Pelosi open to prosecuting Bush DOJ

[BlueJessamine]

Source: POLITICO

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Sunday that she was open to pursuing investigations of abuses by the Bush Justice Department.

“I think that we have to learn from the past and we cannot let the politicizing, for example, of the Justice Department, to go unreviewed,” Pelosi said on “Fox News Sunday.” “Past is prologue. We learn from it.”

Pelosi told host Chris Wallace she thought the Obama administration would be open to scrutinizing the Bush White House, as House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) has urged.

“I don’t think Mr. Obama and Mr. Conyers are that far apart,” Pelosi said. “I want to see the truth come forward.”

On ABC’s “This Week” last Sunday, Obama sounded a note of caution on the prospect of investigations, telling host George Stephanopoulos: “We need to look forward as opposed to looking backward.”


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17573.html

[Uben]

1. Of course, next week......

...it'll all be "off the table". Just watch.

[ThomCat]

29. I hope not.

I've been horrible pissed off that everything has been "off the table" throughout her watch so far. Pelosi seems to be a political coward, and won't wipe her own ass without making sure it's absolutely politically safe first. Now that Democrats are absolutely in control and there is a HUGE public resentment towards the last 8 years that just can't be ignored, almost any review of the last 8 years is safe. So maybe now she's finally agree to do something.

Maybe now Finally even a political coward will decide that it's safe to look at the Bush administration and take some pot shots and maybe press charges.

If she can't do it now then she'll never do it.

I hope she's got the courage to finally look back and hold some hearings. If she doesn't, then she's really truly never going to stand up for anything.

[stillcool]

31. there's a big difference..

in investigating the Justice Department, and investigating Bush.

[proud progressive]

36. you got that straight! pelosi and most of the rest are power whores just like the gop'ers

these pols are all the same so why would they go after one of 'their own'? with rare axception, i've been around long enough to know better than to expect ANYTHING from either party.

[Drum]

2. pfft. nt

[ixion]

3. and as the 'truth' comes forward, Nance, will you begin to sweat?

knowing that you're complicit in said crimes?

[Phred42]

4. BS. - Pelosi IS the problem

Another 'commission' to find out what they need to cover up?

:shrug:

[Warren Stupidity]

5. After the pardons it will be moot.

[TechBear_Seattle]

11. Before the convictions, pardons are irrelevant

You cannot pardon a crime until and unless there is a conviction on that crime.

[Wizard777]

12. At the very least a confession to a crime.

[Warren Stupidity]

19. Nope

not required. Although a pardon is considered an implied admission of guilt so there are people who have rejected them.

[Warren Stupidity]

13. not true at all - see Ford's pardon of Nixon.

[TechBear_Seattle]

38. The pardon was irrelevant, as there was no conviction

Had anyone bothered to press charges and get a conviction, Ford's pardon would have been irrelevant.

[Warren Stupidity]

46. Sorry but you are wrong about that.

Charges could not be brought for the crimes covered by the pardon.

[TechBear_Seattle]

47. Untrue

There is absolutely no basis for that claim: pardons have no effect whatsoever until a conviction has been handed down. They are not, and never have been, immunity from prosecution.

[Warren Stupidity]

57. 500,000 draft resisters think you are dead wrong.

"The first major court case involving the pardon power, Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 333, 18 L. Ed. 366 (1866), established both the scope of the pardon power and the legal effect on a person who was pardoned. President Andrew Johnson pardoned Arkansas attorney and Confederate sympathizer Alexander Hamilton Garland, who had not been tried, for any offenses he might have committed during the Civil War. Garland sought to practice in federal court, but federal law required that he swear an oath that he never aided the Confederacy. Garland argued that the pardon absolved him of the need to take the oath. The Supreme Court agreed with Garland. It held that the scope of the pardon power "is unlimited, with the exception stated . It extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment."

...

n 1977, President jimmy carter granted an amnesty to all persons who had unlawfully evaded the military draft during the Vietnam War. Carter, too, justified his amnesty as a way to end a divisive period in U.S. history."

In addition to Nixon there are at least two other examples of open ended pardons granted to individuals or groups of individuals prior to any charges made.

" 8.-Sec. 4. When the pardon is general, either by an act of amnesty, or by the repeal of a penal law, it is not necessary to plead it, because the court is bound, ex officio, to take notice of it. And the criminal cannot even waive such pardon, because by his admittance, no one can give the court power to punish him, when it judicially appears there is no law to do it. But when the pardon is special, to avail the criminal it must judicially appear that it has been accepted, and for this reason it must be specially pleaded. 7 Pet. R. 150, 162. "
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Presidential+pardon

general pardons prevent future prosecutions. Courts are required to take not of the pardon and not allow any prosecution of an individual within the scope of such a pardon.

You are simply wrong about this issue. Bush can block any prosecution of individuals or groups by issuing a general pardon covering potential crimes they have committed. The precedents exist, the court cases exist. If you can demonstrate when in our history a person covered by a pardon has been subsequently prosecuted for crimes under the scope of the pardon, please do so or else admit you are wrong.

[dixiegrrrrl]

20. Was Nixon convicted of a crime?

I am confused now. I thought he was being investigated, resigned, and then Ford pardoned him.

[Warren Stupidity]

23. No. The poster is just plain wrong.

The presidential pardon power is pretty much unlimited and is demonstrably not limited to people convicted or even charged with crimes. See Nixon.

[Wizard777]

27. He was being logical and the law doesn't always follow logic.

It's a matter of logic that crimes should only be pardonable upon confession or conviction. But from what I've read on it. That's not the law. The high courts would even allow and uphold a Pardon that was issued before the crime was committed. But until it's officially tested in court. That's only a theory. Which is by no means a fact.

[TechBear_Seattle]

39. It is not retroactive, however

Or foreactive or whatever the correct term would be. Pardons are only meaningful AFTER a conviction has been handed down. In the absense of a conviction, it is all show with no legal standing or force.

[Warren Stupidity]

45. Uh no - see Nixon.

Charges could not even be brought. But if you don't like Nixon's pardon, see Carter's blanket pardon of all draft resistors. The power is rather massively sweeping. You don't even have to name the exact people being pardoned nor the exact crimes for which they might be charged.

[TechBear_Seattle]

48. Charges COULD have been brought, but were not

Pardons grant amnesty and wipe a conviction off of a person's legal record. They do not and have never granted immunity from prosecution.

Come on, this is basic high school government, people.

[glitch]

52. Nixon's pardon was more political than legal. So far no one has tested it but that doesn't mean they

can't, it just means they haven't. Not sure we want to test it now with our current USSC either.

And as far as pardons for war crimes go, once that is done that makes the pardonees vulnerable to international law (irregardless of treaties we may or may not have signed, country's who have signed are required to hold any war criminal accountable if the war criminal's own country won't, or can't).

[Warren Stupidity]

59. No actually it means they can't

No court would hear such a case, as effectively there is no applicable law. It would be equivalent to a prosecutor attempting to charge a person with a crime for which no law exists. And it has been tested. Here, read up: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Presidential+pardon

[glitch]

67. Interesting link, especially this part

"The power to pardon applies only to offenses against the laws of the jurisdiction of which the pardoning official is the chief executive. Thus the president may only pardon for violations of federal law, and governors may only pardon for violations of the laws of their states."

I'd like to see the power tested more thoroughly than the case they cited though (but not by this particular USSC).

[Le Taz Hot]

66. You just corrected one of my

long-held beliefs. Thank you.

[Zhade]

69. No, by my reading you're the one who's wrong here.

NT!

[bvar22]

35. Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon....

...or have I misremembered this event?
Nixon was never even charged with a crime, much less convicted.

[TechBear_Seattle]

41. "Nixon was never charged, much less convicted." Exactly

That is what made Ford's pardon irrelevant. Had Nixon been charged and convicted, the pardon would have had no force of law: pardons cannot be granted before the fact.

[No Elephants]

37. The Constitution does not say that. Nixon was not charged with a crime, let alone convicted.

[TechBear_Seattle]

42. The Constitution says nothing about pardons, except that the President can grant them

With such an absense, existing law and precedent stands: pardons only have the force of law when granted after a conviction; they cannot be granted before the fact.

[No Elephants]

43. Really? Where are you getting all that from? And again, Nixon. You're

right about one thing. The Constitution says nothing about pardons except that the President can grant them. The Constituion places no restriction whatever on the power and that is how authors have viewed it--an unrestricted power.

[TechBear_Seattle]

44. NIXON WAS NEVER CONVICTED

Crimeny, why is that so difficult a concept to grasp? Nixon was never convicted; therefore, Ford's pardon before the fact was never challenged. In the absense of such a precedent, the law falls back to how things exist now: Pardons remit specific convictions, and without a conviction, a pardon has no legal standing or force.

[No Elephants]

49. Exactly. Nixon was never convicted, yet he was pardoned. In the absence of

what precedents are you talking about? The only precedents that existed for pardosn before the Constitution were royal pardons and no one told the king who he could or could not pardon. It's an unlimied power. Presidents have pardoned plenty of people who were not convicted.

Please, at least look at wiki if nothing else.

[TechBear_Seattle]

55. Pardons can be granted before the fact, but they have no legal standing

Pardons are not absolute and they cannot give immunity from prosecution.

[Warren Stupidity]

60. presidential pardons supercede federal law.

you really couldn't be more wrong about this. You should try googling the subject. Start here, for example:

"Throughout U.S. history the courts have interpreted this clause to give the president virtually unlimited power to issue pardons to individuals or groups and to impose conditions on the forgiveness.
...
The most famous American pardon was the blanket pardon given by President Gerald Ford to ex-President Richard Nixon in the wake of the Watergate scandal and Nixon's resignation; that pardon closed the door to any future prosecution against Nixon for any crime before the pardon."
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Presidential+pardon

[John Q. Citizen]

64. Can you site law showing that? Or is that just how you think it should be?

[JackRiddler]

56. Why was Nixon never convicted?

Could this be because no one pursued any cases against him, once the pardon was granted?

I see your point, but you have to admit there is no precedent. No one ever challenged a presidential pardon in advance of an indictment in the fashion you are claiming, i.e. by attempting a prosecution anyway. Or can you name such a case -- for a presidential pardon? And if a prosecutor did attempt to bring a case, you can be certain it would go to the Supreme Court and they'd have to rule, before any prosecution went forward. But the pardon already almost precludes a prosecutor actually being willing to bet on that.

[Warren Stupidity]

61. no wrong as well

Tested in court too:

"The first major court case involving the pardon power, Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 333, 18 L. Ed. 366 (1866), established both the scope of the pardon power and the legal effect on a person who was pardoned. President Andrew Johnson pardoned Arkansas attorney and Confederate sympathizer Alexander Hamilton Garland, who had not been tried, for any offenses he might have committed during the Civil War. Garland sought to practice in federal court, but federal law required that he swear an oath that he never aided the Confederacy. Garland argued that the pardon absolved him of the need to take the oath. The Supreme Court agreed with Garland. It held that the scope of the pardon power "is unlimited, with the exception stated . It extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.""
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Presidential+pardon

And if you read on you will learn that effectively there is no applicable law for a person pardoned of a crime - consequently a court cannot hear the case.

[JackRiddler]

62. Nice catch...

Even worse than I imagined.

[JackRiddler]

54. Presidents can pardon crimes in advance even of indictment...

Remember Ford pardoned Nixon, who at that point had never been indicted of a crime.

[John Q. Citizen]

63. Daddy bush did.

Ford pardoned Nixon when Nixon hadn't been convicted of anything

[rosesaylavee]

65. I think I have read that Presidential Pardons can be reversed

by the next incoming President. I think President Grant did it the first time.

I hope this is true. Trying to find a link.

[babylonsister]

6. "I want to see the truth come forward." Since when, Nancy? nt

[Raster]

50. No shit! "I'll never impeach"

[scytherius]

7. Hope so but will believe it when I see it. n/t

nt

[Jefferson23]

8. Oh yea, Pelosi you have as much credibility as Bush and Cheney.

[ima_sinnic]

9. another * @$$-kisser pretending to "care" and to "investigate"

you had your chance years ago to "scrutinize" and the evidence has been presented in many different ways (how many versions of Articles of Impeachment were drawn up over the years, for example?), so your "concern" is duly noted as total bullshit.

I'd bet any amount of money that any real investigation would conclude that you yourself should be in jail for taking payola from the warmongers to put impeachment "off the table."

[man4allcats]

17. Agreed! Any investigation should certainly put Pelosi

under the microscope right along with all the usual Bushco suspects. I have no doubt she would, at the very least, be found guilty of collusion and should therefore go down with the rest. We've made considerable headway in running the ReThugs out of town, but our party won't really be strong or truly progressive until we get rid of the DINOs as well.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

10. The carpet and the drapes don't match.

Drapes- "Pelosi open to prosecuting Bush DOJ"

Carpet- "...she was open to pursuing investigations of abuses by the Bush Justice Department.


Typical editorial bullshit.

[chill_wind]

25. Thanks. That was the first thing I noticed, too.

eom

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

34. "Journalism" is so bad you have to immediately check.

And direct quotes are almost the only thing that matters.

[acmavm]

14. I'll believe it when the trials start.

[Independent_Liberal]

15. One way Pelosi could redeem herself in my opinion...

Announce tomorrow that she's allowing Conyers to hold hearings on Kucinich's impeachment bills. The process doesn't necessarily have to be completed by the 20th. That would be the only way I could say she has any credibility left when she makes the statement that she wants to see investigations go forward.

[1monster]

16. Whether or not Bush, et als, are prosecuted will no longer be Pelosi's call. Once Bush is out of

office, it will be up to the Justice Department, not the House.

[RedSock]

21. that must be why she's is saying something now (eom)

[1monster]

32. I'm sure.

[xxqqqzme]

18. Open? Hmmmm those wouldn't be

IMpeachable abuses would they?

[Auggie]

22. Pardon me while I have a good, long laugh

Prove me wrong Nancy

[Lugnut]

24. Do tell, Nancy.

Where did that table of yours go? :grr:

[formercia]

26. “Past is prologue. We learn from it.”

The longest prologue in History, beginning the latest volume in 1934.


So, let's get to chapter I, already.

[No Elephants]

40. Past is prologue. Yeah. It comes before the present. What a meaningless mouthful.

[glitch]

53. No kidding. 8 years is a mighty long learning curve. nt

[creeksneakers2]

28. She said that they've already started on the contempt of congress

She said something was done about that on the first day.

[booksenkatz]

30. Goody, get Lee Hamilton right on it!

[stillcool]

33. Of course, Bush appointee's can..

be investigated. Just as long as those investigations are so narrow in scope that they stay far away from those at the top.

[RCinBrooklyn]

51. Pelosi can suck a big one. She is pathetic.

[ecstatic]

58. Ms. "Impeachment is off the table"

Well... glad she's on board now, because if justice is to be had, we will need her help.

[Zhade]

68. Sure, Pelosi. Believe it when I see it.

NT!

[wordpix]

70. NOW she wants the truth, years late. But better late than never

[and-justice-for-all]

71. can they do it French Revolution style??nt