Attempted citizen's arrest of Karl Rove

[Agrippa]

View the footage here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ili0jgn_JD4

Everyone knows that Karl Rove is one of the sketchiest figures in U.S. politics (ever?). His 'arguments' during the 'debate' are a farce that aren't even worth addressing. That protesters showed up is no surprise... but this particular attempt was pathetically weak. If they really wanted to put on a show, the protesters should have at the very least gone up as a pair, been a bit more forceful, and put up some resistance. Had they actually managed to at least get one of the cuffs on him it would have been humiliating enough for Rove to carry on with the debate with a cuff on his hand... (of course, the protestors wouldn't have brought the key with them to take it off on the spot).

I want to see Rove held accountable, but how and by whom... What do you think? What should happen to Rove? Is a theatrical citizen's arrest enough? A tarring and feathering in front of the Washington Monument? Full fledged trial in front of Supreme Court judges? Will Bush pardon and immunize himself, Rove, and others in his administration? Will Obama launch investigations into what has gone down in the last 8 years?

 

[EagerBeaver]

Will Bush pardon and immunize himself, Rove, and others in his administration?

Bush cannot pardon himself for any impeachable offense. Art. II section 2 of the US constitution states the president:

"shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."

It's possible Bush can pardon Rove and others. However, I think it's very unlikely that he will. Recall that when President Ford pardoned Richard Nixon in 1974 it was enormously controversial and played a large role in Ford losing the 1976 presidential election to Carter. At the time Ford justified his action by saying that a "healing process" was needed after Watergate. It would be hard for Bush to make any such justifications in pardoning anyone especially if Obama is elected.

Furthermore, I recall Bush making public statements in connection with the Plame affair that he would not stand in the way of any prosecutions if anyone in his administration was charged with a crime. And that is what happened with Libby (although Bush commuted the resulting sentence, Libby still ended up with a criminal conviction). It would be very hypocritical to use the pardon power in light of such statements.

And if Rove is charged, Bush won't be in office when he gets convicted and thus will not have the power to commute any resulting sentence. That will be up to Obama or McCain, whomever wins. I seriously doubt Obama would commute, unless Rove is consulting his campaign and has already worked out a deal to that effect in exchange for consulting services rendered. Which is possible. It would not surprise me if Rove lent assistance to both campaigns and worked out deals with both Obama and McCain.

 

[korbel]

View the footage here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ili0jgn_JD4

Everyone knows that Karl Rove is one of the sketchiest figures in U.S. politics (ever?). His 'arguments' during the 'debate' are a farce that aren't even worth addressing. That protesters showed up is no surprise... but this particular attempt was pathetically weak. If they really wanted to put on a show, the protesters should have at the very least gone up as a pair, been a bit more forceful, and put up some resistance. Had they actually managed to at least get one of the cuffs on him it would have been humiliating enough for Rove to carry on with the debate with a cuff on his hand... (of course, the protestors wouldn't have brought the key with them to take it off on the spot).

I want to see Rove held accountable, but how and by whom... What do you think? What should happen to Rove? Is a theatrical citizen's arrest enough? A tarring and feathering in front of the Washington Monument? Full fledged trial in front of Supreme Court judges? Will Bush pardon and immunize himself, Rove, and others in his administration? Will Obama launch investigations into what has gone down in the last 8 years?

Well Agrippa,

I've known about Rove since the early 80s. If you only dislike Rush Limbaugh you will detest Rove. He is ultimate icon of ultra-Conservatives, the "King-maker" of Republican politics, and the director of current Conservative policies...probably the real President behind the slow talking Bush muppet and even the shoot-on-sight Cheney pit bull. Seriously, Rove is certainly the key driving force of Republican policy in the last 8 years. If anyone is guilty of perpetuating a hoax of WMD lies in order to make war in Iraq it's him. Like Rush Limbaugh he couldn't give a crap about the truth if it got in the way of Conservative dogma or policy goals. The only difference between Limbaugh and Rove is Rove has the real influence to make his views fact. If Bush should have been impeached for lying about justifying the war, then Rove should be prosecuted for fomenting the policy. Too bad she didn't splatter him in bright red for all the blood he has caused to spill.

Animal,

Korbel

 

[Agrippa]

Thank you for your anwser EB.

You beat me to it, you edited your post to add that Libby's sentence was commuted... To me this defeats the purpose of the legal system. So it is now on record that he commited something illegal. So? 'Scooter' can't be elected to office or practice law or... So? That's what he did to Plame, she can no longer work as a CIA agent... I think he deserves to get spend some time behind bars... $250,000 and some communiy sevice just doesn't sound like justice to me, considering his actions.

The fact that Bush pardoned him says a lot about Bush's regards for "not [standing] in the way of any prosecutions if anyone in his administration was charged with a crime." I expect a flurry of pardons, backroom deals, email deleting, document shredding, etc at the end of his term.

 

[Agrippa]

Absolutely Korbel!

Again, theatrical is good, red paint would have been extremely effective (though I think Kissinger deserves that one), but is it enough?

Animal indeed, he even looks like a pig...

 

[JustBob]

Bush has already passed a bill to retroactively pardon himself and members of his administration of any potential war crimes. So who knows.

 

[EagerBeaver]

So it is now on record that he commited something illegal. So? 'Scooter' can't be elected to office or practice law or... So? That's what he did to Plame, she can no longer work as a CIA agent... I think he deserves to get spend some time behind bars... $250,000 and some communiy sevice just doesn't sound like justice to me, considering his actions.

I am completely in agreement with you on this. To me the Plame affair was a very serious matter and Libby should have been severely punished for many reasons, not the least of which is he potentially exposed the identities CIA agents in the field and compromised the security of our nation. He had no business speaking to Novak nor did anyone else in the Bush administration have any business speaking to the press about Plame.

The use of the presidential pardon is and always has been EXTREMELY controversial. As controversial as the commutation of Libby's sentence was, it was nothing in comparison to Ford's pardon of Nixon which I believe ultimately cost him being re-elected in 1976. It can be argued that Ford should have allowed Nixon to be prosecuted, allowed him to be convicted, and then pardoned him. Chances are, however, that all of that would have played out long after 1976, and Ford may or may not have been President at the time. A lot of other people have argued that Ford's reasons for pardoning Nixon were legitimate and sincere.

There have also been highly controversial pardons granted by President Clinton, like Marc Rich. This was basically considered using the pardon power to grant or reward political favors.

The bottom line is the pardon power always has been and always will be very controversial.

 

[EagerBeaver]

JB,

Not sure what you are talking about because Presidents do not pass bills, the congress does and the President has the right to sign or veto them.

Here is a list of everyone President Bush has pardoned/commuted the sentence of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_by_George_W._Bush

 

[JustBob]

"Detainee Legislation Provides Retroactive Immunity for Bush Adminstration War Crimes"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBUkxvfL_eE

 

[korbel]

"Detainee Legislation Provides Retroactive Immunity for Bush Adminstration War Crimes"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBUkxvfL_eE

Hey JB,

But was it passed??? This video shows nothing about the final outcome.

So,

Korbel

 

[JustBob]

This bill is known as the "Military Commissions Act of 2006", it did pass in 2006. I think this is it:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN03930:@@@L&summ2=m

 

[EagerBeaver]

This bill is known as the "Military Commissions Act of 2006", it did pass in 2006.

It's a Senate bill that was signed by President Bush authorizing trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes. It has nothing to do with Bush's pardon power. And in fact, the United States Supreme Court has struck down in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld, as unconstitutional, the habeas corpus provisions of this act on June 12, 2008.

Bush's pardon power derives from the constitution itself, not from any congressional legislation. Your analysis is very confused to say the least. See Article 2 section 2 of the US constitution, dude.

 

[JustBob]

It's a Senate bill that was signed by President Bush authorizing trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes. It has nothing to do with Bush's pardon power. And in fact, the United States Supreme Court has struck down in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld, as unconstitutional, the habeas corpus provisions of this act on June 12, 2008.

Bush's pardon power derives from the constitution itself, not from any congressional legislation. Your analysis is very confused to say the least. See Article 2 section 2 of the US constitution, dude.

One I'm not confused and two I'm not analyzing anything. The bottomline is that buried deep within that bill is legislation which provides retroactive immunity for Bush administration potential war crimes. Now whether or not this passes the constitutional test is not for me to say, I ain't American.

 

[EagerBeaver]

The bottomline is that buried deep within that bill is legislation which provides retroactive immunity for Bush administration potential war crimes. Now whether or not this passes the constitutional test is not for me to say, I ain't American.

I have not read the bill in its entirety but if what you said is true, it's an illegal ex post facto law, prohibited by Article 1 section 9 of the US Constitution, and therefore unconstitutional.

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

I am not buying that the US Senate would have enacted any such legislation and pending a specific reference to text of the bill that supports what you are saying, I find it extremely hard to believe.

Amendments to the United States Constitution must be ratified by 3/4 of the states. There has been no such ratification of this bill by any of the states. Thus there is no amendment to Article II, Section 2. That IS the analysis and it is the only analysis otherwise you would have taken a harsh "F" in any first year course on US constitutional law. I fared a bit better than that.

 

[JustBob]

I have not read the bill in its entirety but if what you said is true, it's an illegal ex post facto law, prohibited by Article 1 section 9 of the US Constitution, and therefore unconstitutional.

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

I am not buying that the US Senate would have enacted any such legislation and pending a specific reference to text of the bill that supports what you are saying, I find it extremely hard to believe.

This bill was passed by both houses and signed into law just before the 2006 November election. This was all masterminded by Alberto Gonzalez.

Amendments to the United States Constitution must be ratified by 3/4 of the states. There has been no such ratification of this bill by any of the states. Thus there is no amendment to Article II, Section 2. That IS the analysis and it is the only analysis otherwise you would have taken a harsh "F" in any first year course on US constitutional law. I fared a bit better than that.

Well I might fail a 1st year course on constitutional law, but the above assumes that no bill ever passes that is "unconstitutional". I find this rather hard to believe for numerous reasons, one being that the "constitutional test" often comes afterwards when it's application is challenged.

 

[EagerBeaver]

Well I might fail a 1st year course on constitutional law, but the above assumes that no bill ever passes that is "unconstitutional". I find this rather hard to believe for numerous reasons, one being that the "constitutional test" often comes afterwards when it's application is hallenged.

This is true in most cases, but in the case you mentioned the law is void ab initio because Article II section 2 of the US constitution may not be amended by any legislation absent ratification by 3/4 of the states. If what you say about the bill is correct, it would amend Article II section 2 which is the exclusive legal authority for the presidential pardon power. But there has been no amendment because the states must ratify by 3/4 vote of the 50. Has not happened. So if this text exists as you claim and Bush attempts to use it, it will likely be viewed as completely illegal.

 

[Kepler]

it would amend Article II section 2 which is the exclusive legal authority for the presidential pardon power.

Calder v. Bull expressly stated that a law that "mollifies" a criminal act was merely retrospective and not an ex post facto law. This is in keeping with the spirit of the provision, which is to protect defendants.

 

[EagerBeaver]

Kepler,

The Calder v. Bull case is a 1798 US Supreme Court case coming out of Connecticut and involving the state legislature ordering a new trial in a civil case involving a will so what you cited is DICTA. The ex post facto provision of the Constitution applies solely to criminal cases, not civil cases. I would think that the text of any such bill, which has yet to be produced, would be invoked by Bush to pardon conduct which might otherwise be deemed criminal, even though the act itself is not a law making conduct criminal. This could be tested as ex post facto and the Calder case distinguished, if invoked by Bush, because the operative facts here are far different than those in Calder, and the language cited from Calder is mere dicta.

Regardless of whether it is or is not an ex post facto law, it is an attempt to amend a constitutional provision that must be ratified by the states by a vote of 3/4 of the 50 states. See my last post.

 

[Kepler]

Granted, it's dicta from an old case. It's the best I could do with 30 seconds of research. But unless you can cite opposing precedent, I will take SCOTUS dicta over any member's opinion (including my own).

it is an attempt to amend a constitutional provision

I respectfully disagree with your interpretation. And considering that this bill became law, it means that many staff lawyers in the executive and legislative branches (plus of course most senators and congressmen themselves) disagree with your interpretation.

I recognize it's not a slam dunk, but I put my money on this bill being constitutional. Let's talk again about this in 20 years when it becomes settled case law, either way.

 

[EagerBeaver]

Kepler,

I don't understand your last post at all, and you apparently have not read or do not understand this issue I have raised. The only thing I ever said was unconstitutional is the as yet unquoted and unidentified portion of the Act which according to JB says this:

Bush has already passed a bill to retroactively pardon himself and members of his administration of any potential war crimes. So who knows.

Article II section 2 of the US Constitution says the President:

"shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."

So if Bush can pardon himself for an impeachable offense, what about that do you not understand to be an amendment to Article II section 2?

Please advise when any of the 50 states ratified this bill?

You guys have not even cited the text which allegedly says what JB says it says, and which allegedly allows Bush to pardon an impeachable offense. I have never even heard of this until JB posted about it and it seems like complete legal nonsense. I stand by everything i said above and someone tell me how the above analysis is incorrect. If this unidentified text actually does exist.

Please explain why impeaching Bush has been discussed as recently as a year ago if he can pardon impeachable offenses? So you guys are telling me Article II section 2 is history. I say "NOT"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If the United States President could no longer be impeached for an impeachable offense it would be major headline news everywhere. No such news has ever been made.