Much I want it to happen, impeachment still appears to be off the table. Why? Because the Democrats (1) are afraid of being called ugly partisans by Fox News, (2) are listening to the same consultants that told them not to oppose the war in Iraq in 2002, 2004 and 2006 and that being “partisan” was poisonous to their electoral chances, (3) enjoy having their phones and internet connections tapped by the NSA, FBI or DEA, or (4) are being blackmailed by Karl Rove. Take your pick.
I suspect not even the recent revelations by former Deputy Attorney General Comey in his testimony before Congress regarding the attempted subversion of the John Ashcroft Department of Justice by Alberto Gonzales and Andrew Card will move the Democratic leadership to support impeachment. Nor the failure to respond to Congressional subpoenas. Nor the loss of billions of reconstruction funds in Iraq. Nor the tales of graft and corruption involving Jack Abramoff and his ties to the White House. Nor the “voter fraud” scam concocted and orchestrated by Karl Rove out of the White House. Nor the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson. Not Katrina. Nor the privatized concentration camps in Texas. Not torture. Not the lies about why we went to war. Nor [fill in the blank with any other outrage I’ve left off my list].
Indeed, I suspect, as clammyc noted yesterday, apparently nothing will move them to consider the only option that is realistically left to them: Impeachment.
However, Bush will not be President forever. Nor can he possibly pardon or silence everyone who has knowledge of his crimes. So this is the question I want each candidate for president to answer:
If elected President, will you appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate the alleged criminal activities of the Bush administration with the power to issue indictments against any administration officials determined by a Grand Jury to have violated the law, including, without limitation, President Bush and Vice President Cheney?
Now Bush might decide to pardon himself, per the power granted in Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 1, Clause 3 of the Constitution:
[H]e shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
At first glance you might think from the language of Article II that Bush can pardon himself, but no one really knows. The matter has never been litigated, and it is unclear what the Supreme Court would decide if the case was ever brought before it. However, no President has ever pardoned himself in our history, not even Richard Nixon, who knew he was guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors (and a few federal and state felonies as well).
Would Bush pardon himself and effectively confess his own guilt? Perhaps. He has no reason to resign, so there is no deal yet in place with any future President to issue his pardon for him. And if a Democrat is elected President, he couldn’t be certain that a pardon would be forthcoming. Hell, if McCain was elected, I wouldn’t put it past him as an act of long delayed vengeance to deny Bush a pardon. So it’s possible Bush would, as his last official act, pre-emptively pardon himself.
Yet even in that case, his pardon would be limited to “Offenses against the United States.” Even if the Supreme Court allowed Bush to pardon himself (which theoretically might grant future Presidents the power to pardon themselves anytime the threat of impeachment arose in order to continue their lawless conduct unrestrained by Congress) there is nothing that would prevent state prosecutors from filing their own indictments for actions by Bush, Rove, Cheney, et al. which violated state laws governing illegal wiretaps, unlawful searches and seizures, conspiracies to commit election fraud, bribery of public officials, etc. Indeed who knows what a proper, independent investigation of the Bush administration would turn up, at this point? I hesitate to speculate, since even my wildest fantasies might fall short of the mark.
Bush might well assume that no President would dare investigate his crimes because of the political risk involved. Which may be why he won’t take the chance of “tarnishing his legacy” by being the first President in history to pardon himself in advance for his crimes. Which is precisely why we need to raise this question in the current Presidential debates, and address it to both Republican and Democratic candidates.
At the very least, they should be asked if they would support a Truth and Reconciliation Commission so that we could discover and expose all of the lawless, unconstitutional and criminal actions the government perpetrated against the “We people of these United States” during the Bush era. That, at a minimum, is desperately needed to restore confidence in our democracy, and to take whatever actions are necessary to prevent any future President from ever abusing his office to such an extent again.
Because if we don’t address the abuses of power, the illegality and lies of the past 6 plus years (and counting) committed by the Bush administration, I believe we will witness the complete collapse of our Republic and the rise in its place of an even more authoritarian and draconian regime (whether from the left or the right, it matters little) when the next major economic crisis or terrorist attack occurs. A precedent has been established by Bush’s lawlessness. We can ignore that marker, and tacitly accept that our democracy has forever been changed, or we can actively work to make “George W. Bush” a name that will live in infamy, even as the excesses, the crimes he perpetrated against our nation and the raw power grab he made on behalf of the Executive Branch are forever rejected.
So potential Presidents? Who wants to go first? I for one can’t wait to hear your answers.