It's pretty well known that W has been far stingier with pardons than other modern presidents. It's maybe not much of a prediction to say that as he leaves office he will issue a bag full of pardons for his own staff, especially those that might be likely to incriminate him if they were forced to stand trial. Rather like the way his father pardoned Casper Weinberger who might have pulled him into the loop of Iran/Contra. (Which was kind of a pre-pardon since he had not been convicted of anything yet. I didn't know you could do that.) My only real novel prediction on this is that when that time comes various Bush shills will point to the total number of people pardoned over 8 years and claim that the number of Bush pardons is in line with what other presidents have done so there is no real news story to be had. The press will then pretty much drop the issue and ignore the fact that he has one last time managed to put his administration above the law.
...kind of a pre-pardon since he had not been convicted of anything yet. I didn't know you could do that.
You're excused from not knowing about an obscure precedent...
Sounds like an interesting law school question -- in the same vein as double jeopardy.
It's not so much a case of my not knowing that it was ever done so much as it not really making sense to me. It just seems odd that someone can be pardoned for something they have not been found to have done. I think Ford's pardon of Nixon may well have been the right thing to do for the country (tho the Weinberger pardon was ass covering pure and simple which makes it suck) but it still seems screwed up as a legal principle.<< Home