Depressing though it is, I think you're absolutely right about this. The best case if he does might be a Democratic majority after 2006; otherwise, I don't see him paying much of a price. I don't know, though.

If, as the rumors say, Bush and Cheney were the only people given Powell's briefing revealing Plame's covert status, could Fitzgerald not indict Bush on the condition that he not pardon the others?

That's a good start.  But it's worse than that.

A loyal Bushie also knows that even a conviction is not the end of the world. As long he keeps his mouth shut and falls on his sword, his time in jail will be cut short by a pardon, and he will have a job in the republican apparatus when he gets out. Moreover, if he wants to return to power, a la Elliot Abrams, that path is open as well.

Woe to he who does not fall on the sword. He will not get pardoned. He will not find work in the republican party. He will never wield power again. 

It's not good for the nation for the presidency to be a family business.  It gets to be too similar to other Family businesses. 

Can he be indicted?  I don't recall: I know that the Supreme Court decided a presidency ago that a sitting president can be sued, but I don't think they can be prosecuted under criminal law.  (Or can they?) IF that's correct, there'd need to be an impeachment first, and I don't see that happening.

I have pondered for some time now that one of Fitzgerald's reasons for continuing to say he hasn't made up his mind is to avoid Bush's use of the pardon. Once it's clear that indictments are coming, there is no reason to wait before issuing pardons to all the potential indictees. In so doing, the case closes and we never really know what was to come. If there are to be no indictments, Bush is better off politically to let the investigation end as such. If there are to be, the quicker he moves to pardon, the quicker we all forget....think Midterms...think 2008.

Impeachment is the other real constraint. It is unlikely with the Republican majority, even with other leaders hobbled by their own scandals. Add to that the fact that if Bush is impeached, convicted and removed from office, Cheney would rise to the presidency. That probably wouldn't go over well with the voters since Cheney would very likely be one of those pardoned...although I'm sure there is speculation somewhere that this was Cheney's plan all along. After Cheney comes Hastert I think (maybe that's one vote FOR impeachment). With the full (pardoned) team back in charge, the GOP can be managed and the Dems will be powerless

Bush's advisers will advise him to do what's best for the party in 2006 and 2008 and that will be pardons (of course, many of those advisers are the one's being pardoned). His dad's famous philosophy for dealing with economics issues was "take your pain early". Bush will take his pain now in hopes of salvaging something of the rest of his presidency. It's really his only choice.

Oh, please, please, please let Bush do that.  I'd love to see his job approval numbers drop below 20% just as the articles of impeachment are handed down.

Ooh... and what about this - what scandals will we focus on with Plamegate out of the way if we want to make the case for a Culture of Corruption in the midterms? The only ones left would be Senate leader Frist, acting Congressional whip Tom DeLay and Abramoff. Kinda turns the focus on Congress, doesn't it?

Pardon, please pardon, pretty please... 

It is likely that a civil law suit against Bush would be postponed until he left office. With Clinton and Paula Jones, the incident had happened before he was President; therefore the case could go forward. 

One thing that has gone unmentioned thus far is if bush were to be thrown out of office after Cheney is in jail. Pelosi as President in 2007

I heard Rove and Bush were in a meeting last week.  When Karl was leaving, he tripped on the carpet and bumped into George.  He apologized, saying, "Oh, pardon me, Mr. President... if you know what I mean..."
Thanks, I'll be here all week.

The preemptive pardon strategy makes good sense.  There would be the immediate bru-ha-ha after the pardons are issued, but the story wouldn't have legs and the elections are still over a year away.  The alternative would be a series of scandal stories arising out of the cases of those indicted.  And the media love trials.  Also, granting the pardons would be only on Bush's back and might allow the Bush Party candidates in 2006 to better distance themselves from  Bush.

The interesting thing would be how Bush justifies the pardons to the American people.  National security.  War on Terror.  Minor crimes in a grey area of the law.  Looked into their eyes and found good souls.  Of course, Bush is under no obligation to give any explanaion. 

The idea that a pardon would shame the administration is a hoot. Heck, even jail time can't keep Republicans away from influential positions, just look at Chuck Colson and G. Gordon Liddy, who are still around, spouting off thirty years later. Ollie North works for Fox (or at least he did for a long time). Rove and Libby could do five years in solitary, but the Republicans will have no compunctions about letting them back into the inner circle once they're released. They and the rest of this corrupt administration are going to be hanging around in the 2030s, just like Nixon's crowd is still hanging around now.

...as can the families of over 100,000 Iraqis.


...not to mention some folks in NOLA whose levee fund were robbed for this ongoing quagmire.

If he pardons everyone and ends the trial, then Fitz can release the court material.

There is another issue under weight here. The multiple pages of information in Fitzgerald's requests to judges spill over into other trials and even if they're pardoned other treason trials exist and a judge would probably weigh this matter much more.

Go ahead and see what happens.

Bush doesn't have to worry about a drive through Dallas scenario... his uncle's company employs the Secret Service they only lose attention span when it profits a Bush.

I'm not sure that Wilson/Plame would have standing in a civil suit against Bush personally. 

Jones v Clinton was for a president's private actions  not offical duties.  The president enjoys immunity

FOREIGNID: 58936
FOREIGNPARENTID: 58915
FOREIGNCOMMENTERID: 2301
AUTHOR: dbs
DATE: 10/20/2005 08:53:37 PM

I'd guess that, in principle, the pardon allows the President forgive people who have committed crimes, in the event that forgiving them is important to national unity after a major crisis or division.  For example, didn't Carter pardon some Viet Nam era draft resisters?  In that case, it seemed like the President just said, pretty rightly and some time after the war at issue had ended, that we need to move on and we still all need to live together. 

Seems to me that the civil suit might not be just directed at Bush. Any number of individuals that contributed to this could be named in such a suit. The process of the lawsuit could bring out so many skeletons it would be quite interesting. Can Bush stop a civil suit against say "Scooter" Libby, who by most press accounts to date is the likely man to "fall on his sword"  or be a skape goat.

FOREIGNID: 58942
FOREIGNPARENTID: 58915
FOREIGNCOMMENTERID: 2301
AUTHOR: dbs
DATE: 10/21/2005 12:33:46 AM

That's not a principle, that's practicle usuage.

The principle would be that perhaps it's more efficient for the president to act quickly (similar to war powers) but I don't find that convincing.

I don't see any reason why pardons for draftees or criminals, or whoever should be havdled by somebosy else, like congress. 

I think the principle of pardon is that justice is blind, and is concerned with justice not fairness - and must necessarily be that way if civil society is to function.  But human beings are not blind and are concerned with fairness, so it is best if there is some ultimate appeal that can bypass justice and reach a fair result when absolutely necessary. 

 Consider the woman who gave Hillary Clinton an eagle feather as part of a gift.  Being of Native American descent she thought that was OK, and the feather came from the ground not as a result of hunting.  But the Endangered Species Act does not exempt Native Americans in the case of eagles, and she was arrested, convicted, and given a sentence of 20 years.  Was that just?  Hard to say it was not, given the law and its intent (too bad she didn't wait until the current Administration!  ha ha).  Was that fair?  You be the judge.  Did she deserve a pardon? 

sPh 

The Repubs will be unmasked to all for the crooks they are

Coals to Newcastle.

I doubt that the worry even crosses their minds. None of the litany of revelations, say, about Iraq has even embarrassed them.
 

If Bush does go the pardon route he will most likely wait until the end of his term, as his father and Clinton both did to avoid the political repercussions that would follow. Certainly he would not risk doing anything that controersial before the 2006 elections. Meanwhile I’m sure the administration will have plenty of delaying tactics up its sleeve to keep the scandals from simmering at anything other than a very slow boil until Bush is ready to leave office.  And if he can pack the Supreme Court with enough cronies he’ll be able to get away with claims of Executive Privilege if anyone tries to come after him personally.

The preemptive pardon strategy makes good sense.  There would be the immediate bru-ha-ha after the pardons are issued, but the story wouldn't have legs ...

Really? You think the press will roll over once again? The recent gaggles at the White House suggest that the worm may have indeed turned. Scott McClellan would really like the warm and fuzzy treatment he used to receive, but I'd believe that the press corps realizes just how long they've been played, and that they've tired of that game. If talking in terms of marriage, they honeymoon (between BushCo and the Media) is over, the marriage is on the rocks, and there's a petition about to be filed ...

That's one potentially looong stretch in the hoosegow for two guys who really aren't likely to be used to the notion of not being able to come and go as they please. It's been suggested that, under federal sentencing guidelines, the indicted could face a life sentence in Fitz's case.

If they're pardoned, they could face subpoenas with no 5th amendment protection, and under threat of perjury or obstruction should they not cooperate. If they don't believe they would be pardoned, the potential for a huge sentence could very well cause them to cop a plea.

I believe that pardons are mostly a balance of powers issue- they are a check by the executive branch on the power of the judiciary. On the other hand, Congress has the power of impeachment to check both the judiciary and executive branches of government. I think it is way too early to tell how all this is going to play out- there are so many ways this thing could go down. If there are lots of indictments, early pardons might be the most effective way for Bush to escape. On the other hand, a pardon by Bush of Rove or Cheny might leave Bush vulnerable to his biggest fear- being called a wimp. As in he's too wimpy to be president without them.

But mostly, I hope if there are indictments that they aren't stupid enough to try to tear the country apart over it. Yea, I know, but if even Nixon had the sense enough to know when he was beat.,maybe there is some hope.

Bush won't pardon, here's why;

1 > People are becoming increasingly disgusted with the Bush administration and with their represenatives for approving bad decisions with little or no debate. People are realizing republicans have been rubber stamping Bush's policy decisions that ultimately have a deleterious and detrimental effect on, not just our lives, but the lives of our children. People are getting offended by republicans tacit approval of Bush's agenda which is weakening, not strengthening our Nation.

Elliot Abrams, Clair George, Robert McFarlane, Duane Clarridge, and Caspar Weinberger were not charged with offenses associated with treason. Their acts are certainly criminal, but they were not thought of as traitors and their activities were not acts of treachery against the US.

There's a difference. Rove and others stand to be accused of offenses relating to treason, revealing national secrets as well as perjury and obstruction.  

 2 > The Watergate grand jury wanted to indict President Nixon for obstruction of justice. When advised that a sitting president could not be prosecuted, the grand jury named him as an unindicted coconspirator.

Can a President, named as an unindicted co-conspirator, be able to pardon anybody?

3 > It's paramont the Bush Family be the greatest political family in American history. Greater than the Roosevelts, Greater than the Kennedys.  The Bush family want to be a republican family dynasty, immortalized in American History.  That is going to be the Bush Legacy. 

GW is already going to be remembered as the worst President, the Bush family can't afford to have the taint of traitor on them too. The Bush family has a vested interest in making sure GW does not get tainted as well.  Brothers Jeb and Marvin have aspirations for high public offices.  They won't be able to run for office if the Bush family name is scourned by the people.

4 > Karl Rove does not trump Family. Rove is still the guy sent to pick up George at the train station.  He was dispatched to help get GW elected.  GW has guardians watching over him. They will protect and save GW, even from himself. They are on the fringes, out of the spotlight and have a huge influence on GW's decisions without anybody outside of the family circle knowing about it.  Not even Rove.

Barbara Bush, Laura Bush, Karen Hughes. Andrew Card is their point man.  Karl Rove is GW's senior advisor. If he's indicted, Rove will be blamed for poorly advising GW. . . Rove will be scapegoated to save GW.  

Already we are beginning to hear of a split in the White House.   

 5 > Pa Bush cut 77 pardons, Many of them were Reaganite villans, butt deep involved in the Iran Contra scandal.  None of the Reaganites faced treason related charges and remained loyal to Presidents Reagan and HW Bush. Still, HW (Pa) Bush wasn't re-elected.

Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon. Ford was not elected.

Pardoning criminal behavior is not acceptable.

I found this very helpful page:
dodgemail.net let's you use a free and anonymous on-the-fly email address to dodge spam or any unwanted mail!