Has a sitting President ever pardoned someone

[DoYouEverWonder]

from their own administration, during an ongoing investigation?

I don't think so. No other President has ever displayed such a blatant Abuse of Power and if Bush tries to pull this crap, every DEM better raise holy hell over it.

[radfringe]

1. yep

Pardon talk for Libby begins
BY TOM BRUNE | Newsday Washington Bureau
June 17, 2006
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uspard0618,0,467087.story?coll=ny-leadnationalnews-headlines

---snip---

As president, Bush has constitutional power to issue a pardon at any time -- even before a crime is charged. And presidents of both parties have pardoned political friends.

In 1974, for example, President Gerald Ford pardoned ex-President Richard Nixon for any crimes he might have committed. In 2001, President Bill Clinton pardoned convicted political friends as he left office.

A few weeks before leaving office in January 1993, President George H.W. Bush granted Christmas Eve pardons to six Reagan-Bush officials charged in the Iran-Contra scandal, including two whose trials were about to start.

To justify the controversial pardons, the elder Bush blamed "the criminalization of policy differences." That "troubling development," he said, was created by an independent counsel probe of how the executive branch evaded a congressional ban on funding Nicaraguan Contras by selling arms to Iran and sending proceeds to Contras.

[DoYouEverWonder]

2. None of them pardoned someone

from their own administration.

Poppy Bush pardoned officials for crimes committed during Reagan's tenure, not his own, even though he was VP and we know he was up to his ears in it. Bush was able to maintain plausible deniablity and was never charged or implicated in the Iran-Contra scandal.

The Plame scandal is different because it involves the current sitting president and his staff.

[Botany]

3. And some of the people who got pardoned by "Poppy" came back and

haunt us to this day. "They" have helped in getting us involved in Iraq,
poisoning the media with their "hyper patriotic bile (Ollie North), and
using the futures market to bet on terrorist attacks as a money making
scheme (Admiral Poindexter).

We really need is to get power back and clean up the rat's nest that is
the power structure of the bush crime family. Although, I am more and more
convinced that George bush is just an empty headed front man.



Although North got off when the same judge who put in Ken Starr gave him a
sweet deal ..... H.W. did not pardon him.

Who can forget Ollie North buying underwear for his office bimbo
"Fawn Hall," @ a upscale lingerie shop in D.C. w/ some of the money
and telling congress that he bought his daughter (young girl) a dance
class outfit there ..... and they let him off the hook.



And now it looks like W has stopped the Plame investigation ...... fucking crooks

BTW to any lurking Freepers .... find one thing not true in what I just wrote.

[dysfunctional press]

6. poppy is the true evil in the family...

and babs ain't no slouch, either.

their spawn are some of the most reprehensible on the planet.

[Botany]

7. their spawn

W = nuff said
Jeb = 2000 election, S & L bail out, buying real estate w/ partners and then
declaring bankruptcy and then buying the same property for pennies on the dollar
Marvin = 9/11 his company did security for the World Trade Centers, United Airlines,
and Logan Airport .... 3 days after 9/11 his maid was run over by a car nobody was driving.
Prescott = Iran Contra = Southern air transport = CIA
Neil = Silverado S & L Bailout billions of dollars & "no child left behind" money train

[H2O Man]

8. Though I am not a "lurking Freeper,"

I will point out that there is nothing that indicates "W has stopped the Plame investigation."

The neoconservative movement, however, is attempting to manipulate the public's perception of what has been happening in the case. Each and every DUer should be taking the time to write a brief LTTE of her/his local newspapers, to remind readers that President Bush promised to fire anyone in his administration involved in the leak -- and Karl Rove was absolutely involved. The White House has been lying to the public. Come on, George -- bring back that integrity you were talking about!

More, it would take a type of reality blindness that is similar to color blindness to be able to block out the information about VP Cheney's role in the scandal, which is becoming documented by the various court filings in the Libby case. President Bush has clearly not stopped that.

[Botany]

9. I hope you are right.

I just have a real bad feeling about it because:

1. the multiple reports of A.G. Alberto Gonzales meeting w/ Fitz and
company on the day when Rove was supposed to be indicted.

2. the strange sealed v sealed listing on Fitz's web site for that day too.

3. the Washington Post now kissing Rove's ass again.

Rove signed a document that stated if he ever outed a CIA agent he would be
punished by a minimum of 5 years in prison .... i have family members that
work in the DoD and they had to sign the same document ..... That should have
kicked in along time ago. What happened?

Sure Cheney's part is coming to light but i doubt anything will happen now.

[DoYouEverWonder]

12. If Gonzales has been meeting with Fitzgerald

it's only because he's got a lot of explaining to do about his own role in this scandal.

[H2O Man]

15. I haven't seen

any reports that would indicate that Mr. Fitzgerald met with A.G. Gonzales that warrent being taken seriously. Gonzales is involved in a case in a manner that absolutely excludes him from exercising any control over it.

There was nothing on Mr. Fitzgerald's web site about "sealed vs sealed" that I am aware of. I read the site frequently. If there ever was such a thing posted, it would seem curious that no one ever linked to it on DU.

That leaves a few Washington Post articles that are "now kissing Rove's ass again." It seems difficult to find this to be evidence that Bush stopped the investigation.

[DoYouEverWonder]

10. So you haven't seen the good news?

BY TOM BRUNE
Newsday Washington Bureau

June 17, 2006, 10:48 PM EDT

WASHINGTON -- Now that top White House aide Karl Rove is off the hook in the CIA leak probe, President George W. Bush must weigh whether to pardon former vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the only one indicted in the three-year investigation.

Speculation about a pardon began in late October, soon after Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald unsealed the perjury indictment of Libby, and it continued last week after Fitzgerald chose not to charge Rove.

"I think ultimately, of course, there are going to be pardons," said Joseph diGenova, a former prosecutor and an old Washington hand who shares that view with many pundits.

"These are the kinds of cases in which historically presidents have given pardons," said the veteran Republican attorney.


http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uspard0618,0,467087.story?coll=ny-leadnationalnews-headlines


Nice little trial blimp they're floating for Father's Day. The veteran Republican attorney is full of it. There is nothing 'historical' about a President pardoning a member of his own Adminstration during an ongoing investigation.


BTW: Happy FD.

[H2O Man]

16. That hardly qualifies

as "news." Consider the source. People from that pit of vipers have been demanding a pardon for some time. It isn't going to happen.

[radfringe]

4. a list

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_by_a_United_States_president

yeh - seems no one has pardoned one of his officials during their tenure..

but it doesn't mean bush won't do it for whatever reason

[DoYouEverWonder]

5. That is why is it so important for the DEMS to take back Congress

in Nov, because then they can impeach him for Abuse of Power.

Remember when it was an 'abuse of power' for Clinton to ask Vernon Jordon to find a new job for Monica?

[DoYouEverWonder]

14. Not only one of his own officials

but no one has ever done it during an ongoing investigation into their own administration. That's the key difference.

If Bush attempts to pardon anyone from his WH, he will set himself up for being charged with abuse of power, obstruction of justice, and probably a few other impeachable offenses.

[salin]

11. Ford pardoning the man who made him VP...

pretty close. Not sure how many other pardons were issued by Ford.

Did Bush pardon any of the Iran Contra indictees? Technically those crimes were committed in the preceding administration - granted he was the number 2 man in that administration. Never mind this question - see up thread that my memory per Bushsr and Iran Conta indictees was on the money.

[DoYouEverWonder]

13. At the time, what Ford did

was seen to be the best thing for the country. I still believe that in Nixon's case, Ford did the right thing.

Also, Ford had nothing to do personally with the crimes committed by Nixon's WH.

[salin]

19. There is no question that he thought that what he did was 'best',

however, I don't agree in retrospect that it was the best. Perhaps if we, the public, got a true sense of the degree to which the President believed that he could act above the law there would have been even greater safeguards, or greater outrage the next instance of the WH going around Congressional passed law.

Mind you there is a difference of awareness of the extent of the Nixon gang's misdeeds between those who followed the news closely, those who cursorily heard the news (hard to get around it) and got a gist of it, and those who paid little attention. For the first group - a real awareness was bred - and it is from that awareness that I think some of the serious and ongoing investigations went on in Iran Contra (if I recall the key prosecutor in that case was, indeed, a republican - and was full of outrage in terms of trying to keep the investigation going). For the second group, I get the sense that the 'egregiousness' was simply the urge to cover-up - with the 18 minutes of tape (or however long it was) which was 'accidently erased' - highlighted that it was just an issue of coverup. For the last group - well since the early Reagan years it has been apparent that there was quite a sizeable group that believed Nixon was a great president and the whole thing was about politics.

Iran-Contra. The issue was not just the unsavoriness of trading weapons to Iran (who was in a war with Iraq - to whom we were also giving weapons) in order to give money to the Contras. Congress passed a law forbidding funding the Contras - ending the US side of fueling that ongoing war. The Iran Contra issue was about abuse of power - the executive branch engaging in extralegal activities, and they couldn't even claim that a post-911 resolution gave them the authority to act for National Security reasons to 'keep America safe' (though many on the right tried to sell the idea that Nicaragua was a domino threat and that the Soviets (in economic disarray) through Cuba was going to take Nicaragua and then march northward taking Mexico and then be at our borders... absurd - but pushed seriously by the 'neocons' of the day... but I digress...) The point is that at the root of the issue was an extreme abuse of authority by the Executive Branch. Along the way, during the hearings, a lot was learned (by the small part of the population paying attention) that was alarming - such as in order to pursue the operation - 'contractors' with no National Security clearance were given access to secure intelligence and resources (via that boyscout Ollie North)... In the end, the Congressional committee folded - reportedly by Lee Hamilton (house chair - and respected dem representative) - because of the concern that of the erosion of trust by the public/damage to the system if all the truth came out. (Same rationale of Ford per Nixon.)

So here we are today - thirty years later. More egregious abuses of power by the executive branch. Only a growing public awareness and alarm. How did this go on for so many years with such little public awareness? Just the media? Many reasons, most certainly. However, I would contend that one of the reasons is that the previous two recent BIG egregious abuses of power had investigations and prosecutions that were never pursued to their end, and as such the media coverage and resultant public awareness (general public - not the close watchers) was on a gut/surface level - and thus very little vigilance in the public to call for more information when things seemed eerily reminiscent, and problematic... I do believe that the Nixon pardon, and later the Bushsr pardons of the Iran Contra figures, played a big role in enabling the situation that we have today.

[DoYouEverWonder]

20. How did this go on for so many years

with such little public awareness?

We didn't have the ability to communicate and spread information, the way we can with the Internet.

Bush & Co can only get away with their crap by working in the shadows. Like cockroaches, they scramble and hide as soon as the light of truth is shown up them.

If you study our history for the last 40 years or so and the rise of the CIA, every major event has Bush Sr. and his pals like Ollie North directly involved. Yet, few of us had access to the documents and data, to track their actions and deeds. Now all you have to do is google around a bit and you have instant access to government records, press reports, and even whole websites devoted to their wrongdoings. We have online discussions like this, where we can talk to people from around the world and spread this knowledge, bypassing the M$M entirely.

Without the rise of the blogsphere, BushCo would have turned us into a police state by now. Fortunately, we now have a powerful weapon to fight back with and it is making a difference. Things would be a lot worse if they had tried this power grab 10 - 20 years ago.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

17. Wouldn't Ford's

pardoning of Nixon count?

[DoYouEverWonder]

18. No

Ford didn't pardon people in his own administration.

Also, see #13

[Crabby Appleton]

21. I wonder if a president

can pardon themselves? Seems possible.