Patrick 4/4 @ 137

[… snip …]

From that, I think we go back to the President may not block the impeachment process once articles are voted. Just as impeachment and conviction in the Senate do not prevent a person from then being prosecuted, I can’t see any reason why the president couldn’t grant a pardon for the crimes being prosecuted outside the Senate.

It is, I think, a question of jurisdiction. Just as a person can be tried in State and Federal Courts for the same offence under different laws and jurisdictions and not be put in double jeopardy, a person can be impeached without prejudice to the applicable laws in State or Federal Court. The pardon power should still hold in those instances.

The Constitution is quite vague on this matter. It simnply says that the President has the power of pardon, “except in cases of impeachment.” But here is what Hamilton had to say on the matter in The Federalist Papers, No. 69:

Thirdly. The power of the President, in respect to pardons, would extend to all cases, EXCEPT THOSE OF IMPEACHMENT. The governor of New York may pardon in all cases, even in those of impeachment, except for treason and murder. Is not the power of the governor, in this article, on a calculation of political consequences, greater than that of the President? All conspiracies and plots against the government, which have not been matured into actual treason, may be screened from punishment of every kind, by the interposition of the prerogative of pardoning. If a governor of New York, therefore, should be at the head of any such conspiracy, until the design had been ripened into actual hostility he could insure his accomplices and adherents an entire impunity. A President of the Union, on the other hand, though he may even pardon treason, when prosecuted in the ordinary course of law, could shelter no offender, in any degree, from the effects of impeachment and conviction. Would not the prospect of a total indemnity for all the preliminary steps be a greater temptation to undertake and persevere in an enterprise against the public liberty, than the mere prospect of an exemption from death and confiscation, if the final execution of the design, upon an actual appeal to arms, should miscarry? Would this last expectation have any influence at all, when the probability was computed, that the person who was to afford that exemption might himself be involved in the consequences of the measure, and might be incapacitated by his agency in it from affording the desired impunity? The better to judge of this matter, it will be necessary to recollect, that, by the proposed Constitution, the offense of treason is limited “to levying war upon the United States, and adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort”; and that by the laws of New York it is confined within similar bounds.

Wigwam: My apologies if this is so late you don’t see it. I’m not trying to get the last word, but I do want to respond. We can dig into this more any time you’d like.

I think this part of the Hamilton excerpt

A President of the Union, on the other hand, though he may even pardon treason, when prosecuted in the ordinary course of law, could shelter no offender, in any degree, from the effects of impeachment and conviction.

supports the idea, that although the President may pardon wherever else he wants, he cannot interfere with the impeachment process.

There is no suggestion here that impeachment trumps the otherwise normal course of law which would include indictment, trial, conviction and pardon.

Klein just reflects the kewl kids conventional wisdom in any case. The Gang of 500 is turning against the war. We should not deride this. We should encourage it.

Wigwam @ 178

Thanks for the detailed reply. I didn’t see anything at all that I disagree with. When Bush lawyered up in 04, wasn’t it also coincidental with the Enron investigation/trial and that it was also Ken Lay’s lawyer? He’s probably lawyered up more times than that one, but is that the same one as you mentioned?

His name is James Sharp, and here are some details about his past.

Thanks for the detailed reply. I didn’t see anything at all that I disagree with. When Bush lawyered up in 04, wasn’t it also coincidental with the Enron investigation/trial and that it was also Ken Lay’s lawyer? He’s probably lawyered up more times than that one, but is that the same one as you mentioned?

twolf1 — pardon me, I don’t think I heard you correctly.

Was that fomenting or foaming?

Heh.

Christy’s up top with DeadEye. Bring your Kevlar.

fomenting at the mouth

Was that fomenting or foaming?

Heh.

Christy’s up top with DeadEye. Bring your Kevlar.

Oh nuts, we should take bets as to the other topic of the McChimpy presser. There must be something else besides, “I didn’t say what I said about not saying we’re winning in Iraq…”, don’t you think?

Ten minutes is a lot of time for nothing…

I bet it’ll include a lot of fomenting.

GSD @
170

This could be Bush’s meltdown presser.

-GSD

That would be fun to watch

Why do I get the feeling that Bush’s meltdown just means the rest of us are in more hot water?

Wigwam

It’s my opinion that Cheney has engineered, from the shadows, the protections of secrecy and immunity.

With the apparent protection by his political peers who fear any scrutiny of their own personal demons, do you think their will be any accountability for this administration?

It will be a tough ballgame. These guys are tough and smart — look at how James Baker handled Gore and company in Florida and how they slipped past everything in the Iran/Contra scandal. But they can be beaten. A lot depends on who is calling the shots for this side.

Also notice that they are scared. They know that they are legally vulnerable and are devoting a lot of energy to protecting themselves. Bush lawyered-up in 2004. They went to great lengths to push push through the MCA in hopes of gutting the War Crimes Act of 1996 and giving themselves retroactive immunity. They’ve been preparing a sanctuary in Paraguay:

Five hundred U.S. troops arrived in Paraguay with planes, weapons, and ammunition in July 2005, shortly after the Paraguayan Senate granted U.S. troops immunity from national and International Criminal Court (ICC) jurisdiction. [Project Censored]

And I’ve read that Bush recently bought a ranch there.

They’ve certainly gone methodically through all of the what-if’s and have a plan for every contingency. But they are’t comfortable, and here’s why:

* There are no statutes of limitation on war crimes and crimes against humanity.

* Many countries, especially in Europe, believe in universal jurisdiction in matters of war crimes and crimes against humanity. (E.g., everyone applauded the apprehension by Israel of Adolph Eichmann in Argentina for crimes committed outside of Israel and before Israel existed. I suspect that many countries feel similarly about GWB and friends.)

* The Geneva Protocols, the U.N. Charter, and the Treaty Against Torture are Senate-ratified treaties, which make them “the supreme law of the land” by Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, their Military Commissions Act not withstanding.

So, IMHO, they’ll be brought to justice somehow, somewhere, sometime. They’ve been messing with people who have very long memories and international law on their side.