BUSH PARDONS OF ILLEGAL OPERATIVES NOT THE FINAL WORD

BUSH PARDONS OF ILLEGAL OPERATIVES NOT THE FINAL WORD
Sandra Day O'Connor

There has long been talk about the abuse by U.S. Presidents of the power to pardon criminals. One of the reasons for allowing presidents such authority was for the sake of giving the president leverage in striking an end to hostilities and granting amnesty thereafter. You might think of it as enforced reconciliation or a psychological and legal tool for preventing or lessening the likelihood of endless cycles of retaliation and revenge regardless of what the final outcome of otherwise uninterrupted hostilities might have been. Another rationale given for the authority that is more directly applicable to current events is that the president will protect people required to do things to save the nation that under ordinary circumstances would be punishable. So we have people who have broken laws against domestic spying and international and domestic torture and fabricating evidence for war, etc., where the neoconservatives desire that others come around to their way of thinking that such illegal behavior has been justified and in fact that there really were no alternatives — a falsehood built on falsehoods.

Currently, there are people who are expressing concern that George W. Bush will issue blanket pardons before leaving office for everyone who broke the law while carrying out George's known policies and also those clandestine policies and practices that would see the light of day were thorough investigations conducted. (See: "Conservative Lawyers Urge Bush To Issue 'Pre-Emptive Pardons' To Officials Involved In Illegal Programs," by Ben. Think Progress. July 21, 2008.)

There are two observations concerning all of this I will make here now.

The first is that in order for George W. Bush's pardons to stick, he must be the legal president of the U.S. He is not and never has been. He obtained the office via fraudulent and illegal means. The U.S. Supreme Court rendered an illegal opinion. Justices that should have recused themselves did not. Justices were bribed. I'm speaking mainly about Antonin Scalia who was in the forefront of the drive in on the court deliberately to avoid reading the applicable law in the case of the vote count in Florida. Scalia was rewarded through his son.

As I wrote in, "Chapter 15: A Liberal: Not a Villain: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A CONSERVATIVE-REPUBLICAN CHRISTIAN: Jesus is a small-c communist":

When CBS Corporation announced that Florida had gone to Gore based upon exit-polling results, justice Sandra Day O'Connor blurted out, "That's just terrible." However, she didn't recuse herself when it came time to hand the presidency to Bush. She was too prejudice to make an impartial decision. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote to his fellow justices that if the recount were to be allowed to continue leading to Al Gore being declared the winner, it would "do irreparable harm to petitioner [George W. Bush]."

After the US Supreme Court's conservative justices teamed up to stop the Florida recount that was headed in Al Gore's favor, thereby giving the election to George W. Bush, Bush appointed justice Scalia's son and chief justice Rehnquist's daughter to positions in his administration. Now if the fruits of these people showed that they were above crass compensation for decisions rendered, it wouldn't be a problem; but, that's not the case. Their fruit is rotten.

The law firm that represented Bush in Florida had also hired Scalia's son. They call such deals "scratching each other's backs."

Sandra Day O'Connor voiced her opinion that it was terrible that Al Gore was winning the vote in Florida and was projected by the major news media as the winner of the national presidential election. She was not unbiased. She had a vested interest in the outcome. She had a clear conflict of interest, which she made known.

That's three of the justices who should have been impeached for their actions.

Furthermore, there was illegal voter caging and purging of the voter registration rolls that illegally prevented an estimated 20,000 Democrats (all Black; a civil-rights violation) from having their votes counted, which votes did seal the presidency for Al Gore in 2000.

The second observation is that since the system has been used to pass retroactive laws as in the case of the telecom immunity legislation, that same system can be used to reverse all pardons. A constitutional amendment removing the authority going back to the day Bush-43 took office would do it.

Those are mundane and secular methods. The mundane and secular go together as one. That one is not the only method of dealing with the situation. There is the ultramundane, which will prevail.

  • Subscribe
  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.