Log In | Register
254 Comments
Print
msnbc.com Newsadvertisement
WASHINGTON — The president’s power to pardon is one provision in the Constitution that some members of Congress find unsettling, especially at the end of a president’s term.
Not surprising since Congress has no power to stop or repeal a presidential pardon.
But since pardon controversies usually erupt only every four or eight years, those who want to curb the pardon power by amending the Constitution never have had enough momentum to do so.
Article II, section 2 of the Constitution says the president “shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
If President George W. Bush were to issue pardons of former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff Lewis “Scooter” Libby, or others, would the Democratic-controlled Congress pass a constitutional amendment to limit presidents' pardon power?
Probably not.
James Pfiffner, a presidential scholar at the School of Public Policy at George Mason University said, “I see no likelihood that the Constitution would be amended to limit the pardon power. It is just too difficult to amend the Constitution.”
The debates over pardons at the end of presidents’ terms tend to be quickly forgotten.
President Bill Clinton’s final day pardons of fugitive commodities dealer Marc Rich and others were front-page news for several weeks after Clinton left office, but Congress and the news media soon shifted their sights to other topics.
Reputation a deterrent to bad pardons?
With no way for Congress to stop a president’s pardons, pardon critics fall back on arguments that a president ought to worry about his reputation before handing out dubious pardons.
The New York Times editorial page, never a Bush supporter, said last week that “if he wants to try to reclaim his reputation,” he should not issue pardons to administration alumni such as Libby, whose sentence Bush has already commuted.
But as Bill Clinton proved, “legacy” and historical reputation are changeable concepts.
In 1974, as a congressional candidate, Clinton railed against President Gerald Ford’s pardon of his predecessor Richard Nixon.
White House tapes made clear Nixon had worked to block a criminal investigation of the 1972 break-in at Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate in Washington.
Nixon was forced to resign. His successor, Ford, then pardoned him for any Watergate-related crimes he might have committed.
An outraged Congress briefly considered action: Sen. Walter Mondale, D-Minn., proposed a constitutional amendment allowing a pardon to be rescinded by a two-thirds votes of both House and Senate.
“This pardon has again opened the wounds of Watergate,” Clinton told voters in 1974. “It has undermined respect for law and order… It has tormented the families of those already in prison for the administration’s political crimes.”
Clinton praises Ford for Nixon pardon
Twenty-five years later, as president, Clinton awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Ford and praised him for giving Nixon the pardon.
The current version of the end-of-presidency pardon speculation heated up this week as Weekly Standard editor William Kristol wrote that the president should consider pardoning “everyone who served in good faith in the war on terror, but whose deeds may now be susceptible to demagogic or politically inspired prosecution by some seeking to score political points.”
He said, “The CIA agents who waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and the NSA officials who listened in on phone calls from Pakistan, should not have to worry about legal bills or public defamation.”
But Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisc., a harsh Bush critic, said last month, “If President Bush were to pardon key individuals involved in the misdeeds of his administration, from warrantless wiretapping to torture to the firing of U.S. attorneys for political reasons, the courts would be unable to address criminality, or pass judgment on the legality of some of the president's worst abuses.”
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., another Bush foe, has offered a non-binding resolution saying it would be “a dangerous abuse of the pardon power” for Bush to pardon officials of his administration.
Nadler wants attorney general-designate Eric Holder, once he takes office next year, to appoint an independent counsel to investigate “illegal acts by senior officials of the administration of President George W. Bush.”
But Nadler’s suggestion is an illustration of the check-mating power of the pardon. Even if Holder did appoint an independent counsel, that prosecutor would have no one to prosecute if they’d already been pardoned.
(Holder, as deputy attorney general under Clinton, played a role in the pardons of Rich and others, a topic he's likely to be questioned about during his confirmation hearings.)
In the rhetorical clash of “please pardon” versus “don’t you dare pardon,” the essential fact is this: Other than holding hearings after the fact, as it did with Clinton’s pardons eight years ago, Congress can do nothing about pardons it dislikes.
What the Framers thought
The debates at the 1787 constitutional convention as well as Supreme Court rulings have made it clear that the president’s power to pardon is sweeping, covering those who have been convicted of violations of federal law, those who have been indicted but not yet stood trial, and even those who have not yet been indicted.
The constitutional convention debated and overwhelmingly rejected a proposal requiring that the Senate concur in any pardons.
In light of how much the Framers of the Constitution feared monarchical power, why did they give the president such unlimited power?
One of the Framers, Alexander Hamilton, argued for assigning the pardon power to the president alone because in times of rebellion against the government “there are often critical moments, when a well-timed offer of pardon to the insurgents or rebels may restore the tranquility” of the nation.
Convening Congress to debate pardons would take too long, he argued.
Ford, Bush, and Clinton weren’t worried about rebellions when they issued their famous pardons, although Ford did say he pardoned Nixon in order to avert a prosecution of the ex-president that would have divided the nation.
Recent presidents have used the pardon power to do justice as they saw it.
Pardons in Iran-contra affair
In 1992, Bush’s father President George H.W. Bush granted Christmas Eve pardons to former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and five other former officials for their roles in the Iran-Contra affair.
In that mid-1980s episode, now mostly forgotten, Reagan administration officials arranged for weapons to be shipped to Iran in exchange for the release of U.S. hostages held by the Hezbollah militants in Lebanon.
But Bush said of Weinberger and the others accused in the Iran-contra episode, “their motivation — whether their actions were right or wrong — was patriotism.”
And he said those he pardoned “have already paid a price — in depleted savings, lost careers, anguished families — grossly disproportionate to any misdeeds or errors of judgment they may have committed.”
As contentious as the Iran-contra affair seemed in 1992, Bush was taking a step to make it history, to relegate it to place where people would no longer be debating it. He succeeded in doing that.
Whether his son could do something similar before his term ends on Jan. 20 is one of the intriguing final questions about the Bush presidency.
18 Votes- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
Published to:
- Tom Curry's Column, All of Newsvine
- Groups: none
- Regions: none
 | Nadler Plans Constitutional Amendment To Curtail Pardon Power | Talking Points Memo | Fri Dec 5 | 1 |
| Role In Rich Pardon Disqualifies Holder For AG | ibdeditorials.com | Mon Dec 1 | 0 |
| Pardon Is Back in Focus for the Justice Nominee | The New York Times | Tue Dec 2 | 1 |
- Public Discussion (254)
What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user
has on the current conversation.
The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd
row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera).
Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group
is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the
left, in their corresponding group.
Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the
number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative
one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their
relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
10
6.9
1.2
{"commentId":4256526,"authorDomain":"RegularGuy"}
This practice of pardoning criminals at the very end of an administration is disgusting, regardless of which party is in the White House. Whether it is Clinton pardoning thieves or Bush (potentially) pardoning torturers, it is a disgrace! The practice should be outlawed.
{"commentId":4256526,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"RegularGuy"}
- 12 votes
#1 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 8:34 AM EST{"commentId":4259646,"authorDomain":"stopthenwonow"}
Maybe Bush will grant himself a pardon for his own war crimes. Now THAT should definitely cause a Constitutional amendment.
{"commentId":4259646,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"stopthenwonow"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":4261044,"authorDomain":"roadlesstraveled"}
It makes me so mad that a family member of mine has been put through the court system for a year on a *bs* charge, he and his family have suffered and will continue to suffer when he is sentenced because the risk of a trial is too high, ten years behind bars for buying something at a garage sale, no victim, just bought a motor that happened to turn up stolen a year later when he tried to sell the car, he and others are forced to take a plea and say the word guilty...but my point is...these people of the Presidents have done some of the most hanis crimes and will never step foot in a court room.
This all makes me think that possibly SOME of the people in jail right now are innocent and were set up by the system and real crooks in our government and their pet special interest entities. How do us Americans know who the real criminals are? ..other than the obvious crimes like murder and abuse.....how many of Americans are put away and marked for the rest of our lives and these other guys just walk away scott free because they were buddies of the Pres....this is wrong.
{"commentId":4261044,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"roadlesstraveled"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":4261072,"authorDomain":"hogtie-2"}
When was the last time ANY President pardoned ANYONE without catching hell from SOMEONE?
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah!
{"commentId":4261072,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"hogtie-2"}
{"commentId":4262500,"authorDomain":"jpgiarde"}
If the President wants to pardon any one it should be all the people that are in jail just for smoking Pot. 80% of AZ jails are filled with people that smoked pot and got caught. Its happening all over the country. Mean while there is no place for all the real killers and hard core drug smugglers and they get sent home with an ankel braclet for a year insted of recieving life sentenances that thet deserve and they are out on the streets killing again! More and more states reguardless of federual laws have accepted pot as a life choise and not a crime. Lets get it together in Washington and free up those jail cells for the real criminals and stop billing the amercian tax payers for building more jails and letting the hardend criminals go free!
{"commentId":4262500,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"jpgiarde"}
- 7 votes
{"commentId":4262739,"authorDomain":"hogtie-2"}
Here Here!!!!!
Blanket immunity for first time offenders.
And relax the laws on marijuana.....................at least.
{"commentId":4262739,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"hogtie-2"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":4263692,"authorDomain":"roadlesstraveled"}
exactly...they process a "smoker" within days and don't let them on bail for the duration of the court process...then they sentence them and its another long time before they are out....but the murderer is sent home and three years later finally gets their day in court and some how they manage to get it dismissed due to *bs* in the court process and walk free and/or just have to report to some guy once a month. Im from AZ and cannot stand Sheriff Joe and County Attorney Andrew Thomas...they only try cases that have "appeal" the others are let free and given a yellow piece of paper stating they could be brought back for charges up to 7 years. The jails are crowded with "smokers" that have to be exposed to the life style of a true criminal, they are hardening people for a life choice like alcohol and tobacco...i see it as the same and even "better" than alcohol because when was the last time you blacked out smoking pot..or kill someone...or drive faster than 15mph...
Colorado has seen a huge decrease in violence and DUI since they have "allowed" pot smoking.
{"commentId":4263692,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"roadlesstraveled"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":4264641,"authorDomain":"drupus2"}
Damnnn...(inhales deeply)..straaaaight...(exhales)..ahhhhhhh.....
{"commentId":4264641,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"drupus2"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":4256767,"authorDomain":"artisan3m"}
Granting of pardons should not deter full inquiry into torture, wiretapping, and even intelligence manipulation by BushCo. Even though the perps cannot be prosecuted, the record can be written ~ and it should be. BTW, granting of pardon and/or immunity from prosecution removes a big impediment to fact finding. The "witness" can no longer hide behind 5th Amendment privilege as he/she is absolved from jeapordy.
{"commentId":4256767,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"artisan3m"}
- 5 votes
#2 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 9:02 AM EST{"commentId":4258434,"authorDomain":"bk-4"}
Waterboarding is not criminal nor is it torture. Inviting terrorists to a fireside chat, which is basically what the new administration is suggesting, to get information from them is at best naive. Let's hope the new administration isn't known for encouraging the castration of America.
{"commentId":4258434,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"bk-4"}
- 6 votes
{"commentId":4259451,"authorDomain":"berniek"}
Torture, wiretapping, etc........I'm sick of you goody-two-shoes. "Extremism in the defense of freedom is not a sin. Moderation in the pursuit of liberty is not a virtue". Get use to it and quit be a pasive idiot!!!!!
{"commentId":4259451,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"berniek"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":4259517,"authorDomain":"gtarden"}
Betsy Kaye,
"Waterboarding is not criminal nor is it torture." ??? WTF?
I guess you better inform the rest of the world because water boarding has always been considered torture and has been deemed unlawful throughout the world community for over 200 years.
We tried and convicted Japanese soldiers for these "crimes" after WWII.
What, is it only a crime when someone else besides the United states does it?
{"commentId":4259517,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"gtarden"}
- 7 votes
{"commentId":4259692,"authorDomain":"stopthenwonow"}
Betsy Kaye, you might think differently if you are wrongly accused of a crime some day.
{"commentId":4259692,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"stopthenwonow"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":4260297,"authorDomain":"greg-24"}
Let's put it this way if one of your family members life was in jeoprdy and water boarding was the only way to save that person,all you left leaning people would be right there pouring the water... If you say no, then you are a liar..
It's all about circumstances..
{"commentId":4260297,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"greg-24"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":4260449,"authorDomain":"stopmo1959"}
Don't assume to think for me! Torture is not a choice for freedom loving peoples. It is not what I would choose no matter what! Lie to yourself about your motives, don't push them on me!
{"commentId":4260449,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"stopmo1959"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":4260466,"authorDomain":"anschauer01"}
Betsy Kaye, spoken like a true sadistic sexual pervert, because the ONLY thing torture is 'good' for is sexual sadism. Torture DOES NOT gather intelligence regardless of what those sadistic creeps who write for '24' think. I was an army interrogator and had access to all the research and intelligence on interrogation techniques, and torture was NEVER seen as reliable.
And GregL-671049, that is another murban myth concept. There is NO instance in ALL the FIVE THOUSAND YEARS of recorded human history that that situation ever happened outside of a bad movie or '24'. No truly well-trained and experienced interrogator believes that silly myth.
The only thing torture is for, is for sadistic sex perverts to get their jollies off, and for authorities to terrorize their own people into submission. You vile excuses for humanity who support this, which are you?
{"commentId":4260466,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"anschauer01"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":4260645,"authorDomain":"berniek"}
Tom-495906,
Damn, I wish I was as smart as you on Sept. 10, 2001.
{"commentId":4260645,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"berniek"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":4261034,"authorDomain":"gweston"}
Betty, maybe you should volunteer to waterboarding. Then you can decide for yourself if it is torture or not.
{"commentId":4261034,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"gweston"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":4261083,"authorDomain":"berniek"}
Oregon,
Gosh, you're so bright!! What a stupid argument. Maybe you should see how it is to have your head slowly cut off while you're still alive. Ask Dan Pearl's family.
{"commentId":4261083,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"berniek"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":4261402,"authorDomain":"roadlesstraveled"}
I cannot believe we have people walking among us that believe torture of any kind including just tantalizing is ok! How barbaric, we really have barbaric Americans???what gives?..what your/Betsy doing is stripping someone of their own power to move, breath, eat, sleep, stand, walk, talk, just to make yourself feel more power. What is wrong with some people!!!!! First off...not a single American ever saw these men that were tortured do a crime...did you see them? How about you Betsy, did you see them? They deserve a attorney and a judge to decided their fate...not those like Bush and Betsy. Its wrong.
*I didnt know how to spell barbarick, so I typed in barbearick on the google search...I see that Bush's name along with Sarah Palin is on those two seaches, barbaric and barbearick.
{"commentId":4261402,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"roadlesstraveled"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":4263675,"authorDomain":"mmullen"}
Betsy: Waterboarding has been considered torture ever since the Spanish Inquisition. MY America does NOT torture, I don't know about yours and Bush's.... It's against the Geneva Convention and we convicted Japanese for doing it to our GIs after WWII. You need to stop listening to Rush and O'Reilly and Hannity and actually read up on it from RELIABLE sources. Fox Noise is not it!
Tom: I have to tell you that the producers of 24 did go to Annapolis and discussed the fact that torture is not a valid interrogation device. They use it in the show for dramatic purposes only. (Sorry -- just can't have someone talking bad about such an exciting show!)
Burney: Hope you don't get scooped up by one of Bush's people and disappeared. You might sing a different tune if it were you or a family member. In this country, it is ILLEGAL (or at least it was) to do many of the things this administration has been doing. PERIOD. Bush is not above the law, and if we stoop to the level of our enemies, what exactly is the distinction between us and them? Where do we get off trying to use the moral high ground when we do things to them that are just as bad as the things they do to our people? And where does it end? People like you scare the crap out of me! Why have laws at all if we're immune to them? And WHO GETS TO DECIDE?
{"commentId":4263675,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"mmullen"}
{"commentId":4264415,"authorDomain":"berniek"}
Roadlesstraveled,
"Not a single American ever saw the men that were tortured do a crime". I say, "Not a single American ever saw these men tortured"! Oh, wait, Murtha and Durbin did!!!
{"commentId":4264415,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"berniek"}
{"commentId":4264522,"authorDomain":"roadlesstraveled"}
wow...Americans sure have a way of making everything we do holy, dont we.
Bernie, why do you have to make me sick to my stomach knowing there are people out their that think that way, come on. I see Americans turning more and more aggresive and hateful and ugly everyday...I wonder in 10 years what we will become....could it be possible we will be shown in a light just like the "terrorist" in Iraq, so that the world feels safer getting away from us??? Bernie, if we all thought the way your post reads we would be the "Iraq, Iran, Afgan's" of the world.
{"commentId":4264522,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"roadlesstraveled"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":4264663,"authorDomain":"drupus2"}
"....Inviting terrorists to a fireside chat, which is basically what the new administration is suggesting..."
Betsy Kaye...you are an idiot.
{"commentId":4264663,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"drupus2"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":4268464,"authorDomain":"damien8258"}
You sound paranoid.
{"commentId":4268464,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"damien8258"}
{"commentId":4257083,"authorDomain":"jonnrad"}
The ability to pardon places entirely too much power in the hands of the President.
{"commentId":4257083,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"jonnrad"}
- 3 votes
#3 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 9:35 AM EST{"commentId":4257104,"authorDomain":"SAGG"}
An admendment that requires 2/3 of both Houses of Congress to override a highly questionable Presidential pardon seems pretty fair to me.
{"commentId":4257104,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"SAGG"}
- 1 vote
#4 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 9:37 AM EST{"commentId":4257923,"authorDomain":"cmayes"}
That's assuming that Congress can get their sh!t in gear and amend the constitution.
{"commentId":4257923,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"cmayes"}
{"commentId":4258249,"authorDomain":"wilberta"}
That will never happen because in the final analysis, it may have to happen to them one day. it is all political posturing for the public.
Plus 2/3 votes to change the Constitution takes years.
{"commentId":4258249,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"wilberta"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":4257245,"authorDomain":"Lyn-307031"}
I am betting this President will pardon Scooter Libby. Too bad, this jerk should of done prison time.
{"commentId":4257245,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"Lyn-307031"}
- 3 votes
#5 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 9:51 AM EST{"commentId":4260408,"authorDomain":"greg-24"}
Hey
Here's a though maybe he will pardon Clinton..That way he could get his law licence back...What do you think?
He can't have the impeachment over turned,but perjury can be pardoned....
What did Libby do that Clinton didn't?
{"commentId":4260408,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"greg-24"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":4260880,"authorDomain":"catherineh"}
Clinton doesn't need that law license, he is making plenty of money just from speaking. His reason for losing it in the first place was ridiculous. We should have impeached Bush for this travesty of a war, instead of Clinton for having consensual sex.
{"commentId":4260880,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"catherineh"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":4261161,"authorDomain":"rchurch-1"}
'What did Libby do that Clinton didn't?" You're joking, right? If not let me refresh your memory: Clinton lied under oath to having an extramarital affair. Libby lied under oath to outing the name of an undercover CIA operative simply because her husband exposed wrongdoing in the President's Administration. And he lied to cover up his boss', the Vice President, direct involvement. Revealing the name of a CIA operative is an act of treason. Lying about getting a BJ is not.
{"commentId":4261161,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"rchurch-1"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":4261674,"authorDomain":"millerz22"}
I believe that operative was "inactive". What a waste of fresh air. Libby should never have been prosecuted.
{"commentId":4261674,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"millerz22"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":4263845,"authorDomain":"mmullen"}
Millerz: Active, inactive, doesn't matter! The law is the law. She was outed for POLITICAL purposes. Does that make it okay to lower our national defense? The law makes no distinction between active or inactive! And what about anyone who worked with her while she was undercover? Has this President or VP put them in danger for political gain?!? And recruiting? What does it say to potential CIA operatives when their identities can be outed all to win an election or get Congress to let Bush invade a sovereign nation that had nothing to do with 9-11? IT IS TREASON no matter how you read the law! Libby should not only been prosecuted, he should rot in jail for the rest of his natural life, along with Cheney, Bush, Gonzales, Rumsfeldt, and the rest of the administration who was privy to this outrage.
{"commentId":4263845,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"mmullen"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":4264022,"authorDomain":"josephhfietiv"}
She was anything but "inactive"! She couldn't say anything at the time because she was in fact a covert operative engaged in an active CIA opeation. To have discussed her role or involvement with the CIA would have put active duty agents at risk.This was finally disclosed in an in depth 60 Minutes interview some 2 years after the incident. Bush/Cheney/Rove are such scumbags they used information of her status to continue the myth that she wasn't signifigant in the CIA knowing she couldn't defend herself, that's what lowlifes they are.
{"commentId":4264022,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"josephhfietiv"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":4264686,"authorDomain":"drupus2"}
Libby should be shot.
{"commentId":4264686,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"drupus2"}
{"commentId":4268486,"authorDomain":"damien8258"}
wow, the democrat argument always make me laugh, no logic behind it, why not talk about clinton if youre going to talk about libby. I see no difference.
{"commentId":4268486,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"damien8258"}
{"commentId":4274545,"authorDomain":"drmeier"}
catydid, don't be so stupid. Clinton was impeached for lying under oath to a grand jury. Not for having consensual sex. I've heard that comment like you made a 100 times. Get the facts straight.
{"commentId":4274545,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"drmeier"}
{"commentId":4257343,"authorDomain":"BILLYV"}
Yeah, he sure DOES face historic pardon choices...
If he pardons ALL the criminals that are asking for pardons, there will be more wrongdoers let out of prison at once, than at any other time in American History...
While he's at it, he could back-date a pardon for himself, for all the times he screwed all the American taxpayers, too...
{"commentId":4257343,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"BILLYV"}
- 2 votes
#6 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 10:01 AM EST{"commentId":4261531,"authorDomain":"roadlesstraveled"}
While he's at it, he could back-date a pardon for himself, for all the times he screwed all the American taxpayers, too...
shhhhh....dont plant that seed in his head, he may just do it, I dont put it past him.
{"commentId":4261531,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"roadlesstraveled"}
{"commentId":4257355,"authorDomain":"agss404"}
I wish MSNBC would hire more informed writers.
From the article: "..would the Democratic-controlled Congress pass a constitutional amendment to limit presidents' pardon power?..."
Congress cannot amend the Constitution, they can only propose an amendment. Amending requires 2/3's of the states for passage.
{"commentId":4257355,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"agss404"}
- 6 votes
#7 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 10:02 AM EST{"commentId":4257623,"authorDomain":"nbr37"}
Bravo. Another case of poorly informed writing.
{"commentId":4257623,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"nbr37"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":4274777,"authorDomain":"drmeier"}
speaking of MSNBC, I decided to watch a little of their news again last night (that's how I torture myself). It was the Rachel Madcow show. She had some guy on there with small screen and telestrator to transfer his stuff to big screen. They were talking about terrorist attack on india and the aftermath. He showed pakistan/afghanistan border and how taliban was right along border with pakistan troops on their side and US troops on afghan side. Said that with India's tensions, the pakistan troops would be pulled to Pakistan/india border and that would make it harder for us to fight taliban since they could move further into Pakistan. He was drawing all these arrows on the screen and Madcow was giggling and saying "oh, this is such a neat little machine you have. I love it!" I was cracking up!
I will admit, it was easy to understand. I think your average 1st grader would have understood the explanation. Then I remembered the Zogby poll about Obama voters, and realized why they were making it so easy to understand.
{"commentId":4274777,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"drmeier"}
{"commentId":4257374,"authorDomain":"greg33z28"}
if Bush pardons his cabinet and everyone else involved in the administrations wrong doing congress and senate would haveto work on current problems,not argue over past misdeeds
As they will come to light
Just think it's time to move on,another big investigation would impede progress
Not to mention the cost of such,which the taxpayers don't need now.
{"commentId":4257374,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"greg33z28"}
- 3 votes
#8 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 10:04 AM EST{"commentId":4257711,"authorDomain":"mmullen"}
Problem with this, Lee, is that we need to know, so that a future administration can't get away with things Bush has, or something worse. Plus, an investigation and prosecution would definitely help our reputation in the world. We're kinda seen as hypocrites right now - we believe in one kind of treatment for our citizens and military personnel, but don't believe in that same treatment for others. That's not good, to put it mildly. And if we can waste millions of dollars on a crime that wasn't (Whitewater), then we can definitely find the money to investigate crimes we KNOW were committed (since the administration has pretty much admitted to some of them). A crime is a crime, and they need to be looked into -- NO ONE is above the law, not even the President (especially not the President). The American people need to make it clear to all future leaders that this kind of hubris will not stand.
{"commentId":4257711,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"mmullen"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":4257744,"authorDomain":"nbr37"}
Very practical and clear reasoning. But the uber partisans want their pound of flesh no matter the costs in time or money.
{"commentId":4257744,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"nbr37"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":4257398,"authorDomain":"bruce0747"}
Pardon all the people who were trying to save American lives including yourself.
How much $$ did Clinton get in donations from Rich's wife?And he was a tax evader and Thief.
{"commentId":4257398,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"bruce0747"}
- 6 votes
#9 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 10:06 AM EST{"commentId":4257710,"authorDomain":"nbr37"}
Bruce, good for you. The dyed in the wool lefties blogging above love to jump on Bush for everything wrong in our govt. He deserves criticism on several fronts, but let's not forget all the phonies, both Dem. and Rep., in Congress. They are a disaster. Speaking of Constitutional Amendments: TERM LIMITS.
{"commentId":4257710,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"nbr37"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":4257834,"authorDomain":"mmullen"}
Bruce: This compares to torture how? This compares to Bush's using the Constitution as toilet paper how? While I agree that Clinton's pardon of Rich was a REALLY big mistake and should not have been done, I can't see that it compares to torturing people, rendition, ignoring our treaties, and spying on citizens (AND the military Bush gives such high lip service to). This is NOT about Dems vs. Repubs. This is about curbing the abuse of power in the Presidency. This is about keeping our President from being able to ignore the rule of law and taking back the dangerous expansion of power that has happened under Bush's administration. If a Democrat had done the things Bush has done, then I'd be all for investigating it as well. We as a people have to show the world that NO ONE is above the law. How else are we to promote our Democracy in the world? It can't be the beacon that we allegedly want it to be if we constantly ignore our own laws, can it?!?
{"commentId":4257834,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"mmullen"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":4257837,"authorDomain":"StormAZ"}
Excuse me, Bruce, but torture is never justified. It is also illegal both nationally and internationally.
I do think it would be interesting should Bush pardon all those connected with torturing detainees (can't call them prisoners, after all), including himself. It would something the Supreme Court would need to look into, and might provide some kind of guidance on these issues.
{"commentId":4257837,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"StormAZ"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":4258937,"authorDomain":"deedee985"}
{"commentId":4259364,"authorDomain":"raymercov"}
Along with Clinton, Dodd, Franks, Reid, Pelosi, Kennedy and the list just goes on and on.
{"commentId":4259364,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"raymercov"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":4259553,"authorDomain":"rightlyamused"}
The world is such a peaceful place, there is simply no need to torture someone. If you want to find out how a misguided Islamist is planning to kill American citizens in their homes, simply ask them. Do it nicely, maybe some soft music, a cup of coffee... GAAH! Idiots! Stay in your soft cozy homes and your watch mind numbing TV, just stay out of the way of those who for some reason want to protect you and dont armchair general them with your stupid 20/20 hindsight. The real shame is that they even need to beg your pardon!
{"commentId":4259553,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"rightlyamused"}
- 6 votes
{"commentId":4260292,"authorDomain":"landerson496"}
rightly amused
I agree!
{"commentId":4260292,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"landerson496"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":4260367,"authorDomain":"scheerronald"}
Amend the constitution? The politicians have gone against the constitution to suit themselves for years without doing it.
If the current president pardons everyone that he had some involvement with there wouldn't be anyone in prison.
{"commentId":4260367,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"scheerronald"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":4260502,"authorDomain":"greg-24"}
Stormaz,
See my post up a ways and respond to that...I am curious what you would do in that situation...
{"commentId":4260502,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"greg-24"}
{"commentId":4260559,"authorDomain":"xrobin58x"}
Bruce, as someone who was personally financially impacted because of Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich I wholeheartedly agree that this was one of the most suspect and crooked acts by Clinton. I can only imagine the outcry if Bush were to pardon some current financial whitecollar crook.
{"commentId":4260559,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"xrobin58x"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":4260674,"authorDomain":"daffyhd"}
I also noted in the article somethng about allthe judges fired - well, how many do they think Clinton fired - many more - and no one raised a hand. I agree with you - and I also do not believe war criminals deserve any rights under our constitution nor should the citizens be forced to pay for their trails. They should have military led trials. When will liberals realize non-military should not try to dictate to the military? Such activity will only weaken our security. Obama has a lot to learn, as do many in this country. Don ot forget, 48 million voted differently - no matter what the electoral college came up with.
{"commentId":4260674,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"daffyhd"}
{"commentId":4263996,"authorDomain":"mmullen"}
Rightly amused: it's not about being a pacifist or being idiots. ALL interrogation experts agree that torturing someone will NOT get you correct information. Besides that IT'S AGAINST THE GENEVA CONVENTION. It's illegal and immoral. To torture reduces us to that of our enemy, and I for one think we're better than that! You think just because someone's being tortured that they'll tell the truth? Especially an extremist?!? Please.
{"commentId":4263996,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"mmullen"}
{"commentId":4265151,"authorDomain":"bbowman114"}
I'll bet India gave the surviving terrorist in Mumbai a cup of coffee and a nice warm bed to sleep in to get all that intel info from him; like the mastermind of the operation.
You think?
{"commentId":4265151,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"bbowman114"}
{"commentId":4265230,"authorDomain":"rightlyamused"}
Michelle, I think we need to let those who know what they are doing do what they need to do. We dont need to to discuss it ad nauseum with the rest of the world. We dont need to put our interrogation techniques on-line for the opposition to examine and learn to counter. I see nothing wrong with them not knowing if they will survive the interrogation. Especially an extremist. Do you know what our soldiers face when caught? Ask Jessica Lynch. Remember the charred soldiers hanging from the bridge in Iraq? How about Pfc Menchaca. Pfc Tucker. I could go on. Geneva Convention. LOL. I like the part in there about flying hijacked planes into buildings to kill civilians. You apparently dont know the enemy we now face. Thats not dumb luck. There is someone you can thank for that. Let them do their job.
{"commentId":4265230,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"rightlyamused"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":4275393,"authorDomain":"drmeier"}
For Michelle about waterboarding. Where did you get your info that "all interrogation experts agree torture (specifically waterboarding) will not get you correct information"?
It was used successfully to learn about terrorist operations planned by two of al-Qaida's top operatives – Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, involved in the planning of the 9/11 attack, and Abu Zubaida, another leader of the terrorist organization.
Apparently both of these mass killers endured many hours of coercive interrogations without talking. But they sung like canaries after a few seconds of waterboarding.
In both cases, there is reason to believe planned terrorist attacks were foiled as a result of this technique.
Do you know the U.S. military waterboards hundreds of our own soldiers every year? It is part of the conditioning Special Forces troops undergo to prepare for battle and the possibility of capture by the enemy.
In other words, it's OK for us to do this to America's best and brightest but it's too horrible for our worst enemies? Does this make sense to anyone?
Many Americans are simply confused about the real definition of torture. Since so little sacrifice is required of most Americans today and because so few have ever experienced combat, they equate momentary discomfort or fear with torture. They are not the same.
{"commentId":4275393,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"drmeier"}
{"commentId":4257433,"authorDomain":"rchurch-1"}
Bruce - But don't pardon those who's only motivation was money, which would include Cheney, Rumsfield, Rove, Gonzales, and Bush himself.
{"commentId":4257433,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"rchurch-1"}
#10 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 10:09 AM EST{"commentId":4257511,"authorDomain":"agss404"}
randall,
For your education--a person who is not convicted of a crime, needs no pardon.
{"commentId":4257511,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"agss404"}
{"commentId":4257811,"authorDomain":"nbr37"}
Randall, how do you know about the money? First hand knowledge, the unbiased media, or a political need to just believe?
{"commentId":4257811,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"nbr37"}
{"commentId":4257916,"authorDomain":"mmullen"}
Cutter: There are those in the administration who have admitted that Iraq was about the oil. That sounds like the motivation was money to me. And you can't deny that Cheney's company has made BILLIONS off the Iraq invasion.
Spike: As it said in the article, a Presidential pardon can be for those who haven't even been indicted yet.
{"commentId":4257916,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"mmullen"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":4259566,"authorDomain":"rightlyamused"}
Who Michelle, in this administration stated the war was about oil?
{"commentId":4259566,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"rightlyamused"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":4259702,"authorDomain":"markesanchez-marke"}
It is partly about the oil. Just not in the way you see it. Its an important commodity which keeps our economy strong. There is no alternative for it, And it will be awhile longer before there is. Thats their main reason, its nescesary for the U.S.A.
{"commentId":4259702,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"markesanchez-marke"}
{"commentId":4261361,"authorDomain":"rchurch-1"}
Rightly Amused - Oh, my bad. I know some day Cheney will come on tv and say, "OK people, just to let you know, it wasn't all about the money. The billions Haliburton made, which translated into hundreds of millions for me, was just a unexpected glitz. My only concern was and always has been the welfare of everyday Main Street America. Bush and I made huge sacrifices to make sure all Americans had the same opportunies to get rich off the war as we did."
And no, it wasn't ALL about the oil. it was also about the natural gas fields in Russia that produce the natural gas that needs to be moved to the Pursian Gulf to be shipped here. Why do you think we are building 13 LNG storage facilities on our Gulf Coast right now? Ask ExxonMobil.
{"commentId":4261361,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"rchurch-1"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":4262155,"authorDomain":"rightlyamused"}
randall. relax. You're not bad. I just asked Michelle a question to back up her story. If I didn't you just know some leftist is going to read her post and all of a sudden it will becomea fact, instead of some made up comment. It probably will anyway. As far as Cheney going on TV, I hear he's scheduled right after Carter, Clinton, Dodd, Fwank, Raines, Angillo et al televise their apology to the American people for tanking our economy.
I haven't spoken to Mr Exxon, but it seems like if we still must use fossil fuel, LNG is the lesser of that evil. Maybe thats why they're building those terminals. Nor have I spoken to Mr Putin, but I think their LNG is going to go out from the Bering Sea in the north.
{"commentId":4262155,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"rightlyamused"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":4262415,"authorDomain":"roadlesstraveled"}
Randall, how do you know about the money? First hand knowledge, the unbiased media, or a political need to just believe?
Americans know it was about money and oil and anything else they could profit from. Just because someone cant punish them for it does not mean they did not do it. But Im sure your political need to just believe they have Americans best interest, is not far from others that think the same as you.
{"commentId":4262415,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"roadlesstraveled"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":4264139,"authorDomain":"mmullen"}
Rightly amused: Alan Greenspan has said as much. McCain has implied it several times. And Bush himself said in one of the many changing reasons for going to war in Iraq was about the oil. Why else would we be guarding the oil fields to the exclusion of pretty much all else when we invaded?
{"commentId":4264139,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"mmullen"}
{"commentId":4265380,"authorDomain":"rightlyamused"}
Michelle, I hate to paste large block of text, but this is from the LA Time, 9-17-07, in which Greenspan states that it would have been his motive, but he never heard that from the administration:
“The Iraq war is largely about oil,” former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan says in his new book – an assertion disputed by lawmakers and the U.S. Defense secretary. “I’m saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows,” Greenspan, 81, writes in “The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World.” Greenspan writes that the attention given by developed nations to the political situation in the Middle East is directly tied to oil security. “Whatever their publicized angst over Saddam Hussein’s ‘weapons of mass destruction,’ American and British authorities were also concerned about violence in an area that harbors a resource indispensable for the functioning of the world economy,” he writes. The book is scheduled for publication today. Greenspan clarified his remarks in an interview with the Washington Post, telling the newspaper that although securing global oil supplies was “not the administration’s motive,” he had presented the White House with a case for why removing Hussein was important for the global economy. “I was not saying that that’s the administration’s motive,” Greenspan said. “I’m just saying that if somebody asked me, ‘Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?,’ I would say it was essential.” He said that in his discussions with President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, “I have never heard them basically say, ‘We’ve got to protect the oil supplies of the world,’ but that would have been my motive.”
Sounds like publicity for his book rather than some hard facts.
{"commentId":4265380,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"rightlyamused"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":4257472,"authorDomain":"stuartemmons8-1"}
I would support "Waterboarding" Nadler & Feingold, but only if they are being shown the video of 9/11 at the same time.
{"commentId":4257472,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"stuartemmons8-1"}
- 2 votes
#11 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 10:13 AM EST{"commentId":4257529,"authorDomain":"mmullen"}
One way or the other, the Bush Administration SHOULD be investigated. We as a country have a right to know (as do those around the world whose lives were harmed by Bush's policies), and the unprecedented expansion of power under Bush needs to be reigned in, so that if we ever have another President as horrendous as he's been, at least that person couldn't abuse the power of the office.
Even if Bush were to pardon all those in the administration, I don't know that the Constitution gives him the ability or the power to pardon himself. That's the big question. I don't know that it's ever been tried, and I wish this article would have covered that a little bit. If he pardons himself, he's all but admitting that he acted illegally. I honestly don't think that Bush believes he did anything wrong (which is a sad commentary on him and his administration), so why pardon himself? Which, of course, leaves him vulnerable to being investigated and prosecuted for his illegal activities during this disaster of an adminsitration. Interesting problem....
{"commentId":4257529,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"mmullen"}
- 2 votes
#12 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 10:18 AM EST{"commentId":4260099,"authorDomain":"jr9808-1"}
Michelle- You obviously need to return to keeping house and tending to children, because as a political analyst you are a bust. You keep harping about how much money Cheney and others have made off foreign oil. Why don't you harp on those who have prevented us from developing our own petroleum resources ( refresh your memory the DEMOCRATIC PARTY ), then the people that invested in foreign oil wouldn't have made money from it. Oh by the way, CONGRESS makes and passes laws not the President. He can either sign or veto, why veto a bill that you know is going to be over ridden, it is a waste of the tax payers money. Also, GWB cannot ever be known as the worst President we have ever had, you Democrats had CARTER and his screw ups will never be out done, in fact he is still running his mouth and continuing to show what an inept leader he was.
{"commentId":4260099,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"jr9808-1"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":4260478,"authorDomain":"sparemeplease"}
Please expand on these "illegal activities" Bush has committed. Has he ever been charged, or is it wishfuk thinking by people like you who believe EVERYTHING MSNBC feeds them?
{"commentId":4260478,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"sparemeplease"}
{"commentId":4262483,"authorDomain":"roadlesstraveled"}
{"commentId":4262483,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"roadlesstraveled"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":4264436,"authorDomain":"mmullen"}
Ditchdoctor: Besides being a male chauvinist pig, you have no clue, do you? Did you even read the post under which you replied? Can you read and comprehend English? I said nothing about making money off of foreign oil in it. But, since you brought it up, you don't think just because Cheney is our VP that his company HALIBURTON is not making lots of money for him off their no-bid contracts awarded to them for this war by the Bush Cheney administration, do you? Or that that money isn't going into a trust fund for him when he gets out of office? By the way, in case you can read, my post on this was about whether or not Bush could actually pardon himself.
Spareme: As far as "illegal activities" I mentioned, I believe that would be torture and illegal spying on American citizens, INCLUDING our military personnel overseas, just to name 2.
Roadlesstraveled: Thank you.
{"commentId":4264436,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"mmullen"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":4271731,"authorDomain":"mmullen"}
I've not yet gotten a response to my actual question: Can Bush actually pardon himself? I've read and watched Constitutional professors discuss this, and they don't actually know for sure ... it's never been put to the test. Should Bush be able to pardon himself? Actually, take Bush out of the picture:
Should ANY sitting President be able to pardon themselves on their way out of office?
{"commentId":4271731,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"mmullen"}
{"commentId":4275122,"authorDomain":"drmeier"}
Michelle, you're watching way too much Keith Olbermann, or reading too many left wing blogs.
Keep repeating to yourself, "I won't believe everything I read on left wing blogs! I won't believe everything I read on left wing blogs."
I'm republican from texas and supported bush. I am fine with most of his decisions. However, I like to call the other party "tax and spend democrats". Bush turned into a "tax CUT and spend politician." Not a true conservative, fiscally responsible republican. In fact he was spending money like a drunken democrat. That was main problem I had with him, and I honestly don't understand why democrats in congress didn't like him since he spent money on many projects you'd normally associate with them.
Bush got the Medicare part d, prescription drug program for seniors put in place. This was something Clinton never got done. It's more of an entitlement program you'd normally associate with the dems. US, under Bush spent more on Aids awareness and treatment in africa and other third world countries than any other president. Again, this would be something you'd normally think the Dems would be in favor of.
{"commentId":4275122,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"drmeier"}
{"commentId":4279247,"authorDomain":"mmullen"}
Darrell: Unlike you, I do not rely on one place for the news. I do watch Olbermann. I also try to watch O'Reilly and as much Hannity as I can stand (about 10 minutes worth, in most cases). I also read. Lots. Books, newspapers, magazines and online sources.
I never supported Bush other than praying he'd the the "uniter" he promised us he'd be. I did not vote for him, and did not like him. I found it disgusting that many voted for him because they thought he'd be fun to have a beer with. Do you think he's succeeded in being a uniter? Say what you will about the Democrats, believe what you will about anyone who doesn't agree with you. Doesn't matter, as there are bad apples on both sides of the barrel. Many Democrats will admit that not everything is the Repubs fault. Can't say the same for most Repubs I've spoken with, as everything is either Clinton or Carter's fault. I give Bush credit for the work he's done in Africa (AIDS relief, etc), but can not and will never agree that torture is anything but a massochistic, barbarous practice that should NEVER be used by ANYONE. I realize that our enemies use it, but if we do, then what makes us any better than they are? You can tout Bush's alleged accomplishments all you want, but he has tainted America's good name to a great many people in this world. You can deny it all you want and stick your head in the sand for all of me. It's of no matter to me what you believe on this or what you think of me or my political beliefs, and not relevant to what I originally posted about whether or not Bush or any other President has the power to pardon themselves.
Anyone care to comment on that, or are there just going to be more personal attacks? I'd just as soon have a dialogue with someone who is actually interested in talking about my question, rather than someone who wants to insult me because I'm a woman or a progressive. Sexism is very much alive and well in this country, that's for sure! I need no further proof of that than the mindless drivel I've had to read on this blog.
{"commentId":4279247,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"mmullen"}
{"commentId":4257544,"authorDomain":"alanjsteinberg"}
It gives you a warm feeling inside to know that our leader has the time with all that is going on to pardon a crack head. It is the perfect ending to a complete disaster of his time in the whitehouse. Still an idiot. I am sure when this guy sets up his distribution network again GWB is in for a full share.
{"commentId":4257544,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"alanjsteinberg"}
- 1 vote
#13 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 10:20 AM EST{"commentId":4257661,"authorDomain":"ru4real6846"}
Bush pardons all of these crooks, even cocaine dealers. What about the border guys who went to prison for doing their job? Bush is an ass and always was and always will be. We sure can't wait till this liar is out of here. we are so sick of his lies. He ruined our country and everything it stands for. You SUCK, George Bush.
{"commentId":4257661,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"ru4real6846"}
- 3 votes
#14 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 10:29 AM EST{"commentId":4261005,"authorDomain":"barbarossa"}
Bush should pardon the border guards and any others who did there best to protect us. And do it long before the other white collar crooks.
{"commentId":4261005,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"barbarossa"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":4275182,"authorDomain":"drmeier"}
border guards, gitmo interrogators and soldiers from Abu Ghraib who were sentenced to prison and any others who were trying to protect our country.
{"commentId":4275182,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"drmeier"}
{"commentId":4257664,"authorDomain":"ollie33613"}
pardoning people who endangered the u.s.a. is ludicrous. no one person should have this much power, specially a bufoon like bufoon like bush. they committed the crimes, so let them do the time. anything less should make bush a criminal, and he should be impeached immediately. this is power gone wild.
{"commentId":4257664,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"ollie33613"}
#15 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 10:30 AM EST{"commentId":4257763,"authorDomain":"fred-wilson"}
If the judges can make laws I guess the executive can administer justice. Clinton sold some pardons for common criminals but most of these end of term pardons and the objections are mostly political. As the article said in the grand scheme this is not that big a deal. People get all upset and then get over it in a few weeks.
The atmosphere of criminalization of politics is destroying us as a nation.
PARDON THE BORDER PATROL AGENTS.
{"commentId":4257763,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"fred-wilson"}
- 4 votes
#16 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 10:39 AM EST{"commentId":4257988,"authorDomain":"cmayes"}
yeah...the victims were only Mexicans after all...right Chuck. Unbelievable!
{"commentId":4257988,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"cmayes"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":4260791,"authorDomain":"greg-24"}
icepick..google is your friend ...Know the issue before you comment..
Would you go to jail for doing your job? That is even if you have one..
{"commentId":4260791,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"greg-24"}
{"commentId":4261832,"authorDomain":"millerz22"}
I hope President Bush is VERY generous with his pardons. He has earned the right to do what he wants. He's put up with this democratic ran bunch of bullies long enough. He's still the president and he's still able to exercise the same powers of pardon as past presidents. Get over your whining. You people who wanted Obama keep whining,.....move on......move on........lets get behind the new president elect. etc.
Well there are still a few things President Bush has left to do and one is the pardons he is allowed by law to grant. So............Move ON!!! Move on and get over it!
{"commentId":4261832,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"millerz22"}
{"commentId":4257794,"authorDomain":"kimsmom88"}
Some of these people haven't been convicted yet. Can they still be pardoned? Aren't they "presumed innocent"? Wouldn't a pardon imply guilt?
{"commentId":4257794,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"kimsmom88"}
- 1 vote
#17 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 10:40 AM EST{"commentId":4257864,"authorDomain":"billandjanburker"}
Way too much power for the President of a "free country"! The ones who BETTER get pardoned are our two border guards, Ramos & Compean!!! It's a sin that they are sitting in prison. They were protecting the USA!!! What a wonderful Holiday for their families, that would be!
{"commentId":4257864,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"billandjanburker"}
- 8 votes
#18 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 10:46 AM EST{"commentId":4258096,"authorDomain":"cmayes"}
They shot an unarmed man...regardless of the circumstances this should not be tolerated. What happens next time when the person doesn't happen to be a drug dealer. If this action was ok, lets form some vigilante groups and go out a just start shooting people who are committing crimes. What the hell. Who needs the justice system anyway when we can resort to the tactics of corrupt governments and simply shoot people without trial and lie to cover it up.
They received a fair trial and were found guilty by a jury of their peers. There is no question they shot this unarmed man and committed the crime and therefor the should be forced to serve the sentence handed out by the people. Bush pardoning these two men would be an insult to our justice system.
{"commentId":4258096,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"cmayes"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":4258858,"authorDomain":"erin-mantz"}
icepick are you kidding me???!!!!!!! Have you ever seen an unarmed drug runner? Please! I also don't think it was ever proven that he was shot by the border patrol agents. His drug lord probably shot him to make a case. There was also crucial evidence withheld from the trial that many jurors said would have changed their verdict if they had heard it. Fair trial, that's a laugh! These men were railroaded plain and simple. They also applied a sentencing rule that applies only to criminals and not law enforcement. This whole trial was a joke. I'll bet if we looked at your profile we will find that you are Hispanic and maybe even of questionable immigration status (or at least your parents).
PARDON RAMOS AND COMPEAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
{"commentId":4258858,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"erin-mantz"}
- 6 votes
{"commentId":4259782,"authorDomain":"cmayes"}
Well your assumptions are false. I am white (of Irish decent) and my family has been in this country for seven generations. And yes i have seen (and met) unarmed drug runners, it actually isn't that uncommon. And if our justice system is as corrupt as you claim it to be than f*ck it... have Bush pardon every person convicted of a crime in the past year. Also, would you be as sympathetic or such an advocate for their release if they weren't law enforcement officers? i doubt it. Chances are the only reason your such an advocate for their release is because of the person they shot, not the circumstances under which it occurred.
Also, "I also don't think it was ever proven that he was shot by the border patrol agents. His drug lord probably shot him to make a case" are some pretty large assumptions and don't really meet the criteria for overturning a juries decision that has since been reviewed and upheld by a U.S. court of appeals. It appears that your opinion is based on little more than emotion.
{"commentId":4259782,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"cmayes"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":4260547,"authorDomain":"sparemeplease"}
The border guards committed a crime and tried to cover it up. Neither man has ASKED for a pardon because they would have to admit their guilt. That wouldn't sit well with the story they have been selling for the past few years. If they stay in jail they receive sympathy from guillible people and get to be martyrs.
{"commentId":4260547,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"sparemeplease"}
{"commentId":4260683,"authorDomain":"cmayes"}
But didn't you read Erin's opinion!? It was a conspiracy to protect a drug runner and falsely convict two innocent border patrol agents. Erin's got it all figured and your rational and fact based argument isn't going to convince us otherwise, so spareme!
{"commentId":4260683,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"cmayes"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":4260797,"authorDomain":"sparemeplease"}
And who the F### is Erin and what FACTS do they have that are different than the FACTS the JURY heard? Everyone states there were facts withheld that may have led to a different verdict. IF that is true why was their APPEAL REJECTED by the appeals court?
{"commentId":4260797,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"sparemeplease"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":4260845,"authorDomain":"greg-24"}
The criminal was a smuggler..He was evading capture..They are allowed to use deadly force... what's the problem?
{"commentId":4260845,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"greg-24"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":4260993,"authorDomain":"sparemeplease"}
They may be allowed to use deadly force, BUT what happens after that is the problem. They KNOW they did something questionable and TRIED to COVER it up. THIS was the crime - not the shooting - which by the way I don't have a problem with. It is the COVER UP afterwards that admits the wrongdoing or QUESTIONABLE action.
{"commentId":4260993,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"sparemeplease"}
{"commentId":4261600,"authorDomain":"cmayes"}
Spareme: My previous comment was one of complete sarcasm so don't get your panties in a bunch. We are arguing the same point and i was attempting to point out the absurdity of a previous poster's (ERIN) rediculous and non-factual opinion.
{"commentId":4261600,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"cmayes"}
{"commentId":4261679,"authorDomain":"sparemeplease"}
I realized that after I posted my comment and meant to return post. However, my post was lost in the netherworld. It read:
"icepick151 sarcasm becomes you!! THANKS
{"commentId":4261679,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"sparemeplease"}
{"commentId":4261883,"authorDomain":"millerz22"}
Wait a second, you have a problem with the cover up of 2 border officers trying to protect our borders from drug dealers but you DON"t have a problem with the president of the united states trying to cover up an affair and lie under oath..........such selective judgement
{"commentId":4261883,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"millerz22"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":4261906,"authorDomain":"cmayes"}
cheers!
{"commentId":4261906,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"cmayes"}
{"commentId":4261996,"authorDomain":"cmayes"}
millerz; i don't see anywhere in this line of discussion where Clinton is even mentioned so what the hell are you talking about? Is this simply an attempt do disregard our points and discredit them by trying to prove us to be hypocrites? If not it certainly seems that way. By doing this you make it clear that although you disagree with our points of view, you lack the ability or background information to argue them legitimately which is why you resort to the kind of tactic you did.
Also comparing a lie about a sexual indiscression to one regarding the untimely and violent death of a human being seems to be slightly ludicrous.
{"commentId":4261996,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"cmayes"}
{"commentId":4262024,"authorDomain":"sparemeplease"}
I take issue with ANY cover up of an alleged crime.
{"commentId":4262024,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"sparemeplease"}
{"commentId":4262112,"authorDomain":"cmayes"}
as do i, but to make the millerz comparison is slightly irresponsible.
{"commentId":4262112,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"cmayes"}
{"commentId":4262245,"authorDomain":"sparemeplease"}
icepick151 - I agree with you. There is no reason for the comparison. Looking for an argument maybe?
gotta go - shift starts in 30 minutes - time to earn my paycheck! Airport security - something brought on by 9/11 - only in America!
{"commentId":4262245,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"sparemeplease"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":4262836,"authorDomain":"roadlesstraveled"}
Who needs the justice system anyway when we can resort to the tactics of corrupt governments and simply shoot people without trial and lie to cover it up.
Icepick151
you just gave the definition of Pardon
Isnt what you said exactly why they need Pardon's?
Except we will replace "shoot" with "committ crimes against their own American"...
IMO our "justice" system is as corrupt as Washington and Wall Street...thats why thye get away with anything.
{"commentId":4262836,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"roadlesstraveled"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":4263118,"authorDomain":"cmayes"}
Sorry, i'm having a hard time understanding your point, can you rephrase it a little more concisely?
{"commentId":4263118,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"cmayes"}
{"commentId":4263806,"authorDomain":"roadlesstraveled"}
you must be an attorney
{"commentId":4263806,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"roadlesstraveled"}
{"commentId":4264533,"authorDomain":"cmayes"}
nope, history teacher.
{"commentId":4264533,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"cmayes"}
{"commentId":4257921,"authorDomain":"billandjanburker"}
free our two border guards!!!!!
(I had this in the "yell" mode...because that's the way I feel about this situation!)
{"commentId":4257921,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"billandjanburker"}
- 5 votes
#19 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 10:49 AM EST{"commentId":4257925,"authorDomain":"hannus7186"}
hey take a second look at who clinton pardoned like mark rich pretty bad guy no scum. bush should pardon the border patrol guards.
{"commentId":4257925,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"hannus7186"}
- 6 votes
#20 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 10:49 AM EST{"commentId":4265524,"authorDomain":"billandjanburker"}
Our boarder guards should never gone to trial in the first place. Then we wouldn't even be worrying about a pardon for them!
{"commentId":4265524,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"billandjanburker"}
{"commentId":4257990,"authorDomain":"cjackerman"}
Congress will never amend the amendment. They might need it some day to save their own sorry asses someday.
All the @!$%#ing about Dems. and Repubs is a waste of time. They are all crooks and liers. We need another strong party to vote for in this country.
We need term limits, so these same crooks don't keep getting elected.
{"commentId":4257990,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"cjackerman"}
- 2 votes
#21 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 10:54 AM EST{"commentId":4257998,"authorDomain":"cubfan"}
Sounds like bill kristol and even karl rove are looking for pardons- for stupidiity!!!
{"commentId":4257998,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"cubfan"}
#22 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 10:54 AM EST{"commentId":4258004,"authorDomain":"ghmountaineer"}
I don't have a problem with Bush pardoning anyone. He has the same right as other presidents to pardon whom he chooses. I'm sure the Democrats will try and spin what ever he does their way.
I didn't see Democrats critizing Clinton when he freed terrorists and swindlers to promote his library, but now that's different.
Let the man leave office in peace and the rest of you move on. You got your guy elected, so start supporting his socialist agendas to spread the wealth.
{"commentId":4258004,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"ghmountaineer"}
- 3 votes
#23 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 10:55 AM EST{"commentId":4261938,"authorDomain":"millerz22"}
Gus......you said a mouthful. Everyone wants the repubs to move on and forget everything that's been done and lied about to elect Obama. They should take their own good advice and shut up and move on. President Bush has been very accomodating to the new administration, I wish we could say the same thing for the Clinton administration. No class, no respect for the office. President Bush is an honorable man and will be remembered correctly after a little time passes and MSNBC starts tearing apart Obama.
{"commentId":4261938,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"millerz22"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":4264669,"authorDomain":"mmullen"}
Gus and Millerz: did you read the article? This board is about the article, which was about Bush's possibly pardoning people in his administration. That's why we're discussing it. If you want a Bush lovefest, go over to Fox's site. I'm sure you can get plenty of Bush love from someone there.
{"commentId":4264669,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"mmullen"}
{"commentId":4280567,"authorDomain":"greg-24"}
Who made you the moderator?
{"commentId":4280567,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"greg-24"}
{"commentId":4258019,"authorDomain":"hannus7186"}
clinton should be in jail. no pardon
{"commentId":4258019,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"hannus7186"}
- 3 votes
#24 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 10:56 AM EST{"commentId":4260704,"authorDomain":"cmayes"}
and why should he be in jail?
{"commentId":4260704,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"cmayes"}
{"commentId":4280609,"authorDomain":"greg-24"}
He lied under oath...If it was someone else they would have faced jail time...
Yeah,yeah i know it was all about sex...Makes no never mind he lied...
{"commentId":4280609,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"greg-24"}
{"commentId":4258055,"authorDomain":"billandjanburker"}
cutter..#9.1..I agree!
{"commentId":4258055,"threadId":"432405","contentId":"2168568","authorDomain":"billandjanburker"}
- 1 vote
#25 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 10:59 AM EST{"canLink":false,"threadId":"432405","isPrivate":false}
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
Start Tracking
Stop TrackingCOMPANY STUFF:
LEGAL STUFF:
- © 2005-2009 Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine is a property of
