutional guarantees American citizens have. Most international tribunals (including, I think, the Hague) lack some of these, so I'm not sure the government would be constitutionally allowed to do that. Ironically, I think rendering of American citizens is deeply problematic for about the same reason.

Posted by Thrawn at 11/24/2008 @ 7:03pm
How did the outrage over the Mark Rich and company pardons go? No where. Part of politics – live with it and focus on something people can benefit from. We need substance and results, not image and futility.

Posted by Incoming at 11/24/2008 @ 8:22pm
The resolution would never pass this Congress, not least of all because it's clearly futile.

W will pardon, he & his thugs will all walk.

Preemptive & class pardons have been done before.

And the Obama DoJ will not investigate, much less indict, Bush & Co. crimes, not under Holder, the Clinton pardons enabler.

Posted by sloper at 11/24/2008 @ 8:58pm
Bush is going to do something controversial near the end, that's a certainty. After seeing the YouTube of him at the European summit - the one where nobody shook hands with him, I had thoughts about his feeling emasculated... but that may have happened a long time ago.

There's a lot of fear among those who know anything about the regime... I think the tell-all books that we'll see after any possibility of rendition or litigation for the authors are going to be sweet redemption.

McClellan's book was an eye opener, but weak on many points. Dubya, I believe, is going to be found to be a lot stupider than anyone could possibly have imagined. He choked on a pretzel?

As for right now, I think the term 'A Giant Sucking Sound' has a new meaning. Some nasties are gonna walk. After all, he IS the decider.

Posted by ficheye at 11/24/2008 @ 10:11pm
Thank you Peter, I asked my Rep to support this. Haven't thought through the technicalities but in principle it doesn't seem too different from asking the Pres not to make any recess appointments. Since he has a track record of refusing to refrain from doing anything he wants to do -- like forcing John Bolton on the world, bipartisan Senate opposition be damned -- you have to do things like never recessing Congress, or passng a resolution against pardons.

No time to link but there's a good blog going at Talking Points Memo about ways to hold the administration to account -- the pros and cons of a Truth and Reconcilation Commission, a "9/11 Commission" type of body, criminal prosecutions, etc. So many crimes, so little time. Blocking pardons would be a good start.

Posted by RLawrence at 11/24/2008 @ 11:07pm
Boy Blunder and The Clot should be given a choice:

Both resign now - Cheney first, then Shrub. Then NP does a Gerald Ford and pardons both as a way of healing the country from our long national nightmare'.

Or face impeachment in the House and the very real possibility of conviction in the Senate

Agreeing to the former does allow these perps to walk but prevents abuse of presidential pardon authority AND their final rape of our country.

Best deal these two schmucks could ever get.

Posted by skeletonman at 11/25/2008 @ 12:53am
You neocon morons are at your usual stupdity levels. Presidents have the right to pardon individuals of known crimes after they have been found guilty. Presidents do not have the right to make pardons after they are no longer in office for guilty charges that have yet to take place. This, in and of itself, is an admission to taking part in criminal activity you blithering idiots.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/25/2008 @ 04:11am
Thank you, Wolf. It's true: to pardon someone not only before they've been convicted, but before they've even been indicted is not only simply a way of saying "We're guilty." it not even debatably constitutional. I mean, heck, that would be as monumentally self-serving, cynical, and downright evil as starting a war on a pack of lies that annihilates hundreds of thousands on the grounds that one MIGHT be attacked. Now what idiotic fucking amoral bloodthirsty shithead would do that? And for that matter, what astounding ignoramuses would vote for such a fuckwit?

Posted by bookmanjb2 at 11/25/2008 @ 06:37am
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/25/2008 @ 04:11am

Posted by bookmanjb2 at 11/25/2008 @ 06:37am

As a matter of Constitutional Law, you two simply don't know what you're talking about. Maybe in your utopia that's not the way things should work, but in the real world (remember the reality-based community?) blanket pardons do occur and the President's authority to grant them is absolute (unless a Constitutional Amendment changes that provision of the Constitution).

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/24/2008 @ 5:36pm

In this post last night I cited the most famous occurrance. Gerald Ford gave Nixon a blanket pardon for any crimes related to the Watergate breakin. Nixon was never charged in the matter, but he received a pardon precluding any conviction in the future.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/25/2008 @ 08:15am
In this post last night I cited the most famous occurrance. Gerald Ford gave Nixon a blanket pardon for any crimes related to the Watergate breakin. Nixon was never charged in the matter, but he received a pardon precluding any conviction in the future.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/25/2008 @ 08:15am

OK boy genius. And what is to stop a president from pretty much allowing his administration to break every law on the books to rape the country and then pardon all of his administration so they won't turn around and rat him out. Then, the president can seal anything he thinks might be incriminating so that he can't be held accountable for laws he knew he broke.

Are you that effing stupid to give any person that kind of power? I wouldn't trust anyone with complete unchecked power, and that is what you in effect are saying.

So, according to you guys, the president doesn't have to abid the laws of the lansd. He doesn't have to follow the rulings of the supreme court. He doesn't have to answer to congress. So, in essence you have a dictator as president. Sounds like the perfect office for the criminal element.

Also, just because Gerald Ford did it and got away with it, doesn't make it right. Slavery was legal at one time in this country and even presidents owned slaves. Does that make it right?

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/25/2008 @ 08:50am
Durwood, No where in the constitution does it say that the president can pardon a person before they have been convicted or indicted of a crime. That's a hell of a stretch on your part. Also, you'll notice that in the case of impeachment, the president san NOT pardon anyone. Congress, the supreme court and Ford did an end around the constitution with Nixon.

From the U.S. constitution, section II... ...and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/25/2008 @ 09:03am
Look, like many of PETER's Quixotic protests and petitions....

sorry, but this is going nowhere.

Posted by Mask at 11/25/2008 @ 09:36am
I want to see Bush & co. burn for their crimes as much as anyone, but this is absurd posturing by Congress. The resolution is unconstitutional and they know it; this is a political scam to take advantage of constitutional ignorance.

The presidential pardon is expressly granted by Article II of the Constitution, and any attempt by Congress to curb that power is an egregious violation of the principle of separation of powers. This is not debatable.

Posted by Lawyerforobama at 11/25/2008 @ 09:54am
Look, like many of PETER's Quixotic protests and petitions....

sorry, but this is going nowhere.

Posted by Mask at 11/25/2008 @ 09:36am

I'm beginning to think Mr. Rothberg likes to throw hand grenades because he enjoys reading the blog as much as the rest of us.

Posted by Benchrest at 11/25/2008 @ 10:34am
Wolfgang, I'll add this citation: Schick v. Reed 419 U.S. 256, 95 S.Ct. 379 Any limitations on the Presidential pardon can only be found in the Constitution itself, and Congress cannot abridge it in any way.

Yes, the Constitution limits the pardon in cases of impeachment, but the key word here is IMPEACHMENT. Congress has chosen not to impeach Bush or any of his henchmen, that is their decision. Once the President and his officers are out of office, they cannot be impeached, because they will no longer be in office.

The Presidential pardon was clearly and expressly enumerated in the President's Article II powers, and it was only qualified in cases of impeachment. We do not want the President or his officers to have to look over their backs debating the legality of every action. Bush and company (including the NeoCons) got their medicine by being elected out of office. The Democrats will control the government in January. THAT is the Democratic process working. Yes, Bush and his administration committed crimes, but challenging the constitutionality of the pardon is not the way to punish them.

There is no way to challenge this. The law is settled on it. I know people are angry. I am too, but the law is the law. Don't try to or advocate shirking the law like Bush and Rumsfeld and Cheney have.

Posted by Lawyerforobama at 11/25/2008 @ 10:38am
The pardon, whether by the president or governers, is one of the most absurd practices that exists in modern government. Allowing one person the power to overturn a decision by the judiciary with no chance of appeal cannot be defended rationally on either theoretical or practical grounds.

In modern government the purpose of a pardon is to overturn a wrongfull conviction. This raises the first obvious problem. Why would one individual be better suited to make the correct judgement in a case than the judiciary? Well, the short answer is that an individual is not better suited, unless it is believed that the judiciary was morally corrupt and a wrongfull conviction was a concious process. However even this argument falls short of fully convincing because there are so many levels of appeals especially in the US that the entire judiciary branch would have to be corrupt in order for someone to be wrongfully convicted due to corruption. Let's not forget the pardon given to a convicted rapist by governor Huckabee, who then went on to rape and kill at least one more woman. Perhaps a fitting solution is that if someone who is pardoned commits the same type of crime for which he was originally convicted, the governer or president who pardoned him should be charged with the same crime.

It's time for this arcane concept to end.

Posted by danconstan at 11/25/2008 @ 11:18am
Posted by Benchrest at 11/25/2008 @ 10:34am

I don't know sometimes....

Non-cynically, I could say PETER truly, yet naively believes these moves actually will work....

cynically, I wonder if he just doesn't come up with "busy work" for times when there's nothing SERIOUS going on!

Posted by Mask at 11/25/2008 @ 11:48am
Once the President and his officers are out of office, they cannot be impeached, because they will no longer be in office. ...Posted by Lawyerforobama at 11/25/2008 @ 10:38am

So, are you trying to tell me that there is a statute of limitations for presidents and their administrations for any wrongdoing while in office? For example, they could be ordering murders of people who know to much etc., and they are protected under the laws of the constitution?

I am not saying anything about removing the president's ability to pardon people. I do, however, think it is complete bullshit where the president has the ablility to pardon people in his / her own administration.

You, an attorney, should be aware of a serious conflict of interest in this. At a minimum, there should be a review of any pardons taking place within the president's administration by an outside source similar to the FISA court. Aside from someone bending the law in dire cases of national security, not torturing some poor sap that was turned in for a bounty, but a real threat would be a pardonable offense.

We have a lawless president, vice-president, and a speaker of the house who didn't do her job and took impeaching Bush and Cheney off the table while they were in their high offices. So, if they broke the law, and everyone knows they broke the law, don't you think something is wrong here?

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/25/2008 @ 11:58am
Aaaaahh, not even an Obama/Biden win and 60 dem vote in the Senate can inoculate the new con post negative passivity do-nothing infected.

Naturally the hsuB/cHeney admin would have to craft a pardon not to be too broad that their criminals feel emboldened to continue committing ever more escalating crimes. However, and on the other hand, any specificity acknowledging exec collusion, will not be kept secret for very long with an overwhelming dem majority in 2 of the 3....

Oh yes, they know they're the dead men walking, but as ever, still soulless.

And their fellow soulless, still tag along per the vacuous suction of the lacking space between.

Posted by hsuBfools at 11/25/2008 @ 12:07pm
I'm not denying the conflict of interest. However, this is a Constitutionally-derived conflict of interest.

I agree with you completely that the President and his lackeys should not get away with breaking the law, but screwing with the pardon power is not the way to do it.

This is CONGRESS'S JOB to hold the President accountable. Only Congress can impeach the President and his officers. And only the impeachment power is immune to the Presidential pardon. So, if we are all angry enough about this, we need to hold the spineless little trolls in Congress to the task of impeaching these criminals. Of course, for whatever reason, Pelosi and crew have decided not to pursue Kucinich's numerous resolutions to impeach Bush and Cheney. They do not want to act, for whatever reason.

Yes, statutes of limitations exist as to most claims, but once the President pardons someone else, or himself, the issue is over. The only way that can be circumvented LEGALLY is for Congress to impeach the President, as impeachments are immune to the pardon power. As you said, the spineless speaker took that option off the table, so there is really not much that can be done. Yes, this is wrong, but showing the same LACK OF RESPECT for the Constitution that Bush has, would be even worse. His party lost, he will go down in history as the biggest failure of a President ever; that will have to be enough.

Posted by Lawyerforobama at 11/25/2008 @ 12:39pm
Let's hope for international law to step in and punish these evil men for their international crimes. All of them, right up to the top two. There's no shortage of good material, and it might show some people that neither the US President nor the US itself unassailable. If they could rope in Rove and Rumsfeld while they're at it, so much the better.

The question is, if GWB is convicted, does anyone he pardoned then become subject to the law? My guess is, probably not in the US. But hopefully in the world court.

Before the usual suspects check in, I should point out -- though it should be unnecessary -- that starting a war, which kills thousands, premeditated and based on lies, in order to make lots of money for friends, colleagues, and yourself, constitutes a crime against humanity.

Posted by ElSquisho at 11/25/2008 @ 12:48pm
The reason a new administration will not go after a previous one is because they don't want it to happen to them when they get out of office. There will always be nutbags that think every president and his team are criminals, no matter what the party. President Bush and his team were and are not criminals. The congress passed the Patriot Act and gave authority for war and any other actions deemed by the President to be necessary to protect the country. Some of you think that everything happened in a vacuum - no reason at all. You ignore the hole in the ground in lower Manhatten.

Posted by pyeatte at 11/25/2008 @ 12:55pm
Peter Rothberg - did you call for the blocking of any of President Clinton's pardons when he was in the waning days of his administration?

Posted by urmygyro at 11/25/2008 @ 1:06pm
Bush won't be convicted, because he will pardon himself along with all the others. No, Presidential pardons would not be rendered null and void by the President's subsequent conviction for a crime.

I doubt any international tribunal could hold Bush & co. anything but symbolically accountable.

Posted by Lawyerforobama at 11/25/2008 @ 1:06pm
pyeatte, don't invoke 9/11, you're not Rudy Giuliani.

The Patriot Act did not sanction everything that Bush did, and the Supreme Court has held so: See Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.

Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, fraudulently engaging in a war which killed millions of people who had NOTHING to do with 9/11, and against a government which had nothing to do with 9/11; these do not constitute crimes in your opinion? I think they amount to high crimes and misdemeanors. Look up Kucinich's resolution to impeach. He spells out all the high crimes and misdemeanors IN DETAIL.

Posted by Lawyerforobama at 11/25/2008 @ 1:15pm
"I feel the same way about the thousands of murders and pedophiles the ACLU has dumped on our streets."

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/24/2008 @ 5:47pm

Yes. Heaven forbid that ALL Americans retain their civil liberties.

Damn you, ACLU for helping to enforce the constitution for everybody, even people I don't like. Could you guys at least check with me first.?

You pro-civil liberty folks just kill me. What's wrong with just applying the law based on my personal bias?

Posted by Malcontent at 11/25/2008 @ 1:28pm
President Bush and his team were and are not criminals.----Posted by pyeatte at 11/25/2008 @ 12:55pm

Was Scooter Libby on the team?

Posted by Mask at 11/25/2008 @ 1:35pm
An international tribunal better bring some big bombs if they want to enforce their rulings...otherwise - easily ignored.

Posted by urmygyro at 11/25/2008 @ 1:36pm
"Once the President and his officers are out of office, they cannot be impeached, because they will no longer be in office."

Incorrect. They can be investigated, impeached, tried & sentenced if found guilty of the charges ... even after leaving office.

Punishment can include, inter al., being barred from ever holding an office of public trust again.

It isn't about happen, but it is allowed & has been done with federal officials out of office.

Posted by sloper at 11/25/2008 @ 1:42pm
lawyerforobama wrote: "The Patriot Act did not sanction everything that Bush did, and the Supreme Court has held so: See Hamdan v. Rumsfeld."

surely, as a lawyer, if indeed you are one - you have to note how silly it is to point to judicial opinions to back up what a piece of legislation did or did not sanction. if the supreme court was made up of 9 antonin scalias, or 9 clarence thomases, or 9 john robertses, or 9 samuel alitos - you know damn well that Hamdan v. Rumsfeld would have come out the other way.

i love when people point to a supreme court ruling as if it were THE way to interpret what a law means.

give us a break.

Posted by urmygyro at 11/25/2008 @ 1:43pm
Lets put it this way, 9-11 lowered the bar for action. The opertive was "if in doubt - act!" Scooter Libby was the result of a prosecutor lashing out in frustration because there was nothing there on the origional investigation but he could get him on a tecnicality. One of the larger problems in our body politic, is the on-going habit of trying to criminalize differences in political opinion. Very Stalinist, but without the blood...yet.

Posted by pyeatte at 11/25/2008 @ 2:10pm
..

"One more reason why John Conyers should have delivered on his promises to hold hearings to impeach Bush and Cheney instead of just using it as a fund raising ploy." (AGREED)

Interesting that Rep. Wexler has said he will no longer champion impeachment... after using it for a fund raising gimmick for a year.

And Rep. Kucinich is not responding to requests for information regarding whether or not he will again rise to offer an impeachment resolution in the lame duck House session in December. Is he playing his cards close to his vest or was it all about fund raising as well?

I hope (because I think the world of these guys) that this is not so, but indications are that Obama has Wexler's ear on this and will do nothing... and Kucinich? More doubtful by the day.

Were we impeachment activists played for fools??

In 2009/2010 I guarantee we voters will remind the public of what they did.

Call Conyers, Nadler, Kucinich, Wexler and all the house Democrats. Tell them they have but one chance to call for impeachment hearings before Obama takes office. They will be helping Obama by insulating him from the process, if they start now.

Posted by JohnHKennedy at 11/25/2008 @ 2:16pm
Clearly blocking pardons is unconstitutional. The House should have started impeachment hearings long ago!

Posted by raezer1964 at 11/25/2008 @ 2:25pm
Posted by pyeatte at 11/25/2008 @ 2:10pm

Did Scooter Libby break a law, pye, or not?

Posted by Mask at 11/25/2008 @ 2:33pm
If there were a Republican with a brain (note I use the subjunctive, i.e., contrary to fact) he/she would introduce Articles of Impeachment against George W., thus becoming the FIRST Republican who actually wants to REFORM his/her party.

Not only that, it would give that person a leg up toward 2012, and force the Democrats into a trick bag: what Democrat would be so crass as to vote against the impeachment of George W. Bush?

Posted by bobdevo at 11/25/2008 @ 4:07pm
luv liberty... i thought you were made irrelevant, but i guess your hate-spewing will continue... as if you can love liberty when the very persons you seek to defend have as the crux of their belief system the ideal that we are all the great unwashed, mud people as it were, and their elite strada will inherit this soon-scorched Earth and live a righteous thousand years... get real; Nadler is simply voicing a commonly-held belief, that although the pResident is so soon now a mere *footnote in history, the only PUSA installed by false means and aided and abetted by those willing to subvert a democracy to exploit for personal gain, it would be foolhardy of The Shrub to think the rancor of international tribunal for war crimes will be in any way ameliorated by such a punk move as bullsh*t P-Pardons... i for one hope he and all those he protects hang

Posted by calandra_speaksout at 11/25/2008 @ 5:04pm
still haven't addressed the validity of international prosecution of Bush and his cronies, LL

what say you, fuzzy britches?

Posted by calandra_speaksout at 11/25/2008 @ 7:41pm
"you show yourself jusst to be another AfterDowning Street huckster."

Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/25/2008 @ 3:14pm

Far out. A preacher man calling someone else a huckster.

"Yet, I have never expressed hatred towards anyone, not even my enemies the jihadists."

Speak softly and drop a big nuke, Larry?

Posted by Malcontent at 11/25/2008 @ 7:51pm
Actually Mukasey's Justice Department according to the Wall Street Journal is leaning against pardons. A pardon admits what they did was illegal. Nobody wants to admit the White House and Justice Department lawyers conspired in war crimes. Which creates a delicious irony. Without a pardon, people like John Yoo (who wrote the torture isn't torture memo) have to gnaw their nails that a change in legal opinion will subject them to prosecution. Just as their own idiot fascist opinion tried to change what is torture. Also, what people are missing here is that a lawyer's opinion, even from the Justice Department, is just an opinion. The Yoo memo did not legalize anything. What is legally torture is up to a jury. And one look at water boarding, or prolongued sleep deprivation, or subjection to intense cold, or crucifiction in "stress positions"--you'd better believe the jury will say its torture. There will come a time, Mr. Yoo. Yoo will get what Yoo deserves.

Posted by Rafaelo at 11/25/2008 @ 9:09pm
"Yet, I have never expressed hatred towards anyone, not even my enemies the jihadists."

Speak softly and drop a big nuke, Larry?

Posted by Malcontent at 11/25/2008 @ 7:51pm |

Oh my.

Bullseye.

Posted by Benchrest at 11/25/2008 @ 11:14pm
It's funny how some people refer to this as seeking a "pound of flesh" from St. Georgie.

Does anyone remember Ken Starr?

I still am not sure if I understand this correctly. Does the term "pre-emptive pardon" mean that Bush can pardon people for crimes, for which they have not even been charged with?

I am sorry. But, this is hillarious. How could this even be possible.

I almost feel sorry for Bush. He has to go back and try to remember every crime his administration committed in 8 years.

I hope Bush started working on this list already. Make sure to give himself enough time. He doesn't want to overlook anything. Hell, Cheyney alone ought to take up a whole spiral notebook.

Posted by koroviev at 11/26/2008 @ 01:33am
Arrange for lots of guest pundit appearances by Vince Bugliosi. Lots of call-ins... letters. Can't just sing to the choir.

Posted by WeldonRobeson at 11/26/2008 @ 08:51am
The US does not relinquish it's sovereignty to any international body.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/25/2008 @ 10:52pm

Not sure why prosecuting the former Pres and VP in international courts constitutes "relinquishing sovereignty," (we'd still have a Pres & VP, still be the US and I'd still go to work everyday, no?) yet it's ironic considering how many countries' own sovereignty ours has compromised. Do as I say, not as I do, eh?

Posted by ender21 at 11/26/2008 @ 09:58am
I guess there has got to be some kind of a wind up merchant on this blog otherwise it would all be jokes and camaraderie and backslapping.

I just read the whole thing and it seems as though, despite the fact that it is unconstitutional to take away the Presidents right to pardon (and I agree this should be respected) it still remains unclear whether it is possible to be pardoned in advance.

A weird idea, but they have been trying out a great many strange interpretations, or just plane overlookings, of law and constitution these last 8 years, so I guess it is what's known as "par for the course".

For all the apparent transparency of US gov. it remains a constitutional can of worms.

Posted by marilynm at 11/26/2008 @ 8:07pm
"Bush is going to do something controversial near the end, that's a certainty. .... There's a lot of fear among those who know anything about the regime...

Posted by ficheye at 11/24/2008 @ 10:11pm | ignore this person | warn this person"

Oh, absolutely, of COURSE! I mean, just look at the record. There's the October Surprise, for instance, that all us clear-thinking liberals KNEW was going to happen, cooked up in the Oval Office - certainly with the lights out and over a boiling cauldron - that was going to overturn the entire democratic system and keep Obama out of power. And see what happened? Just like we TOLD you!! (What? He won? Well, don't believe everything you read.) Us clear-thinking liberals have predicted ALL these October Surprises, ever since Reagan ran against Carter, and every time we've been proved... to... well, really, really believe in the sound of our voices. And... um... that's gotta MEAN something, right? And this time, we just KNOW that Bush is gonna.. is gonna... well, do something really BAD before he leaves office. Heck, I'm tellin' ya, he's not even gonna leave office! He's gonna put Obama in jail and declare martial law and, and, legalize cannibalism and... um, nuke San Francisco... yeah, that's right... because, you KNOW these Neo-Con-nazis are CRAZY - just, just CRAZY. Us clear-thinking liberals have been telling you for YEARS that they're gonna put you all in JAIL, they're gonna take your CHILDREN away and turn them all into STEPFORD WIVES! LISTEN to us, we're the SANE ones! They're coming to GET you, to GET you ALL! BUSH WILL BLOW UP THE WORLD BEFORE JANUARY 20TH!!! LISTEN TO THE VOICE OF LIBERAL REASON!!! PLE-E-E-E-EEEZZZ!!!!

Posted by kensears at 11/27/2008 @ 12:54pm
LISTEN TO THE VOICE OF LIBERAL REASON!!! PLE-E-E-E-EEEZZZ!!!! Posted by kensears at 11/27/2008 @ 12:54pm

Let's see, foolish reactionary... hmmmm..... on election day (fact) the BUSH administration created some sweetheart deals involving the oil and gas industry, allowing them to DRILL, BABY, DRILL all around a number of parks and national monuments, including arches national park. Did you know about that? No, I think that you were gazing, dreamy eyed, at your poster of the 'DECIDER' on the deck of that aircraft carrier, while listening to the 'Rite of the Valkyries'.

Your overreaction to a fairly mild statement that many "people are fearful" is more entertaining than anything. A lot of Neo-cons ARE crazy. Just read your own post. Sorry, but, as far as Bush is concerned, especially after Gonzales, the false case for WMD's, etc, they've been proven to be lying sacks of you-know-what so often that it's not funny. It's healthy to fear that kind of manipulation.

Bottom line here, Ken ... you lost the election because of 'fuzzy math'. You are still using it. One and one DOES make two. ps: All I really said in my post that got you going was "..there's a lot of fear..." I still don't see anything wrong with saying this, but your response takes my thoughts a lot further than I intended. I said nothing about illegal incarceration, etc. Get a grip, Ken! Stop listening to Mark Levin.

Posted by ficheye at 11/27/2008 @ 4:47pm
Actually, ficheye, I've never heard of Mark Levin. As for your prediction that "Bush is going to do something controversial near the end, that's a certainty", there are only two ways to take it: 1) It is so vacuous and meaningless as to be totally absurd and laughable. "Controversial"? When George W. Bush brushes his teeth, it's "controversial", precisely because the WFLL (Wild Fringe Loony Left) spies a virtual Nazi plot in it. To say he'll do something "controversial" is to say, "He'll do something, anything... and we'll bark about it." Well, that's news.... 2) The other way to take it, assuming that you DON'T mean you're planning to bark about the way he brushes his teeth, is that you actually are prophesying some sudden monstrous act (who knows, like, maybe, pardoning a crook who lent him money, huh? Oops, sorry, that was Clinton....) Two words of advice: 1) take responsibility for your words, and 2) learn what irony is. Don't worry, I've got a grip, but what I was parodying in the Left is very real, very there. I liked what Ann Coulter said: it's time to show the new president precisely the respect and loyalty the Left showed George Bush the last eight years. How would you like that? I only offer the thought hypothetically. Actually, I have every intention of being far, far BETTER than what the (pardon me) stinking Left was in this country the last eight years. Oh, by the way, I didn't lose anything. I wasn't running for anything, and for that matter, I didn't even vote. I live outside the country. What a pity you can't perceive or grasp a critique of your thinking as anything other than a partisan attack by the party faithful. But... I suppose that's a comfortable way to look at the world, huh? This is a cozy site for you to post on, huh?

Posted by kensears at 11/28/2008 @ 08:35am
Alrighty then,

The name of Anne Coulter. I've got it now. All I have to do is mildly refer to Bush as an idiot, (which he is) and off go the gloves...THE WORLD IS INFILTRATED BY LEFTY LOONIES!!!

Ken, I'm sorry, but your diatribes aren't hurting my feelings nor doing anything to help the nation. You're just bitching from a comfortable vantage point.

If you listen to Anne Coulter and think that somehow, you are getting valid information then you're not only nuts... you're nuts with fudge. She is certifiable. She broke her jaw and christmas will be better for it.

You also make crass assumptions about anyone who disagrees with you, however mildly. I'm more of a centrist, not a lefty, but it's hard to parse that, isn't it? Better to take the position of 'us and them', then fire at will. I think that George's move to allow drilling in and around national monuments ON ELECTION DAY is a fairly divisive action, but you didn't comment on that. You don't even live here, and that's probably a good thing. I like your use of the word 'huh'. I think that sums up your current mental condition after the conservatives lost. So the treatment for that was to listen to a little comfort talk from Anne 'the hag' Coulter. Don't let your visa expire.

Posted by ficheye at 11/28/2008 @ 2:33pm
It's amazing how many right-wing conservatives haunt this web site. I went to a few conservative sites and found that they monitor the blogs there quite closely, so much so that it's hard to see your words in print so reliably as the Nations site allows. Free speech. Enjoy.

But I have to say that when someone uses Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Billy Cunningham, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin and others as 'source material for a response... well, I just have to needle them. One fellow even directed us to check out 'Right Wing News.com as a resource. I mean, these people. and that site, even tick off republicans a lot of the time, so quoting them shows that the particular blogger is in a cultural elite that don't utilize logic to defend a valid argument. They just yell a lot, pretend that they aren't calling you names by dressing up their 'dressing down' with a lot of grammatical obfuscation. It's fun.

So, the last posters beef with me is that I said Bush would do something controversial near the end of his tenure. I cannot revise that assertion. He already has, with the oil companies - per usual. So, flame on. The last poster also said (after referring to me as being part of the Wild Fringe Loony Left) that I was not to worry - that he had 'a grip' on things. After the last eight years I truly wonder just what it is that he has a grip on.

Posted by ficheye at 11/28/2008 @ 4:34pm
Kenny boy.. When you say you like what Ann Coulter said... Well you are just a tad loony... That washed up crack hoar you beat off to, and all the other Hate filled right wing talking heads, have really screwed up thier own party..

Bottom line... Your an idiot.. Hows that for objective blogging.

welcome to the ignore list lil man.

Posted by Vvf1969 at 11/28/2008 @ 9:27pm
The whole point of the last campaign, which has been made even more poignant by the current economic problems, is to move forward and effect changes that will benefit more Americans than the direction the country has taken for the last ten years. I voted for those steps; I did not vote for a congress and administration that would waste precious time and resources seeking vengeance.

I respectfully ask those who are foaming at the mouth to "get even" ask themselves how even the successful prosecution of certain administration officials would help ordinary Americans.

Let's also not forget some history lessons. This next two years will offer an unparalleled opportunity for Democrats. The party out of power routinely gains legislative seats in off-year elections. Democrats must follow Lyndon Johnson's example and get as much done as possible by Jan. 2011. (Those who believe the Republicans are forever out of power haven't been around long.)

The United States Congress moves at glacial speed. Two years is not much time. Precious time must not be wasted seeking vengeance.

Posted by jsens at 11/29/2008 @ 3:24pm
Posted by jsens at 11/29/2008 @ 3:24pm

Sadly... I'd have to agree. Time is of the essence. We could attempt to prosecute these guys much to the detriment of moving forward. We really need to have a more unified nation that won't let people like GW do crazy things in the first place. People won't even shake his hand anymore.

Let's move forward and restore our nation. People who wanted Bush and Cheney impeached and/or prosecuted aren't considering the incredible amount of time it would take. The thing that is really annoying is... Bush and Cheney probably knew this all along. Let history judge them, but let US revive our nation.

Posted by ficheye at 11/29/2008 @ 5:10pm