so there's that…

never mind. He didn't actually say anything about a pardon. He's sticking to his "I didn't do it, and if I did, it was legal" standard organized crime response.

He is proud of everything he did.

I am waiting for him to build a library!

didn't ford pardon nixon for something like "anything he might have done"?


anyway, a pardon could be used to free a wrongly convicted person. in such a case, a pardon would rather imply innocence rather than guilt.

regardless, pardons aren't something you hand to an individual who then owns it and can use it or not. if you're pardoned, the system treats you as having completed your sentence or as someone who can't be tried for something. the system is not yours to then direct otherwise.

Burdick v. United States (1915):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdick_v._United_States

United States v. Wilson 32 U.S. 150 (1833)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/32/150/

That is the beauty of this concept

Not as good as charging him with war crimes.. but might be the best we'll get.

See: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025932731#post10

The reasoning that they give has nothing to do with Cheney and his gang. At this rate they will not be tried for their crimes. However, by pardoning them, the nation will acknowledge that torture is a crime for which government officials can be tried. In the future that could be used as a deterrent to future attempts to torture or to convict those who do torture in the government's name.

Questions: What would be the wording of such a pardon?

By the powers entrusted to me as the President of the United State, I hereby pardon Mr. Cheney, of the following crimes: establishing, using and promoting torture in the name of the United States of America and lying to the American people. The manifest illegality and unconstitutionaliy of his actions deserves to be acknowledged by the United States so that these crimes against humanity will never again stain the honor of America.

I'd still prefer a trip to The Hague....

I don't think the Bruins have made an official statement on the matter yet.

See: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025932731#post10

nixon never "refused" his pardon because it didn't come up.

seems to me you would only "accept" at some point during criminal proceedings against you, you could use the pardon to dismiss charges or commute a sentence, etc.

"refusing" a pardon is really just being silent about it for the time being. but that doesn't mean you can't pipe up at a later date.

nixon was never tried in large part because any prosecutor knew he had a pardon so why bother, the most one could accomplish would be to force him to use it. cheney could similarly "refuse" to use any pardon but its existence would in practice shield him from prosecution so it wouldn't come up.

the issue wouldn't come up again unless he was actually indicted for some crime covered by the pardon.

he could publicly and loudly "refuse" the pardon every day right up until the day he actually uses it.

on edit: i should clarify, it would carry legal weight, what it wouldn't carry is permanence.

He took the fall for the big DICK before, you know.