#294679 - 08/03/2007 00:56
Crackpot theory.
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
IANAL, but it seems like anybody *convicted* of a crime would be eligible for a presidential pardon so long as a president so inclined is in office.
Now, maybe this is just me being optimistic, but I am not aware of a way for that pardon-inclined sitting president to provide a pardon *before* a person has been convicted -- say if the trial drags on past the inauguration of that president's successor.
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#294680 - 08/03/2007 01:11
Re: Crackpot theory.
[Re: jimhogan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Certainly Ford pardoned Nixon for any crimes he may have committed. Nixon was never even indicted.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#294681 - 08/03/2007 01:15
Re: Crackpot theory.
[Re: jimhogan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 17/12/2000
Posts: 2665
Loc: Manteca, California
|
In that case a pardon would simply put a stop to the proceedings. Although If one was anal about being judged innocent...
I'm under the impression that a President can issue a pardon at any time for anything and or everything under the sun. Regardless of the current, or lack of current prosecution.
AFAIK Presidents generally wait till the end of their tenure to issue pardons as that tends to make any outrage moot. Slick Willy did that.
_________________________
Glenn
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#294682 - 08/03/2007 01:27
Re: Crackpot theory.
[Re: jimhogan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
|
Typically, from what I've been hearing, pardons traditionally are only given:
a) When the justice system has been allowed to run its course. Otherwise, the executive branch would be telling the judicial branch that it is not trusted to reach the right verdict. Nixon was a special case that was done for the greater good of the country. ie, he was already ruined. The "Party" was ruined. Public trust was ruined and everyone knew what happened. A trial would only have served to shame the country even further. Agree or disagree, but the fact is that was the reasoning. Consider it the exception and a special circumstance.
b) The pardoned must admit guilt and regret for his or her actions. Otherwise, you are pardoning someone for an act they deny taking part in. Clinton is generally thought to have ignored this one, but again, it's considered an exception rather than a rule.
Edited by SE_Sport_Driver (08/03/2007 01:29)
_________________________
Brad B.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#294683 - 08/03/2007 02:12
Re: Crackpot theory.
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Bitt wins the prize for quickest correction + memory jog. Me not thinking it through. It is a case of wishful thinking, of course, but what raised the question in my mind was the thought/notion: might it be reasonable for a prosecutor to put a case in the icebox so as to not have a person convicted -- and definitely up for a pardon -- while the eager pardoner is still able to do so for his buds? I will admit that the chance that Fitzgerald or anybody else will bring something back to life after January 2009 is pretty tiny. But it is nice to think about. I have no doubt that Bush will pardon any of his buds that get some girl in trouble. If Clinton had little shame about some things, I would expect that Bush has none whatsoever. He's the Decider, after all. Quote:
Typically, from what I've been hearing, pardons traditionally are only given:
a) When the justice system has been allowed to run its course. Otherwise, the executive branch would be telling the judicial branch that it is not trusted to reach the right verdict. Nixon was a special case that was done for the greater good of the country. ie, he was already ruined. The "Party" was ruined. Public trust was ruined and everyone knew what happened. A trial would only have served to shame the country even further. Agree or disagree, but the fact is that was the reasoning. Consider it the exception and a special circumstance.
Now that Bitt has whupped me upside the head and I have once again become an expert in constitutional law, I am going to guess that there was no provision in the law that said that it was OK to pardon Nixon because he was already ruined and/or because public trust was ruined -- or that because a trial would have only served to shame the country.
This is a sympathetic interpretation of that history and one that seems to have become more popular as Ford became not-a-president, then older, then elder, then an object of some nostalgia, and then dead. My memory is that Ford was not thought of very kindly at the time nor was his pardon viewed very broadly as a service to the country. Many people, including 2 or 3 who were not communists, saw the pardon as a complete miscarriage of justice. But it's tough to be very hard on Ford when he says bad things about GWB from the grave  Anyhow, I'm not thinking that there was anything in the law about special circumstances. Nixon, like many criminals, got away with it...in this case thanks to Gerry.
Quote:
b) The pardoned must admit guilt and regret for his or her actions. Otherwise, you are pardoning someone for an act they deny taking part in. Clinton is generally thought to have ignored this one, but again, it's considered an exception rather than a rule.
Now the facts of the Marc Rich pardon by Clinton should have better informed my initial crackpot post. Rich, if I can trust Wikipedia, was only indicted, not convicted.
WRT the "The Nixon Pardon", several reviews that happened around the time of Ford's death mentioned that a big regret of Ford's was that he could do nothing to cajole or wheedle Nixon into admitting *anything*. I think Ford said he lost sleep over that. If that is correct then it would seem like the pardoned can keep his mouth shut and just move on to being a senior partner or elder statesman..
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#294684 - 08/03/2007 02:21
Re: Crackpot theory.
[Re: gbeer]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Quote:
In that case a pardon would simply put a stop to the proceedings. Although If one was anal about being judged innocent...
I'm under the impression that a President can issue a pardon at any time for anything and or everything under the sun. Regardless of the current, or lack of current prosecution.
I bet you are right, so my Rove-in-a-jumpsuit pipe dream might have gotten a few serious dents.
Quote:
AFAIK Presidents generally wait till the end of their tenure to issue pardons as that tends to make any outrage moot. Slick Willy did that.
Well, I'm not sure it makes *all* outrage moot. If the Democrats are stupid enough to nominate anybody from his clan, I will not bother to vote for the office of President on that November day in 2008.
As a consolation for my diminished crackpot theory, perhaps I should now start a pool to guess just how many administration notables Bush will pardon on January 19, 2009 "just in case".
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index