ATF Project Gunrunner

According to watergate.info, the House Judiciary Committee passed the Third Article of Impeachment on July 30, 1974, and Nixon announced his resignation on August 8, 1974. Nixon's resignation letter is dated August 9. The Pardon Proclamation was dated September 8, 1974.

That certainly does raise the issue of a pardon prior to conviction. I stand corrected.
 
Follow that line for a moment - imagine if the President could issue pardons to anyone he wants to when ever he wants to, whether a conviction has been reached or not. Presidential pardons would become the things of gangsters dreams, apply for one now for anything you may do in the future. Will we have scholarships for Presidential Pardons? Can you hold one indefinitely for future use, the ultimate Monopoly Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free card? Are the largest campaign donors rewarded with such a card, especially if one is the CEO of a "troubled asset"?
If it has been abused before, it has been/is being/will be seriously abused by the current monarch-in-chief.
 
armoredman, the POTUS has absolute pardon authority. For an example of how a big campaign donor influenced the President to issue a pardon, google Marc Rich pardon or Denise Rich.

The only check on a President's pardon authority is Congress's power to impeach, his own desire to be reelected, and/or his desire to keep his presidential legacy and reputation untarnished. Aside from that, it's anything goes, albeit outright sales of pardons probably falls under federal anti-bribery and anti-racketeering statutes.
 
Last edited:
pcb, it's better than that. In sworn testimony before a congressional committee, Holder claimed to know next to nothing of it, yet multiple independent investigations revealed his fingerprints pretty much all over it. You can be quite well assured that this particular AG knows the pardon racket inside and out.
 
Hmm. Folks have mentioned RICO, and dismissed it because it would require the DOJ to prosecute itself, essentially. RICO, however, has civil provisions.

RICO creates a civil cause of action for "any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962." 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c).

What are the elements of a RICO cause of action? To state a RICO claim under § 193 there must be:
1. A person who engages in,
2. A pattern of racketeering activity,
3. Connected to the acquisition, establishment, conduct or control of an enterprise.
Click to expand...

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/2212888

Perhaps the Terry or Zapata families, or some of the others hurt by this criminal conspiracy would have a cause of action. Just spitballin' here! :)
 
armoredman, the POTUS has absolute pardon authority. For an example of how a big campaign donor influenced the President to issue a pardon, google Marc Rich pardon or Denise Rich.
Click to expand...

I understand that, but that is usually AFTER the fact - I am thinking if his pardon authority truly is limitless, then he might as well auction off pardons for any future crimes as a campaign fundraiser, that is, if it hasn't been done already. Which, as my cynicism grows, probably has been done a thousand times.
 
Who is talking about FUTURE cimes? The discussiin vis a vis pardons has been about pardons for crimes already committed but as yet uncharged. Big difference. And as was pointed out above, there is already precedent for that (Ford's pardon of Nixon in 75).

Further, the sale of pardons would constitute the violation of numerous federal laws and expose any President to impeachment trial and the possibility of subsequent criminal charges.
 
Further, the sale of pardons would constitute the violation of numerous federal laws and expose any President to impeachment trial and the possibility of subsequent criminal charges.
Click to expand...

Similar to lying before a grand jury or in a deposition?
 
csmsss said:
The issuance of immunity from prosecution is an action of prosecutorial, NOT legislative discretion, and I believe that SCOTUS will slap down any attempt by a congressional committee to grant immunity from prosecution to a witness if DOJ opposes it.
Click to expand...
It is probably appropriate to refine the terms being used. Technically, 18 USC § 6002 does not provide for "immunity from prosecution" (as demonstrated by Oliver North's prosecution after his immunized testimony), but it does provide for immunity from the use of such testimony in a prosecution (North clearly won on that point). That concept of immunity has been fully upheld by SCOTUS (US v Hubbell).
In Kastigar v. United States, 406 U. S. 441 (1972), we upheld the constitutionality of §6002 because the scope of the “use and derivative-use” immunity that it provides is coextensive with the scope of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination.
Click to expand...
Hanah Volokh's law review article on Congressional immunity actually supports the premise that the grant of immunity does not conflict with prosecutorial authority. She makes the point that, even without a grant of immunity, the Fifth Amendment would bar the use of compelled testimony in a subsequent court case and the prosecution would be in no worse a position than if the testimony had never been given.
 
Look for Obama to pull a "left hand" pre-emptive pardon. What I mean is a pardon to all involved based on the excuse of "possible extradition and prosecution by the Mexican government over a policy thought to be in the best interests of the US government". That won't absolve them of any court rulings in Mexico, but it will virtually render moot any extradition and totally exonerates them in the US. Then it is up to Mexico to determine if they wish to escalate this in the World Court as an act of war....which they won't. The US however can be directed to pay financial reparations.
However, a President cannot pardon himself.
 
Last edited:
Just a few thoughts, before supper.

You can only get a pardon for a conviction.

Law is a bluff. If I tell you something and you obey, I won the bluff. I gave a pardon to someone, you accepted it. It is over. Think about Ford.

As stated Congress can issue immunity for testimony only to them. Your fair game to everyone else, if they want you.

Federal Judges have more power than the President to inforce their rulings. Newt wants to arrest them: that will never happen.

As far a RICO, I have no problem understanding how all this started and will give it later.

Good night!
 
The President...shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Click to expand...
Don't see anything in there limiting the President's power to pardon only to those who have been convicted.
 
From Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon:

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.
Click to expand...

The only limits on Presidential pardons seem to be: they cannot pardon impeachment; they must involve offenses against the United States, and; they cannot be for future acts.

There is also nothing in the Constitution that would prevent a President granting a pardon to himself, although it would certainly seem tacky.
 
Last edited:
^ It would seem though that President Obama could issue one of these for Patrick Cunningham, Lanny Breuer, William Newell, Dennis Burke, Eric Holder and others.

I still would like to see it made necesary for propriety's sake.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top