I Changed My Mind: I Think Congress Should Allow Karl Rove to Continue Ignoring Their Subpoenas

[redstate_democrat]

This way, if Rove isn't charged with a crime before Bush leaves office, Bush can't preemptively pardon Rove. Rove must first be at least charged with a crime for their to be any legal basis to give him a pardon. By the time Rove is charged, the evidence will be ten miles high on him.

He will not only be charged with the well known crimes, but also with obstruction of justice and failure to appear in response to a subpoena.

I say let him just float out there in a perpetual state of the unknown. When it comes down, it will come down like a hammer.

I say again, Rove should not be CHARGED before Bush leaves office. He should be investigated, yes, to expedite the eventual charge, but not charged because Bush will pardon him.

[Duer 157099]

1. Um, don't think so

Don't know if he will, but I do believe I recall learning that he *could* preemptively pardon everyone but himself.

Wouldn't be surprised if he did it in secret and sealed it and buried it in his backyard in Texas and claimed some sort of states secrets thing - and Congress no doubt would just shrug and nod. Like usual.

[redstate_democrat]

7. Where did you learn that he could preemptively pardon someone?

I want to read up on that. Thanks.

[Matariki]

10. I believe Ford pardoned Nixon

even though he was not charged with a crime.

From wikipedia: On September 8, 1974, Ford issued Proclamation 4311, which gave Nixon a full and unconditional pardon for any crimes he may have committed against the United States while President

[Warpy]

13. He could, but will he?

Yes, Ford's pardon before charges had been levied against Nixon was disgraceful and never should have been allowed to stand. However, it was a condition Nixon made to step down and "save the country." Ha.

Preemptively pardoning an entire administration of people who may or may not have committed real crimes is not in the cards because doing so will make Stupid look very, very guilty of something, and he can't pardon himself.

It will also make all his insiders look guilty as hell, since none will by that time have been charged with anything. It will be a very serious cloud over the whole bunch, and I think enough of them are young to plot a return to power with Jebbie in 2012 that they will want to avoid clouds. Getting a pardon from this assclown would forever disqualify them from government, saying they were all guilty of breaking the law without saying which laws they were guilty of breaking.

Remember, no recipients of presidential pardons, not even Poindexter, have really been able to get a soft public job again. Consulting with other crooks is the best they've been able to do. Negroponte is about the only one I know of who's been able to slither back in, and he only slithered as far as Iraq. At this point, the fascists would prefer their people take their chances with the courts than destroy their careers with preemptive pardons. They can't afford to lose the manreptile power.

[BeHereNow]

2. Hmmm... you may have a very good point there.

I'm not a legal expert and would be very
interested to hear others weigh in.
BHN

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

3. Your original premise is wrong. People have been pardoned who have not been charged

with any specific crimes - Nixon being the easiest example.

[BeHereNow]

4. In that case- they should GET the bastard NOW.

What are they waiting for anyway?
For the public to forget about it?
That's my guess, and unfortunately,
the public probably will.
Not us, but the general population appears
not to give a crap.

BHN

[redstate_democrat]

5. Okay, but wasn't that kind of different? The thing with Nixon?

His V.P. pardoned him, but perhaps that was some kind of deal they struck for his resignation?

I don't know. I just can't see any basis to pardon someone who hasn't even been charged with a crime.

[Ilsa]

6. I thought you had to be convicted before being pardoned, but apparently Nixon

proved me wrong.

[redstate_democrat]

8. I just looked more into presidential pardons.

Apparently, the president can only pardon someone for a federal crime?

Could it be possible that Rove has committed any state crimes in states with Democratic governors?

[rwenos]

9. "A Gloss on Presidential Power"

My constitutional law professor told us (20 years ago) there was no practical limit on the pardon power. There have never been any cases litigating the scope of the President's power to pardon. Ford pardoned Nixon without any criminal proceedings impending against Nixon himself (although there were criminal proceedings pending, and some convictions already obtained, against John Dean, John Mitchell, etc.)

I don't see why a President could not pardon himself.

A lot of STRANGE shit can happen in the Oval Office at, say, 11:30 a.m. on January 20, 2009. And probably will.

ON EDIT: If you want to read up on presidential pardons, look in the Cornell Law Library, under the annotations to that clause in the Constitution. You will not find any cases.

It's a tabula rasa. Blank slate. Unlimited power.

[redstate_democrat]

11. The president should not have unlimited pardon power.

You're right. What would stop him from pardoning himself? I don't think that is what the Constitution's authors envisioned when they wrote that clause.

[Freddie Stubbs]

12. Ford pardoned Nixon, who was never charged with a crime