It's not the economy, .... it's proper use of words.

Hal says: "... is that he could care less whether ..."

Couldn't care less, Hal. It's couldn't, not could.

"Could care less" doesn't make any sense.

What is wrong with journalists today?

Jeffers

Peace without freedom is still slavery.

If Ford could pardon Nixon for things he hadn't been charged with, I can't imagine that our delusional hedgehog (he knows only one thing and that isn't true) would let anything stop him from pardoning every person who ever worked for the Executive Branch during his tenure.

"My sense is that he could care less whether they are held in contempt of Congress."

Seems to me that Congress doesn't even care if someone is held in Contempt of Congress. Has anyone in the last 7 years been prosecuted for Contempt of Congress?

He is playing with a stacked deck called the SUPREME COURT.

Unless Congress impeaches him, GWB will get off scott free on this as well. And we know that isn't going to happen.

Here's some ugly history

If you folks think Bush is bad, here's something I remember learning about as a fifth grader in 1975:

http://parentseyes.arizona.edu/wracamps/execorder9...

"I'll leave it to the legal experts to determine whether he can issue January 19th pardons to officials who haven't been indicted, let alone convicted."

Ford pardoned Nixon for everything we knew he did and for things he may have done but were not at the time known. A precedent, of sorts, has been set.

I see Bush pardoning everyone for anything they may have done and then stepping down so that Cheney, already pardoned, can pardon Bush, all of this taking place on or before 01/19/2009. They have already done things more outlandish than this and gotten away with it as we all sit here dumbfounded waiting for "someone else" to take action.

So what if my little scenario takes place? Whaddya gonna do about it? Watch the next episode of American Idol?

-- Kent Shaw

September 8, 1974

By the President of the United States of America a Proclamation

Richard Nixon became the thirty-seventh President of the United States on January 20, 1969 and was reelected in 1972 for a second term by the electors of forty-nine of the fifty states. His term in office continued until his resignation on August 9, 1974.

Pursuant to resolutions of the House of Representatives, its Committee on the Judiciary conducted an inquiry and investigation on the impeachment of the President extending over more than eight months. The hearings of the Committee and its deliberations, which received wide national publicity over television, radio, and in printed media, resulted in votes adverse to Richard Nixon on recommended Articles of Impeachment.

As a result of certain acts or omissions occurring before his resignation from the Office of President, Richard Nixon has become liable to possible indictment and trial for offenses against the United States. Whether or not he shall be so prosecuted depends on findings of the appropriate grand jury and on the discretion of the authorized prosecutor. Should an indictment ensue, the accused shall then be entitled to a fair trial by an impartial jury, as guaranteed to every individual by the Constitution.

It is believed that a trial of Richard Nixon, if it became necessary, could not fairly begin until a year or more has elapsed. In the meantime, the tranquility to which this nation has been restored by the events of recent weeks could be irreparably lost by the prospects of bringing to trial a former President of the United States. The prospects of such trial will cause prolonged and divisive debate over the propriety of exposing to further punishment and degradation a man who has already paid the unprecedented penalty of relinquishing the highest elective office of the United States.

Now, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9,1974.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this eighth day of September, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and seventy-four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and ninety-ninth.

GERALD R. FORD

The presidential power to pardon is granted under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution.

"The President ... shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."

From what I gather from a quick look through Google references is that this power is absolute with the one exception of impeachment. I see nothing about whether a president can pardon himself. My assumption is that he can. It would apparently read like this:

I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto MYSELF, GEORGE W. BUSH for all offenses against the United States which I, George W. Bush, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 2001 through January 20, 2009.

Alexander Hamilton would turn in his grave:

The whole subject of presidential pardons stirred little debate at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. No less estimable Founding Father than Alexander Hamilton, writing in Federalist No. 74, suggests that, "... in seasons of insurrection or rebellion, there are often critical moments, when a well-timed offer of pardon to the insurgents or rebels may restore the tranquility of the commonwealth."

While a few Founders suggested involving Congress in the pardons business, Hamilton remained certain the power should rest solely with the president. "It is not to be doubted, that a single man of prudence and good sense is better fitted, in delicate conjunctures, to balance the motives which may plead for and against the remission of the punishment, than any numerous body [Congress] whatever," he writes in Federalist No. 74. Reference

Ford's blanket pardon of Nixon was not challenged in court because the country was just relieved it was over. By itself, it has no strength as a legal precedent.

Excuse me, Adam Russell, but would you kindly disabuse me of my fears by advising me that you are a practicing and licensed member of the Bar?

The GOP took a tremendous hit with Nixon and his lies. My family had gone through a series of very difficult earthquakes on the San Andreas and adding Nixon's evil actions almost did us in. It may the lowest times of my life. It was so bad that I did not even answer my telephone.

When Ford made the pardon, it was as if the shaking had stopped. Right or wrong, it ended the hysteria. What Bush has done to America is so far worse then anything Nixon did that I cannot believe he can't be prosecuted for treason. He successfully has salted the Supreme Court knowing damn well he would be found guilty of something. He has run the country using his own House and Senate, carefully elected by his Social Conservatives; something I warned about in 2000.

We could be facing this again in 2008. I do not want Huckabee in the White House and the women and gays suddenly living in fear of Amendments to the Constitution. Huckabee will be given the chance to change the Supreme Court with just one more Justice sitting on the court.

Keep writing Hal, we are listening and reading.

Sandy

Thanks Sandy.

I am still interested in whether a president can pardon himself, and whether he can pardon in advance someone for a crime they haven't been charged with.

As Adam Russell (above) reminded me, President Ford's broad pardon of Nixon was never challenged in court. I assume this would have had to have been decided by the Supreme Court as it involves an interpretation of language in the Constitution.

In my non-lawyer common sense reading of Article II, Section 2 there is no presidential power to stop a trial, which would be a grant of immunity from prosecution. Nor do I see a way to read this clause as allowing a president to stop a jury finding of guilty. He can grant a reprieve or pardon, but not negate a finding of guilty.

History will judge Scooter Libby as being guilty, for example, regardless of President Bush's pardon.

I am a pretty cynical person but also recognize this is often a defense mechanism, and that it is healthy to temper cynicism with a kind of guarded optimism. Instead of expecting the worst and hoping for the best, perhaps it is better for our sanity to hope for the best and prepare for the worst like being ready to move to Canada if Huckabee is the next president.

From where I sit (an hour train ride from Boston where Dunham proved himself to me) I believe we have a lot to hope for with Dunham.

I agree with this Washington Post blogger:

Tapegate Probe Will Outlast Bush Presidency

You can't make this stuff up. The federal prosecutor chosen to lead the criminal investigation into the Central Intelligence Agency's destruction of interrogation videotapes is the same guy who helped bust up the Boston mob.

With his choice of veteran prosecutor John Durham to lead the investigation into Tapegate, Attorney General Michael Mukasey has shown that he takes this matter seriously. And by naming Durham, a bulldog who is more professional than partisan, Mukasey also ensures that the investigation will be ugly and long-lasting.

Read column here.

Mukasey swore an oath...

sure Kent, he "works for Bush" but consider that he may take his oath to uphold the Constitution seriously, unlike his predecessor, Alberto the Groveling Toady.

You may be right that this is a sideshow distraction, and time will tell. As I wrote above, a subtle distinction perhaps, instead of expecting the worst and hoping for the best, I'm hoping for the best and prepared for the worst.

Perhaps Mr. Durham can also investigate his boss (Craig Morford) while he looks into the CIA tapes, now that Mukasey has
DUMPED the ambitious-but-compromised Mr. Morford!

Dumped Morford?

I see that as a headline on your link "Eliot" but can't find it reported anywhere.

Meanwhile, Rep. John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, now a force to be reckoned with as the Democrats control Congress, weighs in with his opinion today. He makes a case for having a special counsel investigate this, and I agree that this would be far preferable.
Read Conyer's Opinion piece here.

However, considering that this is the Bush White House, I have to be glad that at least Attorney General Mukasey has appointed a tough federal prosecutor with a record of integrity.

I am also please that despite the torent of MSM coverage of the primaries, this story isn't disappearing. I do expect that once Durham gets down to the nitty-gritty work of investigation that news will be sporadic.

Thats quite a bit to digest Eliot (dumped),I had the opinion that JT was railroaded but not to this extent.Where does Dunham and for that matter our new AG fit in all this?Am I correct in assuming this rat hole is emanating from past and present occupiers of the White House and legislature, or is this an Ohio thing exclusively?

Sorry for the reality check, folks, but given the fact that Bush will be out of office anyway in less than a year, this whole topic is utter silliness.

Hey, I get the fact that a great many left-wing elitists consider it their birthright to rule this country from their ivory towers, and that it galls them to no end that they lost not once, but twice to the likes of G.W. I also get the fact that, after every Super Bowl, there are always fans who want to spend the next 20 years talking about their losing team got screwed by the refs. But most of us get over it.

Let me add that I'm no arch-conservative, and have issues of my own with the current White House.

But still ... you're kidding yourself if you believe that anybody in Washington is going to take impeachment proceedings seriously at this point. There's no political will for it, and considering how much time the current Congress has already wasted with unpopular quests such as the amnesty bills, and that their approval rating is worse than Bush's, I rather doubt that they'll have the heart to tilt at this particular windmill.

I mean, look, if you want to entertain your impeachment fantasy for another year, don't let me spoil it for you. Talk about it all you want. (You can also discuss your dreams of marrying Angelina Jolie, and that's fine with me, too.)

But it ain't gonna happen, and at some point, probably around this time in 2009, you're going to have to let go of your seven-year (and counting) impossible dream and find a new bogeyman to blame for everything about this nation -- and the world -- that you don't like.

Face it: The last two presidential elections are over, your side lost, nobody's going to reverse it, and you can't lay a glove on the guy who won. Such is life, and any nation that survived the Carter presidency will survive the Bush presidency too.

Just remember, the trouble with ghost chasing is that those wispy little critters are so darned hard to catch.