Bush will blanket pardon his entire administration

for any crimes committed in office, and I can think of no way to prevent it.

(Even if he were impeached, he could do the same thing before the senate trial vote if it looked like he might be convicted)

So the only question left hanging is whether Bush can pardon himself.

Hint: No, he cannot pardon himself.

I am not saying he does (or does not) have the power to pardon himself, but if not, that is based on a certain interpretation of precedent or statute, not on anything in the constitution.

The constitution is a very short document, you know. Here's the entirety of the pardon clause:

"...and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

The question of whether president can pardon himself is not resolved. It is sufficiently open to debate that legal scholars argue about it to this day.

For instance, you can consult "Pardon Me? the Constitutional Case against Presidential Self-Pardons" Journal article by Brian C. Kalt; Yale Law Journal, Vol. 106, 1996. http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=5001641459 and recognize that the matter has never been adjudicated, and has barely even been debated.

It is wide open. And with the Supreme Court we have, I would guess the self-pardon power is no worse than 50-50 as long as the person doing it is a Republican.

The only thing that is clear in the constitution is that the president cannot over-ride and impeachment of anyone, but an impeachment isn't a criminal conviction, so that's kind of beside the point of the pardon power.

I was thinking of pardons in the case of impeachment only.

But to pardon himself, he would have to stipulate what offenses he was pardoning himself for.

You would think so, in a sane world, but I think Ford's pardon of Nixon was wide open.

To me, it makes no sense to pardon anyone unless they have been convicted, but the founding fathers debated that point and decided against it. Congress has tried to resuscitate the idea of limiting pardons to people who are convicted of something, but it never went anywhere.

Fun fact: The reason for the pardon clause (as anticipated by the founders) was to give the president the authority to issue broad amnesties to insurgents, in cases of localized insurrections against the united states. (The expected that the US would be very hard to keep together.) So that's why they didn't limit it to people already convicted.

That purpose is a far cry from the way it's ended up, as a get out of jail free card for underlings and contributors.

(PS, I edited my rude reply in light of your civilized response)

It doesn't mater if he is convicted; all that maters is that he be impeached.

Once impeached, he can be prosecuted for crimes AFTER he leaves office, and no president will be able to pardon him.

I think the impeachment limitation is just a belt-and-suspenders statement of the obvious, that impeachment is not a criminal trial, and is exempt. So if the VP is impeached, the President cannot overturn the impeachment and return the VP to office.

But I doubt being impeached doesn't make you un-pardonable for subsequent criminal convictions. (I could be wrong... I don't know if that has ever made it to court. I could see an argument that a pardon cannot apply to a subsequent conviction for a charge contained in an impeachment, but I doubt it)

It's a tough deal... I think the only way to prevent the president from pardon-madness is to remove him from office by surprise, and only the cabinet can do that.

It's great that the cabinet has the power to just say, "you're nuts" anytime they want, and remove the president from power with a show of hands.

(Congress would have to formally validate that action afterward, but the president could be kept out of power the whole time until congress acted, so no chance for pardons)

can they make a "signing statement" which says they will not honor the pardon?...:shrug:

He won't pardon the Democrats that served him.

Which is fine with me, they get what they deserve.

and Mineta I am convinced knows more about 9/11 than he's said.

in the waning days of his Presidency and Cheney will then pardon him.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2279615

Part of me wanted Clinton to resign over Monica exactly one day shy of halfway through his second term to stick the pugs with ten full years (minus one day) of Al Gore.

I can see their attack ads now "But he's so BORING!"

We never hear enough, it seems, about Clinton's pardoning Marc Rich from criminal prosecution (all the civil liability for Mr. Rich remained intact, a point that is rarely made), and all the guesswork about what may or may not have transpired between the Rich family and the Clinton family. But we hear damned little about a lame duck Poppy issuing pardons in the dead of night on Christmas Eve 1992 just before Cap Weinberger went to trial, a trial that many people thought would put the lie to Poppy's famous declaration that he was "out of the loop" on Iran/contra.

Much worse than nixon or mark rich or anything...

He can do anything he wants to as long as congress abdicates its power.