2007-12-20 11:09:23 · 11 answers · asked by TroubleMaker 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
YES
With a signing statement that says he was only kidding when he took the oath of office.
2007-12-20 11:18:35 · answer #1 · answered by Guerilla Liberal fighter 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Considering there were no acts of treason committed, there will be no need to pardon anyone. Unless you are talking about the Democratic congress aiding the enemy, and undermining the efforts of the President (Commander in Chief), who is responsible for the defense of the country.
2007-12-20 11:22:09 · answer #2 · answered by srdongato2 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I think I'll buy a liberal a dictionary and a copy of the Constitution for Christmas.
You guys spent the first seven years of the Bush administration yapping about impeachment...for which the grounds are clearly spelled out in the Constitution as "treason, high crimes, and misdemeanors". "We don't like him" was not included in that list.
Now you talk about treason, which is downright laughable. Once again, the Constitution puts this one to bed in a hurry, defining treason in Article III, Section 3 as follows: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
Nobody of average or above intelligence in the enire world believes the President has ever done that.
2007-12-20 11:20:06 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Well he might..ya never know. Considering Clinton pardoned like 125 people his last day or two of his presidency, many of which had ties to the Clintons. I think that is a great example, so maybe Bush will follow his lead just to CYA.
2007-12-20 11:14:56 · answer #4 · answered by amber s 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Treason- the offense of acting to overthrow ones government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
So what specifically are you talking about? Put down the kool aid man.
2007-12-20 11:20:58 · answer #5 · answered by Michael 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
No acts of treason committed by him. No need for pardons...the Dems on the other hand....Supporting and giving aid and comfort to the enemy....thats treason...
2007-12-20 11:14:28 · answer #6 · answered by consrgreat 7 · 4⤊ 4⤋
Assuming he were guilty, I don't think that is allowed. But what if he pardoned Cheney, resigned and then Cheney took office and pardoned him?
2007-12-20 11:15:56 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
It would not be unusual for these pardons to be issued. However, Bush thinks he did nothing wrong because Cheney told him so.
2007-12-20 11:17:40 · answer #8 · answered by acedelux 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
No, It would take another term to cover themselves.
2007-12-20 11:14:34 · answer #9 · answered by . 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Knowing dumbya he'll probably try.
2007-12-20 11:12:48 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 5⤋