In Watergate II, Nixon Pardons Himself
Consider this alarming fallout from the Siegelman story:
By all appearances, the federal government - including law enforcement - has become and arm of both GOP corporate donors and their purchased government officials. That is the real K Street project scandal. If you have any doubt, then explain to me while the below crimes have yet to be investigated:
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA - In two states where US attorneys are already under fire for serious allegations of political prosecutions, seven people associated with three federal cases have experienced 10 suspicious incidents including break-ins and arson.
These crimes raise serious questions about possible use of deliberate intimidation tactics not only because of who the victims are and the already wide criticism of the prosecutions to begin with, but also because of the suspicious nature of each incident individually as well as the pattern collectively. Typically burglars do not break-into an office or private residence only to rummage through documents, for example, as is the case with most of the burglaries in these two federal cases.
Watergate was one break-in. This is 10 and 2 cases of arson. And the FBI does nothing? The DOJ does nothing? As I have said before, both Gonzales and Mukasey have become accessories after the fact by obstructing justice. When this administration leaves office, both Gonzales and Mukasey need to be investigated for their continued obstruction not only in the Siegelman's case, but also the cases of Paul Minor, Wes Teel, John Whitfield, Oliver Diaz Jr., at al. Siegelman is but one victim of this ongoing bigger-than-Watergate series of politically motivated crimes. What are you going to do about this?
Well, if Bush leaves office and pardons the players in this un-American criminal saga on his way out, then justice will never be served. If Bush is impeached, however, he cannot pardon the witnesses. Do you see why impeachment is necessary? Again, what are you going to do about this? Or are you too busy celebrating the Obama victory with no thought of these victims?
Yes, but the American people don't want impeachments. Pelosi sees no evidence of criminality. Conyers writes another letter.
Bush is free to pardon himself.
When this administration leaves office, both Gonzales and Mukasey need to be investigated for their continued obstruction . . . .
_____
Were the obstruction to continue after the fact of pardon -- assuming that would be done -- then the pardon wouldn't apply to crimes committed after the fact.
November 17, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are right. But I am under the impression that Bush may commute any possible sentences- as he did for Libby's actual sentence- so Gonzales and Mukasey can simply take the Fifth if Congress keeps investigating.
Alternatively, if Bush pardons them for any crimes they may have committed, can a charge of obstruction of justice stick, if the operation of 'justice' is already forestalled by the pardons?
November 17, 2008 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
But I am under the impression that Bush may commute any possible sentences- as he did for Libby's actual sentence- so Gonzales and Mukasey can simply take the Fifth if Congress keeps investigating.
_____
Your premise is pardon before they leave office, not "commutation" of convictions/sentences which don't exist but which might occur after leaving office, at which point Bushit wouldn't have the power to pardon.
There isn't much law on the pardon power -- Congress can investigate its use, but it can't overturn the results. It is arguable, at very least, that abuse of tthe pardon power would be impeachable. And there appears to be an assumption that impeachment would render the pardon power inoperative -- from when such idea comes I don't know: if a president were being impeached/tried on impeachment, and the president pardoned a private dcitizen who'd been convicted of drug offenses, I don't know why that pardon would be in question if the offense had no relation to the issues at impeachment.
So what all the speculations are worth is beyond me.
November 18, 2008 12:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
"if a president were being impeached/tried on impeachment, and the president pardoned a private dcitizen who'd been convicted of drug offenses, I don't know why that pardon would be in question if the offense had no relation to the issues at impeachment."
When people say that impeachment cancels the pardon power, i always understood them to mean that the President can't pardon his way out of the impeachment itself, and that the pardons issued don't exculpate the abuses in any way.
But it appears that pardons do exculpate individuals targeted by criminal investigations, and so render charges such as 'obstruction of justice' moot, insofar as they pertain to offenses committed during the period that the pardon applies to.
November 18, 2008 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink