Jerrold Nadler

Jerrold Nadler Presses Eric Holder on Special Prosecutor for Torture

Bob Fertik — Thu, 14 May 2009 23:11:46 -0400

During Attorney General Eric Holder's appearance before the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jerrold Nadler pressed him to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate torture.

In particular, Nadler asked if Special Counsel John Durham's ongoing investigation of the CIA's destruction of the waterboarding tapes could be expanded to include the broader crime of torture itself. Holder indicated he is still trying to determine whether any crimes were committed.

Holder did not elaborate, but I presume he's waiting for his Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) to determine whether Jay Bybee, John Yoo, Steven Bradbury and the other OLC lawyers wrote "illegal" memos authorizing torture. Holder is clearly unwilling to judge the actions of the interrogators who relied on the OLC memos until the "legality" of those memos is settled.

No mention was made of roughly 100 prisoners who died, including 34-45 who were murdered. Obviously murdering a prisoner can never be legal, but no senior Bush official was ever held accountable.

For more on Holder's unclear testimony, read David Swanson.

Q. What's the status of Mr. Durham's investigation?

A. I'm a little reluctant to talk about an end. I know Mr. Durham is still at work, he's still investigating. He spoke to the Deputy Attorney General a couple of weeks ago and we had an update on his work. And he is still proceeding with his investigation.

Q. But you have no estimate as to when we might have some sort of conclusion.

A. I don't at this point. He laid out for us certainly what he's going to be doing over the next 2-3 months or so but I can't say with any certainty when he's going to be finished.

Q. Given that Mr. Durham has a team of lawyers and investigators who already have been cleared to review classified and sensitive information, and are deep into this issue, would you think it might be a good idea to expand his jurisdiction to include investigation of actual interrogation policy and practice, and ensure his status is that of Special Counsel subject to the guidelines in your regulations?

A. The decision first has to be whether or not that is appropriate. And as I've indicated, no one is above the law, we will look at the facts, we'll look at the evidence, and make the determination that is appropriate based on the information we have in the Justice Department in making that ultimate determination.

Victory! House Judiciary Democrats Want Special Prosecutor for Torture

Bob Fertik — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:11:00 -0400

We won a huge victory today! Thanks to your emails and calls, 15 House Judiciary Democrats joined chair John Conyers in urging Attorney General Holder to appoint a Special Counsel on Torture. Their letter says,

The attorney general acknowledged in his confirmation hearings that waterboarding is torture. Moreover, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the top Bush Administration official in charge of military commissions have also concluded that the United States engaged in torture of detainees. The Geneva Convention and the Convention Against Torture both require the United States to investigate, and if necessary prosecute, alleged violations. Justice Department regulations provide for the appointment of a special counsel when a criminal investigation is both warranted and in the public interest, and when an investigation may pose a conflict of interest within the Department. Since these conditions are present, the signatories below conclude that a special counsel should be appointed.

It was signed by 16 of 23 HJC Democrats (see below).

So will Holder agree? Josh Gerstein says no:

Holder is likely to reject that request – his boss, the president, has indicated he doesn’t see the need for such a prosecutor.

But Gerstein is just making s**t up:

The president restated his opposition to prosecuting C.I.A. operatives who followed the Bush administration’s legal guidelines in conducting interrogations. But as for lawyers or others who drew up the policies allowing techniques he has banned, Mr. Obama said it would be up to his attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., to decide what to do.

Jason Leopold says Holder's DoJ may give Special Prosecutor John Durham authority to prosecute waterboarding as a crime, not just the destruction of the waterboarding tapes:

the agency has been looking into a proposal contained in a final draft of Conyers’s voluminous report that called on Holder to extend the scope of a special prosecutor’s probe into the destruction of 92 interrogation videotapes to include whether the "enhanced interrogation" of detainees broke federal laws against torture, legal sources said.

U.S. Attorney John Durham, who was appointed by former Attorney General Michael Mukasey last year to investigate the destruction of the CIA’s torture tapes had only been given the authority to probe whether the destruction of the tapes amounted to criminal violations.

And Holder made a glowing promise to David Swanson last week:

"And you will be proud of your country."

Stay tuned...

Signers
John Conyers, Jr., Chairman
Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
Robert Scott, Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security
Steve Cohen, Chairman, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law
Hank Johnson, Chairman, Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy
Mel Watt
Sheila Jackson Lee
Maxine Waters
Robert Wexler
Pedro Pierluisi
Luis Gutierrez
Tammy Baldwin
Anthony Weiner
Linda Sánchez
Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Daniel Maffei

Our deepest thanks to all 16! By contrast, the seven pro-torture HJC Democrats have some serious explaining to do - or Howie Klein will do it for them and it won't be pretty.

Howard Berman (CA)
Rick Boucher (VA)
William Delahunt (MA)
Charlie Gonzalez (TX)
Zoe Lofgren (CA)
Adam Schiff (CA)
Brad Sherman (CA)

Full letter:

April 28, 2009

The Honorable Eric Holder
Attorney General of the United States
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530

Dear Mr. Attorney General:

We write to request that you appoint a special counsel for the investigation and possible prosecution of any violations of federal criminal laws related to the interrogation of detainees in the effective custody or control of the United States in connection with counter-terrorism operations or armed conflicts in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States. Many of us previously asked your predecessor, Attorney General Mukasey, to do so, expressing our desire to ensure an independent investigation into serious allegations that high-ranking officials, including lawyers and others from the Department of Justice itself, approved the use of enhanced interrogation techniques that amounted to torture.

Recent events highlight the need for such an appointment. The OLC memos formally released last week provide additional details regarding the purported legal justifications provided by DOJ lawyers for various interrogation techniques, including the slamming of detainees into walls, the use of stress positions, confinement in boxes, sleep deprivation, and waterboarding. The Senate Armed Services Inquiry into the Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody, declassified and released on April 21, confirms that these interrogation practices were developed at the request of and authorized by high-ranking administration officials, and that the abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere can be linked to these policy decisions. Top Bush Administration officials previously testified that at least three detainees were subjected to waterboarding, and the recently released OLC memos reveal that one detainee was subjected to waterboarding 183 times in a one month period while another was subjected to waterboarding 83 times in one month.

During your confirmation hearings, you testified that waterboarding is torture, and the International Committee of the Red Cross, which had been denied access to detainees held at CIA secret prisons for several years, has concluded that the treatment alleged by fourteen of these detainees constituted torture. Earlier this year, the Bush Administration's top official in charge of military commissions concluded that the U.S. military's treatment of Mohammed al-Qahtani "met the legal definition of torture."

As you are aware, Justice Department regulations provide for the Attorney General to appoint an outside special counsel when: 1) a "criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted," (2) the "investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department," and 3) "it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter." Such counsel is to be appointed from outside the government and should have the authority to secure resources for the investigation and prosecution and have full investigatory and prosecutorial powers.

We believe that these three criteria have been met and warrant the appointment of a special counsel to investigate whether federal criminal laws were violated by individuals who authorized or participated in the interrogation of detainees. First, as noted above, there is abundant, credible evidence of torture and the cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees, and criminal investigation is not only warranted, it is also required. The Geneva Conventions obligate High Contracting Parties like the United States to investigate and bring before our courts those individuals "alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed" grave breaches of those Conventions. The war crimes act, 18 U.S.C. § 2441, creates jurisdiction in the U.S. courts whenever the victim or alleged offender is a U.S. national or member of the Armed Forces, and specifically identifies torture and cruel or inhuman treatment, as well as the conspiracy to commit those acts, as punishable war crimes. The Convention Against Torture (CAT) -- signed by President Reagan in 1988 and ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1994 -- also obligates the U.S. to conduct a "prompt and impartial investigation" and "submit the case to [our] competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution" whenever there are reasonable grounds to believe that torture has been committed in a territory under our jurisdiction or by U.S. nationals. The federal anti-torture statute, 18 USC § 2340A, criminalizes torture and the conspiracy to commit torture and creates jurisdiction in the U.S. courts whenever the "alleged offender is a national of the United States" or "is present in the United States."

Second, a conflict of interest would be presented in having the Department investigate allegations that high-ranking Justice Department officials and lawyers provided legal guidance on and may have been involved in developing interrogation policy. For example, the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel and former Attorney General and White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales advised the Administration and President to deny detainees the legal protection of the Geneva Conventions, and OLC lawyers wrote extensive legal memos that authorized specific interrogation techniques that likely amounted to torture. While some key individuals are no longer with the Department or Executive Branch, it is impossible to determine at this stage and before conclusion of the necessary investigation whether additional conflicts of interest might exist or arise. When Department lawyers are alleged to have been involved, we believe the Attorney General should turn to a special counsel.

Finally, there can be little doubt that the public interest will be served by appointment of a special counsel. The authorization and use of interrogation techniques that likely amounted to torture has generated tremendous concern and outrage in this country, and has harmed our legal and moral standing in the world. As a country committed to the rule of law, we must investigate and demand accountability for acts of torture committed by or on our behalf. Appointing a special counsel to undertake this task would serve the interests of the Department and of the public in ensuring that the necessary investigation is thorough and impartial, and that the United States fairly investigates serious and credible accusations of misconduct, even where high-ranking government officials may be involved.

We applaud President Obama's efforts to assure America and the rest of the world that this Department's investigative and prosecutorial decisions will be free from political considerations. We are confident that you and the President will uphold this critical guarantee, and will restore the Department's independence and integrity. Yet, as you undoubtedly are aware, Americans on both sides of the political aisle worry that this issue already is mired in politics, with those who oppose investigation characterizing that possibility as a political witch hunt and those who, like us, support accountability expressing concern that the rule of law must be upheld. Given these factors, any decisions that you make regarding prosecutions will be perceived by some as political. Appointment of a special counsel insulates you and the Department from such claims, and instills confidence that the outcome of the investigation could not possibly have been predetermined or otherwise improperly influenced.

The special counsel rules provide for both accountability and transparency. An appointed special counsel would be subject to Department ethics rules and to oversight by you to prevent undue expansion of the investigation. The special counsel would report to you about any decision to prosecute or not to prosecute; you could provide that report to Congress and the public, and would have to report to Congress if the special counsel is fired or the investigation halted. Appointing a special counsel balances the need, recognized after Watergate, to ensure independent investigation of high-ranking officials with the need to avoid prosecutors with unchecked power.

Given the importance of this issue, we look forward to a response to our request at your earliest convenience.

Jerrold Nadler Makes an Indisputable Case for a Special Prosecutor

Bob Fertik — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:47:46 -0400

In an interview with Countdown's David Schuster, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) made it so clear and simple. How can anyone disagree with a single word he says?

SHUSTER: You were the first Democrat to call for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate torture abuses. Are you satisfied with the president‘s comments earlier today and what do you think prompted this shift in his position?

NADLER: Well, I think, I‘m very happy with the president‘s position today. He left the door open for the attorney general to decide whether there should be a special counsel. And that‘s exactly where the decision should be made, not in the White House but in the attorney general‘s office.

We held hearings on the judiciary committee a year ago and two years ago, on the politicization of the Justice Department during the Bush administration. And frankly, the president deciding that there should or should not be a special prosecutor would be making a decision that belongs to an independent Justice Department.

And so, the president sort of indicated that today. And I‘m very glad of that. And I don‘t know that he shifted his position. I think he clarified it.

SHUSTER: You are calling for Judge Jay Bybee to be impeached. If he does not resign on his own as Senator Leahy was urging him, is impeachment a real possibility and what‘s your next step towards that end?

NADLER: Well, I think impeachment is a possibility a little down the road. I mean, we are—we‘re waiting first and we expect not too long ago from now, the Office of Professional Responsibility to come out with a report on whether Judge Bybee and Mr. Yoo and mister—the third one, I forget his name—violated professional ethics by writing these handbooks on how to torture people, which is what those memos were. They were not, in my judgment, honest legal memos. They were handbooks on how to torture people and try to get it away with it under the law.

And once that report comes out, if it indicates, as I suspect it may, that they violated—that Judge Bybee violated professional ethics, then I think that, first of all, we have to see whether a special counsel is appointed and whether is a subject of prosecution, and then the impeachment issue will come up after that.

SHUSTER: The Democratic leadership in Congress has been pretty quiet on all of this. Are you expecting them to weigh in on this at some point and at what point should they?

NADLER: Well, I don‘t know what their plans are, and I don‘t know that they should at this point. The chairman of the judiciary committee on which I‘m subcommittee chairman, Mr. Conyers, announced that the judiciary committee is going to be holding hearings in the next few weeks, I gather, on the question of torture and the question of people in the administration who arranged and suborned torture.

Now, all of these are illegal acts. But let me say one other thing—

I don‘t think the attorney general has much choice but to appoint a special counsel, a special prosecutor because everybody now knows from the international community, the Red Cross report, from admissions that waterboarding was done, that torture—these memos make it very clear that torture was committed. The convention against torture which the United States helped draft and sign on which—the law of the land mandates that when there is evidence of torture, that there must be an investigation, and where warranted, a prosecution.

That‘s why I have called for a special counsel to be appointed to do the investigation and to decide whether prosecution is warranted. It must be a special prosecutor because the Justice Department itself, albeit in the prior administration, but nonetheless the Justice Department, which would normally do the investigating, was itself implicated in these crimes. So, it has to be a special prosecutor.

SHUSTER: If Congress, in addition to whatever the Justice Department does, if Congress has hearings and jumps into say, what these hearings that are coming up jumps into the torture memos—can these hearings be bipartisan? And even if they can be bipartisan—in your view, can they be received that way by the public as being above partisanship?

NADLER: Well, that‘s really up to the Republicans. The Republicans have tended since this administration took power, to be totally partisan, to give zero votes to any proposal, to say no to everything. And during the administration—during the Bush administration, they were totally protective of the Bush administration and of everything it did. They didn‘t have real oversight hearings or anything else.

If they decide to be open and open-minded, they can be bipartisan. If they decide they simply are going to be a cheering section for the now departed—thank God—Bush administration, then they won‘t be bipartisan.

Jerrold Nadler Wants a Special Prosecutor

Bob Fertik — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 12:42:32 -0400

Yesterday I noted 3 key Democrats - Senate Judiciary chair Patrick Leahy, Senate Armed Services chair Carl Levin, and House Judiciary chair John Conyers - refused to call for prosecution of torturers.

But today one key Dem - Jerrold Nadler, chair of the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution - became the first Democrat to urge President Obama and Attorney General Holder to appoin a Special Prosecutor.

Nadler also said his subcommittee would hold hearings, which is a huge step because he does not need the approval of the President or Attorney General.

"I have previously urged Attorneys General Gonzales and Mukasey to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the torture abuses of the Bush administration, and now I will convey that same necessity to President Obama and Attorney General Holder. We sorely need an independent investigation that will provide accountability for these terrible crimes. This investigation should not be a witch-hunt to punish those rank-and-file C.I.A. operatives who acted in good faith on Justice Department instructions. At the very least, those who wrote and authorized the memos knowing full well that they were instructing others to torture must be held accountable to the law.

"We must have a criminal investigation if the U.S. is to reclaim its moral authority and prevent repetition of these crimes.

"As Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights said yesterday, 'Whether or not to prosecute law breakers is not a political decision. Laws were broken and crimes were committed. If we are truly a nation of laws ... a prosecutor needs to be appointed and the decisions regarding the guilt of those involved in the torture program should be decided in a court of law.'

"Furthermore, the revelations contained in these memos make it abundantly clear that we need additional Congressional oversight hearings on this matter. We intend to hold such hearings.

Because Nadler is demanding real accountability, he is certain to come under relentless attack from Republicans and the Corporate Media. It's up to us to get Nadler's back!

Update 1: Senator Russ Feingold disappointingly resorted to the passive voice and missed an important opportunity to call for a Special Prosecutor.

The so-called enhanced interrogation program was a violation of our core principles as a nation and those responsible should be held accountable.

Nadler Says We Have No Choice, We Must Prosecute Bush

Bob Fertik — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:58:46 -0500

I attended Rep. Jerry Nadler's event at the Tribeca Cinema last night which featured a lively discussion about progressive issues.

Moderator Joel Silverman asked about Senator Leahy's proposed Truth Commission.

Baratunde Thurston of Jack & Jill Politics said it's not about vengeance, it's about setting standards.

Nadler said "we have no choice, we must prosecute." And of course Nadler is in a position to do something about it, since he chairs the Constitution Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee.

Nadler announced he is preparing a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder calling for a Special Prosecutor. The letter will resemble those he sent to former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who simply ignored Nadler's letter, and then to former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who replied but dodged all of Nadler's issues.

Nadler pointed out that Holder declared waterboarding is torture, and that Dick Cheney said on TV that he authorized waterboarding. Nadler said the Convention Against Torture, which was signed by Ronald Reagan, obligates the United States to investigate and prosecute torturers.

Nadler's argument is identical to that made by Jonathan Turley, Glenn Greenwald, and many others.

Nadler Renews Bill for Investigation and Prosecution

Bob Fertik — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 13:21:11 -0500

On November 20, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) introduced H.Res. 1531 to hold George Bush and his administration accountable for their crimes through a Congressional investigation and a Special Prosecutor. We sent over 57,000 petition signatures to Congress and persuaded 9 House Democrats to co-sponsor. With the start of the new Congress, Rep. Nadler has re-introduced his resolution with a new number, H.Res. 9.

"We cannot allow President Bush to shield his senior officials from the law," said Rep. Nadler. "The President must not pardon his own officials for acts which may well lead to criminal investigations and prosecutions in the future. As President Bush and his top advisors have likely been involved in the same possibly criminal actions, it is entirely inappropriate for the President to excuse his own subordinates."

So we are renewing our own efforts to convince more Democrats to become co-sponsors so the resolution is passed. Our effort is newly energized by Dick Cheney's televised admission in December that he personally approved torture, including waterboarding. After the news broke, Jonathan Turley went on Keith Olbermann's show to issue this challenge:

"The most successful democracy in history is just about to see war crimes, do nothing about it -- and that's an indictment not just of George Bush and his administration. It's an indictment of all of us if we walk away from a clear war crime and say it's time for another commission."

Will we "walk away from a clear war crime?" Absolutely not! Nor can we let our Representatives in Congress walk away. Please Sign our petition and call your Representative at 202-224-3121 with a simple message: co-sponsor Rep. Nadler's H.Res. 9.

Nadler Proposes 3 Bills for Accountability

Bob Fertik — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 14:04:25 -0500

On Thursday, Rep. Jerrold Nadler joined an all-star panel called "After Torture: A Forum on justice in the post-Bush era" organized by Harper's Magazine and The Center on Law and Security at NYU School of Law.

Nadler said "accountability is one of the most important questions before our country." He said we need to "prevent future recurrences," and "in a just society, we must do justice and be seen to do justice."

He said "we don't know what Bush will do about pardons," but he introduced H.Res. 1531 to send a "shot across the bow" of the White House. H.Res. 1531 urges Bush not to pardon officials in his administration, calls for additional Congressional investigations, and recommends a Special Prosecutor.

Nadler said "President Obama will be faced with a lot of pressure not to prosecute Bush's crimes, and he may succumb." Nadler supports both a Truth Commission and prosecution, but said a Truth Commission "is not enough" because Commissions can be abused to coverup up important facts, as the 9/11 Commission did.

Nadler then made news by outlining three bills he plans to introduce.

1. A Special Prosecutor Bill: This would revive, with a key modification, the Special Prosecutor law that was repealed by Congress after Ken Starr's abuses. Nadler explained how his formal requests for a Special Prosecutor to investigate Bush's warrantless wiretapping were ignored by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in 2005 and later Michael Mukasey. To avoid such brushoffs, Nadler's bill would give Congress a way to ask a judge to appoint a Special Prosecutor. But to avoid a repeat of Ken Starr, he would limit the law to "crimes of state" like abuse of power, not "personal crimes" like domestic violence.

2. A State Secrets Bill: Nadler introduced this bill in 2008 and hopes to get it passed by Congress. He described how lawsuits by victims of Presidential abuses like torture and wiretapping have been blocked by the Department of Justice with "state secrets" claims. Nadler said "Constitutional rights without a remedy are not rights at all." His bill sets strict rules for handling state secrets, limiting its use to individual pieces of evidence, not to whole cases.

3. A Constitutional Amendment to limit Presidential pardon power: Nadler said this would not affect George Bush, but would prevent similar abuses in the future. Nadler's Amendment would set three rules for pardons: (a) no pardons for official acts authorized by the President, (b) require convictions before pardons, and (c) prohibit pardons in the last 6 months of a President's term.

These three bills represent a significant step towards Presidential accountability and Democrats.com will actively support them.

Update 1: Nadler's proposed Constitutional Amendment was noted by Talking Points Memo. Josh Marshall reacted skeptically:

in addition to always being leery of fiddling with the constitution, I don't know if I like the idea of changing the pardon power. I think it's an important safety valve in our constitutional system. If it's been a problem, rather than changing the constitution, maybe we need better presidents.

That's facile and dumb. As Bush already demonstrated in the Scooter Libby case, a President can defy the Constitution with impunity simply by pardoning those who carry out his criminal instructions. There's no good way for voters to know what a President will do in advance, and the Constitution cannot rely on a President's oath of office - or on a 2/3 majority in the Senate to impeach him if he doesn't. The Founding Fathers intended pardons to be used for mercy, not to protect a lawless dictator and his henchmen from prosecution.

Nadler Pardon Resolution Gains Momentum

Bob Fertik — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 12:39:20 -0500

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) introduced his resolution opposing corrupt Bush pardons on Friday, and it's gaining momentum quickly.

Meteor Blades featured it on the front page of DailyKos.
Scott Horton featured it at Harper's and reminded us of Bush 41's corrupt last-minute pardons of Caspar Weinberger and 5 other Iran-contra defendants to protect himself from prosecution.
Peter Rothberg featured it at The Nation.
David Latt urged support for H.Res. 1531 at Huffington Post.

On a more scholarly note, looseheadprop looked back at early pardons and discovered certain rules apply:

to be effective, a pardon must both be delivered to the criminal and accepted by the criminal
SCOTUS said that courts are required to "expound" on pardons. This seems to directly contradict the oft stated notion, that pardons are "unreviewable".
the idea that "presidential pardon is unreviewable" is only dicta (judicial commentary), not case law

While Bush gets ready to corruptly pardon himself, Republicans plan to attack Obama's Attorney General nominee Eric Holder for allowing the corrupt Marc Rich pardon to go forward. Don't Republicans realize that shining the light on corrupt pardons will only make Americans angrier when Bush pardons himself?

Finally, Bush granted his first pardons since March - and certainly not be his last. These are all obscure cases.

Bush pardons 14 individuals
By DEB RIECHMANN Associated Press Writer

President George W. Bush has granted pardons to 14 individuals and commuted the prison sentences of two others convicted of misdeeds ranging from drug offenses to tax evasion, from wildlife violations to bank embezzlement, The Associated Press learned Monday.

The new round of White House pardons are Bush's first since March and come less than two months before he will end his presidency. The crimes committed by those on the list also include offenses involving hazardous waste, food stamps, and the theft of government property.

Bush has been stingy during his time in office about handing out such reprieves.

Including these actions, he has granted a total of 171 and eight commutations. That's less than half as many as Presidents Clinton or Reagan issued during their time in office. Both were two-term presidents.

On the latest pardon list were:

--Leslie Owen Collier of Charleston, Mo. She was convicted for unauthorized use of a pesticide and violating the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.

--Milton Kirk Cordes of Rapid City, S.D. Cordes was convicted of conspiracy to violate the Lacey Act, which prohibits importation into the country of wildlife taken in violation of conservation laws.

--Richard Micheal Culpepper of Mahomet, Ill., who was convicted of making false statements to the federal government.

--Brenda Jean Dolenz-Helmer of Fort Worth, Texas, for reporting or helping cover up a crime.

--Andrew Foster Harley of Falls Church, Va. Harley was convicted of wrongful use and distribution of marijuana and cocaine.

--Obie Gene Helton of Rossville, Ga., whose offense was unauthorized acquisition of food stamps.

--Carey C. Hice Sr. of Travelers Rest, S.C., who was convicted of income tax evasion.

--Geneva Yvonne Hogg of Jacksonville, Fla., convicted of bank embezzlement.

--William Hoyle McCright Jr. of Midland, Texas, who was sentenced for making false entries, books, reports or statements to a bank.

--Paul Julian McCurdy of Sulphur, Okla., who was sentenced for misapplication of bank funds.

--Robert Earl Mohon Jr. of Grant, Ala., who was convicted of conspiracy to distribute marijuana.

--Ronald Alan Mohrhoff of Los Angeles, who was convicted for unlawful use of a telephone in a narcotics felony.

--Daniel Figh Pue III of Conroe, Texas, convicted of illegal treatment, storage and disposal of a hazardous waste without a permit.

--Orion Lynn Vick of White Hall, Ark., who was convicted of aiding and abetting the theft of government property.

Bush also commuted the prison sentences of John Edward Forte of North Brunswick, N.J., and James Russell Harris of Detroit, Mich. Both were convicted of cocaine offenses.

Under the Constitution, the president's power to issue pardons is absolute and cannot be overruled.

Some high-profile individuals, such as Michael Milken, are seeking a pardon on securities fraud charges. Two politicians convicted of public corruption -- former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif., and four-term Democratic Louisiana Gov. Edwin W. Edwards -- are asking Bush to shorten their prison terms.

One hot topic of discussion related to pardons is whether Bush might decide to issue pre-emptive pardons before he leaves office to government employees who authorized or engaged in harsh interrogations of suspected terrorists in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Some constitutional scholars and human rights groups want the incoming administration of President-elect Barack Obama to investigate possible war crimes.

If Bush were to pardon anyone involved, it would provide protection against criminal charges, particularly for people who were following orders or trying to protect the nation with their actions. But it would also be highly controversial.

At the same time, Obama advisers say there is little -- if any -- chance that his administration would bring criminal charges.

Nadler Pardon Resolution

Bob Fertik — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 11:52:12 -0500

Co-sponsors
Ask your Rep to co-sponsor!

(To be added)

This is the first resolution urging President Bush not to pardon senior administration officials for crimes the President authorized. It urges Congress to investigate those crimes and any pardons relating to those crimes, and urges the Attorney General (current or future) to appoint an Independent Counsel to prosecute those crimes. Please ask your Rep to co-sponsor!

H.Res. 9
Introduced 11/20/08 (Reintroduced 1/6/09) by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) (Press Release)
Referred to the Judiciary Committee

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the President of the United States should not issue pardons to senior members of his administration during the final 90 days of his term of office.

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 U.S. (4 Wall.) 333, 380 (1866);

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 judgement 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

(5) the next Attorney General of the United States appoint an independent counsel to investigate, and, where appropriate, prosecute illegal acts by senior officials of the administration of President George W. Bush.

Nadler: It's Not Too Late to Impeach

Bob Fertik — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 16:25:26 -0400

September 17, 2008

Dear Congressman Nadler,

We are sure this will come as no surprise, but your inexplicable refusal to uphold your oath of office or wield the power entrusted to you as a member of the House Judiciary Committee and the chair of the its Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties subcommittee to bring about impeachment hearings has gravely disappointed thousands of your constituents.

You did not challenge Nancy Pelosi when she took impeachment off the table. You did not call upon John Conyers to initiate hearings, and you did not stand with your courageous colleagues who put principle before Party by calling for impeachment hearings.

The thousands of names accompanying this letter are the names of those who signed the online petition at www.AskNadler2Impeach.org and who have been working tirelessly to convince you to call for impeachment hearings. Over the past year and a half, we have called your office, written letters to you, met with you and your staff, created the online petition at www.AskNadler2Impeach.org, organized a Town Hall meeting with constitutional scholars to address the issue of impeachment, and produced a DVD of that town hall meeting which we hand delivered to each member of the House Judiciary Committee. So far all of our efforts to convince you of the need for impeachment hearings have fallen on deaf ears.

Before the 110th Congress adjourns, you still have an opportunity to redeem yourself in the eyes of history by demanding that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney be held accountable for the impeachable offenses they have committed.

The hour is getting late, Representative Nadler. Call for impeachment hearings as if our constitutional rights depended upon it.

Yours truly,

For www.AskNadler2Impeach.Org

(Original letter lists the names of 2,355 signers of the online petition at www.asknadler2impeach.org )