The Bush Pardon List

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: seti920

Originally posted by: techs
But a commutation doesn't remove the conviction from Libby's record. A pardon is like it just never happened.

That isn't true. I work with immigration issues, and part of our instructions state, specifically, explicitly, that even a presidential pardon doesn't 'count' when evaluating things. This is administrative law. I realize it's an obscure bit, but a presidential pardon doesn't mean that 'it never happened'. Also, I'm pretty sure that the criminal history still shows up on a NICS check.

I'd have to suspect that that may be illegal, and could be challenged in court. A presidential pardon is supposed to prevent any punishment for a federal crime.

Can President pre-pardon someone? Like if Bush pardons someone for any and all crimes that may or may not have been committed by someone prior to a certain date, like the day he leave office?
Or can the President only pardon someone who has been arrested, charged, indicted or convicted?

Tom Clancy and his grandkid proposed that in 'Teeth of the Tiger'. I have no idea if it's been done before, or if it is legal.

The presidential pardon can only be used after the act is committed, but can be used before any criminal justice process, and for a class of people based on the crime.

So Ford could pardon Nixon for basically anything he had done illegal; Carter could pardon all draft dodgers from Vietnam.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: sttubs
Bush should really pardon Border Patrol Agents Compian & Ramos, there's a real travesty of justice in their case.

Excuse me? They unlawfully searched a vehicle, shot an fleeing and unarmed man and then lied about the incident.

 

[fornax]

Originally posted by: sttubs
Bush should really pardon Border Patrol Agents Compian & Ramos, there's a real travesty of justice in their case.

:thumbsup:

 

[shira]

Can a President pardon himself?

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: shira
Can a President pardon himself?

Probably NOT. It's never happened. Nixon resigned with the agreement of Ford that Ford would pardon him. But, it's a very good question. Let's hope we don't have to deal with it in a Palin Administration.

-Robert

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: shira
Can a President pardon himself?

Probably NOT. It's never happened. Nixon resigned with the agreement of Ford that Ford would pardon him. But, it's a very good question. Let's hope we don't have to deal with it in a Palin Administration.

-Robert

No, the president cannot, and it's never been proven there was any agreement between Nixon and Ford for a pardon.

 

[JS80]

I hope he outdoes Clinton in the pardon department.

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: JS80
I hope he outdoes Clinton in the pardon department.

Oh, I'm sure he will. He's outdone Clinton in crimes....

-Robert

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: JS80
I hope he outdoes Clinton in the pardon department.

Oh, I'm sure he will. He's outdone Clinton in crimes....

-Robert

name one law he's broken

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: JS80
I hope he outdoes Clinton in the pardon department.

Oh, I'm sure he will. He's outdone Clinton in crimes....

-Robert

name one law he's broken

FISA

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: robphelan

Originally posted by: manowar821
I cannot believe we let presidents pardon people.

i agree.

the list of pardons form both sides of the aisle has been and will continue to be disgraceful.

The Constitution provides for the Presidential pardon power. I don't see that being changed any time soon.

Fern

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: JS80
I hope he outdoes Clinton in the pardon department.

Oh, I'm sure he will. He's outdone Clinton in crimes....

-Robert

name one law he's broken

FISA, and he probably was the force behind the Plame leak. He's responsible anyway, in my book. Laws against torture too.

Here are a couple more possibilities, but we really don't know all the laws he's broken do we? Once a new administration comes in, the tell-alls will be popping out of the woodwork like armies of ants.

http://www.motherearth.org/bushwanted/laws.php


-Robert

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: JS80
I hope he outdoes Clinton in the pardon department.

Oh, I'm sure he will. He's outdone Clinton in crimes....

-Robert

name one law he's broken

FISA

Rather curious, because nobody has proven that they were being illegally wiretapped.

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: JS80
I hope he outdoes Clinton in the pardon department.

Oh, I'm sure he will. He's outdone Clinton in crimes....

-Robert

name one law he's broken

FISA

Rather curious, because nobody has proven that they were being illegally wiretapped.

Let's all wait until next year. Maybe we'll find out Bush and his Bushlings were really Mother Teresas in drag. (Sorry MT!)

-Robert

 

[seti920]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

FISA

I deal with FISA shit at work.

Do you have any idea how boring & mundane 99. something percent of it is?

FISA is a tempeest in a teapot. Minimum wage idiots working for the phone company have been listening to your conversations since the beginning of the Carter administration; the objection is that a GS-7 gets to do the same thing?

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: techs
I think it's almost certain that Alberto Gonzales, Scooter Libby and Harriet Meirs are going to receive a Bush Get out of Jail free card.
Who else?

Tony Rezco
Rashid khalidi
William Ayers
Jeremiah Wright
etc..

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: JS80
I hope he outdoes Clinton in the pardon department.

Oh, I'm sure he will. He's outdone Clinton in crimes....

-Robert

name one law he's broken

FISA

Rather curious, because nobody has proven that they were being illegally wiretapped.

It's not curious at all. Bush freely admits to having broken FISA.

 

[seti920]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: JS80
I hope he outdoes Clinton in the pardon department.

Oh, I'm sure he will. He's outdone Clinton in crimes....

-Robert

name one law he's broken

FISA

Rather curious, because nobody has proven that they were being illegally wiretapped.

It's not curious at all. Bush freely admits to having broken FISA.

So that I'm clear, could you please provide a source of this?
I don't doubt you on an 'admission', but I think you're mistaken about FISA.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: seti920

Originally posted by: eskimospy

FISA

I deal with FISA shit at work.

Do you have any idea how boring & mundane 99. something percent of it is?

FISA is a tempeest in a teapot. Minimum wage idiots working for the phone company have been listening to your conversations since the beginning of the Carter administration; the objection is that a GS-7 gets to do the same thing?

I have a pretty good guess as to how boring 99% of communications intercepted under FISA probably are. Minimum wage idiots working for the phone company to not have arrest, search, or seizure powers over anyone, nor are they violating statutory limitations or the 4th amendment when they listen to people's phone calls.

The phone companies of the world do not have a history of abusing the human rights of the populations they serve when vested with extraordinary police powers, the governments of the world most certainly do. I would think the difference would be obvious.

Then again a GS-7 makes a whopping $18 an hour or so. I guess that makes it ok.

 

[seti920]

The 4th amendment argument is substantial; please, USE IT.

Unfortunately, you've failed, hard. Politics shouldn't come into things; if it is wrong, it IS WRONG. If it is illegal, find the responsible person.

Your triade about phone companies and supposed absence of abuse is factually wrong; per formal logic it is irrelevant; and also..............what was it that you hoped to demonstrate with a straw man?

GS-7 makes somewhat above minimum wage, but not that much. There has been no attempt to make a value judgement on a violation of law. Working where I do, salaries are compared. I'm just glad I didn't re-up.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: seti920
The 4th amendment argument is substantial; please, USE IT.

Unfortunately, you've failed, hard. Politics shouldn't come into things; if it is wrong, it IS WRONG. If it is illegal, find the responsible person.

Your triade about phone companies and supposed absence of abuse is factually wrong; per formal logic it is irrelevant; and also..............what was it that you hoped to demonstrate with a straw man?

GS-7 makes somewhat above minimum wage, but not that much. There has been no attempt to make a value judgement on a violation of law. Working where I do, salaries are compared. I'm just glad I didn't re-up.

Your post doesn't make any sense. (i mean grammatically... I can't determine what you're trying to say)

A few things: The Bush administration through press releases by the AG, news conferences, and legal filings has repeatedly stated that they believe FISA to be unconstitutional and therefore they don't need to follow it. This information is everywhere.

I said absolutely nothing about the abuse or lack of abuse of private information by employees of any phone company. I said that they do not have search, seizure, or arrest powers over anyone. This is why one person listening in, while probably illegal, is of far less concern than the government. The whole "if it is wrong it is wrong" thing is absolutely ridiculous. If you see someone litter you don't tackle them and make a citizens arrest, but if you see a company dumping toxic waste maybe you call someone. Why? Because both are littering, one is just far more harmful.

Finally, I didn't mention anything about politics. You did.

 

[seti920]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Your post doesn't make any sense. (i mean grammatically... I can't determine what you're trying to say)

A few things: The Bush administration through press releases by the AG, news conferences, and legal filings has repeatedly stated that they believe FISA to be unconstitutional and therefore they don't need to follow it. This information is everywhere.

I said absolutely nothing about the abuse or lack of abuse of private information by employees of any phone company. I said that they do not have search, seizure, or arrest powers over anyone. This is why one person listening in, while probably illegal, is of far less concern than the government. The whole "if it is wrong it is wrong" thing is absolutely ridiculous. If you see someone litter you don't tackle them and make a citizens arrest, but if you see a company dumping toxic waste maybe you call someone. Why? Because both are littering, one is just far more harmful.

Finally, I didn't mention anything about politics. You did.

Please try reading sober; I have somewhat of a nuanced view on things.

As you have made a statement on this board, I am holding you responsible to document it. If the administration has been so clear and stated such, it will be a trivial exercise for you to bring up some source.

I've quoted that last bit about "it is probably illegal"!!!!ohnoes!!!one!!!eleven!!! for posterity.

Although you've compiled a paragraph of self indignant chaff, you have not made any attempt to tackle my points.

Best regards.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: seti920

Please try reading sober; I have somewhat of a nuanced view on things.

As you have made a statement on this board, I am holding you responsible to document it. If the administration has been so clear and stated such, it will be a trivial exercise for you to bring up some source.

I've quoted that last bit about "it is probably illegal"!!!!ohnoes!!!one!!!eleven!!! for posterity.

Although you've compiled a paragraph of self indignant chaff, you have not made any attempt to tackle my points.

Best regards.

You haven't made any points. You said "the 4th amendment argument is substantial". I'm not sure what the hell that means.

Read the Bush administrations own justifications for sidestepping FISA.They explicitly state that as long as Bush is looking for terrorists, FISA cannot constitutionally constrain him.

You don't have a 'nuanced' view, as far as I can tell you have articulated no view whatsoever other than "FISA is normally boring" and "phone companies also break laws". Neither of these have the slightest bit to do with the point of the discussion, and to be honest I probably shouldn't have even wasted the time to address them. Mostly your poor syntax was confusing to me and so I was trying to address the points I thought you were trying to make. (again, the prose was fairly incoherent)

So please, do me a favor and articulate exactly the position you are trying to take on FISA and the administrations actions in relation to it.

 

[AAman]

Nixon did actually contemplate pardoning himself, it was a grey area in the Constitution and he mentioned the possibility but it never came to a showdown on the matter. And what 'bullshit' are you referring to in my post? I too make legal determinations at my job every day on Federal law and have discussed many of these issues with lawyers both inside and outside the government, as well as some top political scientists that were my instructors or resident at my grad. school and I stand by anything stated here. Too bad all you could pathetically do was say 'bullshit'.