Thread: Presidential Pardon Loophole

Hi all

The US Constitution gives the president of United States the power to grant anyone pardon except those who has been impeached.

It says necessary to maintain the balance of power inherent in the separation of power framework.

However, we got Richard Nixon & "Scooter" Libby who had resigned before they were subjected to official impeachment. Thus, later, two of them are both pardoned.

Is that a serious loophole?

-Liszt

Originally Posted by ArezList

Hi all

The US Constitution gives the president of United States the power to grant anyone pardon except those who has been impeached.

It says necessary to maintain the balance of power inherent in the separation of power framework.

However, we got Richard Nixon & "Scooter" Libby who had resigned before they were subjected to official impeachment. Thus, later, two of them are both pardoned.

Is that a serious loophole?

-Liszt

They were not impeached.

Your point? Besides, Libby was not pardoned. His sentence was commuted. Big difference.

Meanwhile, Richard Armitage, who was the leak, had no public investigation, charges, etc.

I hate the witch hunts that libtards do.

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I hate the witch hunts that libtards do.

That implies you quite like ones conducted by people called McCarthy.

Yeah...They are not impeached because they resigned, how can you impeach someone resigned?

That's what I'm saying..

It's not a loophole. Impeachment is not a criminal process. The president can still pardon anyone for a criminal offense, he just can't overturn their impeachment conviction.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I hate the witch hunts that libtards do.

That implies you quite like ones conducted by people called McCarthy.

depends on how you look at the truth behind the allegations.

McCarthy did not do any "witch-hunting." He was only after government employees who were communist infiltrators. It was the House committee, the HUAC (McCarthy was a senator, not in the house of representatives) that did the witch hunts, and generally run by democrats.

Don't believe me? Study it. Also look up and read what you can find on Project Venona, which was declassified in the 90's, and proves McCarthy to be right.

At the federal level, Article Two of the United States Constitution (Section 4) states that "The President, Vice President, and all other civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeaching, while the United States Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments. The removal of impeached officials is automatic upon conviction in the Senate.

Simply what this means, members of the Federal Government for a host of reasons cannot be held and should not be held accountable under the Civil/Criminal Judicial System, while in office.

Instead the US House (lower chamber) for reason may call for or not, the removal from office of any Official. The impeachment (charge) is simply an accusation that an offense "has" been committed. The Senate (upper chamber) then is obligated to act as any jury would, hear the evidence and judge quilt of innocents of the charges. If found innocent, as with any trial, the person is found innocent of that charge for what ever reason, not only does that person continue in office, but is also absolved of the charges. If found guilty, the only punishment the Senate can impose, is the removal from office of that person. At any point in any procedure, if the person resigns, the Congress, is powerless to continue proceedings.

[Quote]While actually impeaching a federal public official is a rare event, demands for impeachment, especially of presidents, are extremely common,[13][14] going back to the administration of George Washington in the mid-1790s. In fact, most of the 63 resolutions mentioned above were in response to presidential actions. [/Quotes]

To the assertions being made (OP); What ever the charges were or whatever the outcome may have been, that person remains subject to civil or criminal actions, once leaving office. That is an Impeached and Convicted person, is then subject to the Judicial System as can be the any person resigning or leaving office (quit or fired). In reverse, even an impeached/convicted person could run for or be nominated for an office, which often happens at the State level, where the processes are similar.

All above quotes and some of my comments are based on my understand of this link;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeach..._United_States

Some folks today in the US are bringing the "Progressive Movements" (1890-1940) into a different light while the current "Socialistic Tendencies" of current policies are being imposed. What's not well known are the Socialist/Communist Parties were making some major inroads into the US Culture and politics, during the 1920's to the 1940's, that lead into the McCarthy era or the influences of the 'Cold War'.

While I'm not interested in arguing this issue, I'll offer you the following articles, showing the link and hopefully validating 'Cobra's' comments.

The Venona Project

Few people know about the Venona Project. The Cold War was a scary time when the United States was afraid of Soviet spies infiltrating the American government. The frightening idea is that they were right; the Venona Project is proof of that very thing. Recordings of theses spies are known as the Venona Project. This paper will explain what the Venona Project was, the secrecy of it, and name some of the criminals involved along with their crimes. This paper will enlighten its readers of a secret kept by the American government.

http://www.goodreads.com/story/show/...venona-project

For the first half of the 20th century, the organization was the largest and most influential communist party in the country. The Communist Party played a prominent role in the U.S. labor movement from the 1920s through the 1940s while becoming known for opposing racism and fighting for integration in workplaces and communities throughout the Jim Crow period of racial segregation. Simultaneously under attack from the more established and influential anti-communist forces, the CPUSA survived the Palmer Raids, the first Red Scare, and many persistent attempts at suppression of communist activity by the government of the United States until the end of the anti-communist hysteria of the McCarthy era amid the Cold War climate of the 1950s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_USA

That is an Impeached and Convicted person, is then subject to the Judicial System as can be the any person resigning or leaving office (quit or fired). In reverse, even an impeached/convicted person could run for or be nominated for an office, which often happens at the State level, where the processes are similar.

But here is what I got from the your link. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeach..._United_States)

Upon conviction, the official is automatically removed from office and may also be barred from holding future office. The removed official is also liable to criminal prosecution. The President may not grant a pardon in the impeachment case, but may in any resulting criminal case.

Arez; Technically Congress can seat or not seat, pretty much anybody they wish, so any impeached member or member of the Executive Cabinet (P&VP are NOT subject to Congressional approval), may be rejected once impeached, if somehow re-elected or nominated.

Aside from that, all I've tried to demonstrate, is there is no loop hole, since House impeachment (Formal accusation) and Senate Convictions (removal from office only) carry no weight outside the confines of the Government.

A good example of 'Executive Pardons' has been floated by somebody last week, where the President by executive order could give a blanket pardon to all 'Illegal Aliens' in the Country, then by passing Congress, whom he feels (I agree) are neglecting the situation. In return a few pundits, believe this would be 'An Impeachable' action under 'separation of powers'. While I agree Congress has been ignoring the issue for 15, maybe 20 years including enforcement of the 'Reagan Amnesty', I feel any such action would be a direct violation of Congressional Power, would lead to impeachment, probably conviction and removal from office, but none of which should cause legal action, once out of office. It would also nullify the Executive Order.

Since, this is pure speculation and hypothetical nonsense (there will be no executive order), I'll go further in suggesting Obama could run for President again in 2012 or 2016, be properly elected and Congress, whom had removed him from office could do nothing about it...which ever party controls Congress.

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Your point? Besides, Libby was not pardoned. His sentence was commuted. Big difference.

Somehow,..... that just doesn't strike me as a very big difference. It clearly has a different name I guess.

Originally Posted by jackson33

A good example of 'Executive Pardons' has been floated by somebody last week, where the President by executive order could give a blanket pardon to all 'Illegal Aliens' in the Country, then by passing Congress, whom he feels (I agree) are neglecting the situation. In return a few pundits, believe this would be 'An Impeachable' action under 'separation of powers'. While I agree Congress has been ignoring the issue for 15, maybe 20 years including enforcement of the 'Reagan Amnesty', I feel any such action would be a direct violation of Congressional Power, would lead to impeachment, probably conviction and removal from office, but none of which should cause legal action, once out of office. It would also nullify the Executive Order.

Since, this is pure speculation and hypothetical nonsense (there will be no executive order), I'll go further in suggesting Obama could run for President again in 2012 or 2016, be properly elected and Congress, whom had removed him from office could do nothing about it...which ever party controls Congress.

I don't think it would count as a "high crime or misdemeanor". You're right, however, that it would be very difficult for the supreme court to overturn him. At the very least, someone would have to file a lawsuit about it.

I know they managed to overturn Jackson's deportation of some native Americans (which he ignored). I'm not sure what the mechanics were for that, however. Usually they only act when someone brings a case to trial over something.

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I hate the witch hunts that libtards do.

That implies you quite like ones conducted by people called McCarthy.

depends on how you look at the truth behind the allegations.

McCarthy did not do any "witch-hunting." He was only after government employees who were communist infiltrators. It was the House committee, the HUAC (McCarthy was a senator, not in the house of representatives) that did the witch hunts, and generally run by democrats.

Don't believe me? Study it. Also look up and read what you can find on Project Venona, which was declassified in the 90's, and proves McCarthy to be right.

I know I'm massively late on this but do you work for the ministry of truth or what? A disgusting rewriting of history. For giggles you can go to youtube and watch McCarthy accuse people. The man was drunk and a sadist and to try and celebrate him is disturbing!
McCarthy personally charged at least 300 people with being Communist many of whom did not work for the government. Project Venona only talks about spying. (which is nothing new between nations, especially those that are at odds) It in no way vindicates McCarthy. for you... "Critics assert most people and organizations identified by McCarthy were not mentioned in the Venona content and that the sources for his accusations remain largely unknown. ^[48]"

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

I know I'm massively late on this...

Yeah - 4 years might actually be 'too' late.

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

I know I'm massively late on this...

Yeah - 4 years might actually be 'too' late.

He He