Press Releases
Rep. Nadler Moves to Prevent Pre-Emptive White House Pardons
Washington, DC,
November 21, 2008
“This Resolution declares that we will not tolerate a last
minute attempt by President Bush to shelter his cronies – cronies who may well
be guilty of serious criminal offenses – from the full force of the law,” said
Rep. Nadler. “President Bush must not excuse
his own officials from possibly illegal acts committed outside the context of
their official duties. Such pardons
would merely obfuscate the truth and amount to a gross miscarriage of justice.”
Beyond preventing pre-emptive pardons, the Resolution also
recommends the establishment of a special commission or select committee to
investigate the potentially illegal activities – including abuse of pardon
power – of senior Bush Administration officials. It also calls for the next Attorney General
to appoint an independent counsel to investigate and prosecute any crimes.
The full text of the Resolution follows.
H. RES. 1531
RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that
the President of the
Whereas Article II, section 2, clause 1, of the Constitution
of the United States provides that ‘‘[t]he President . . . shall have Power to
grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in
Cases of Impeachment’’;
Whereas Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist #74, stated,
‘‘[a]s the sense of responsibility is always strongest, in proportion as it is
undivided, it may be inferred that a single man would be most ready to attend
to the force of those motives which might plead for a mitigation of the rigor
of the law, and least apt to yield to considerations which were calculated to
shelter a fit object of its vengeance’’;
Whereas the Supreme Court has observed that ‘‘[a] pardon
reaches both the punishment prescribed for the offence and the guilt of the
offender; and when the pardon is full, it releases the punishment and blots out
of existence the guilt, so that in the eye of the law the offender is as
innocent as if he had never committed the offence. If granted before
conviction, it prevents . . . the penalties and disabilities consequent upon
conviction from attaching; if granted after conviction, it removes the
penalties and disabilities, and restores him to all his civil rights; it makes
him, as it were, a new man, and gives him a new credit and capacity.’’ Ex Parte
Garland, 71
Whereas during the Constitutional convention, George Mason
expressed the concern that a president could abuse his pardon power to ‘‘pardon
crimes which were advised by himself’’ or, before indictment or conviction,
‘‘to stop inquiry and prevent detection’’;
Whereas James Madison responded to Mason’s concerns by
stating that ‘‘[i]f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with
any person, and there be grounds [to] believe he will shelter him, the House of
Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty’’;
Whereas although not constitutionally binding, the Pardon
Attorney’s regulations governing the granting of presidential pardons states
‘‘[n]o petition for pardon should be filed until the expiration of a waiting
period of at least five years after the date of the release of the petitioner
from confinement or, in case no prison sentence was imposed, until the
expiration of a period of at least five years after the date of the conviction
of the petitioner. Generally, no petition should be submitted by a person who
is on probation, parole, or supervised release.’’ 28 C.F.R. 1.2 (2000);
Whereas on President George H.W. Bush granted a full,
complete, and unconditional pardon to Elliott Abrams, Duane R. Clarridge, Alan
Fiers, Clair George, Robert C. McFarlane, and Caspar W. Weinberger for all
offenses charged, prosecuted, or committed in connection with the Iran-Contra
Scandal in which he was alleged to have been involved;
Whereas in a press conference on February 22, 2001,
President George W. Bush stated, ‘‘Should I decide to grant pardons, I will do
so in a fair way. I will have the highest of high standards’’;
Whereas investigations by Congressional committees, and
press reports, raise serious concerns that senior officials of the
administration of President George W. Bush may have committed crimes involving
the mistreatment of detainees, the extraordinary rendition of individuals to
countries known to engage in torture, illegal surveillance of United States
citizens, unlawful leaks of classified information, obstruction of justice,
political interference with the conduct of the Justice Department, and other
illegal acts;
Whereas President George W. Bush has been urged to grant
preemptive pardons to senior administration officials who might face criminal
prosecution for actions taken in the course of their official duties; and
Whereas pardons issued during the lame duck period of a
President’s term would not be subject to the judgment of the voters; Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That—
(1) it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the
granting of preemptive pardons by the President to senior officials of his administration
for acts they may have taken in the course of their official duties is a
dangerous abuse of the pardon power;
(2) it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the
President should not grant preemptive pardons to senior officials in his
administration for acts they may have taken in the course of their official
duties;
(3) it is the sense of the House of Representatives that
James Madison was correct in his observation that ‘‘[i]f the President be
connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds [to]
believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they
can remove him if found guilty’’;
(4) it is the sense of the House of Representatives that a
special investigative commission, or a Select Committee be tasked with
investigating possible illegal activities by senior officials of the
administration of President George W. Bush, including, if necessary, any abuse
of the President’s pardon power; and |