President Bush pardoned 14 individuals, and commuted the sentences of two others, today, including hip hop artist John Forte. Other prominent pardon seekers, including Michael Milken, and others seeking to have their sentences commuted, such as former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-CA) and former Gov. Edwin W. Edwards (D-LA), are still waiting.
President Bush has been relatively restrained in his use of the pardon power during his presidency. As the Washington Post reports:
The president has used his broad pardon powers rarely during seven years in office, granting 157 pardons out of 2,064 petitions, and only six of 7,707 requests for commutations, according to an analysis by former Justice Department lawyer Margaret C. Love.Nonetheless, many expect he will preemptively pardon past and present government attorneys who authorized the use of coercive interrogation techniques or other, potentially unlawful, counter-terror policies. Again from the Post:
In the background of the debate is how, if at all, Bush will respond to pressure from left-leaning interest groups and congressional Democrats, who are calling for criminal investigations of former administration lawyers and members of the intelligence community who eavesdropped on Americans without warrants and used harsh interrogation tactics against terrorism suspects.President Abraham Lincoln bestowed such blanket amnesty on soldiers who took part in the Civil War, and President Jimmy Carter took similar action for people who resisted fighting in the Vietnam War between 1964 and 1973. But scholars disagree about whether the current president could preemptively pardon members of the intelligence community without naming them and specifying the conduct for which they would receive amnesty.
It looks like he was pardoned because he went to Phillips Exeter Academy.
I have been wondering about that point as well. It seems to be that a pardon would have to be recorded somewhere on official government records, where DOJ officials can verify that it was granted if the pardonee decides to invoke the pardon. Hopefully Bush knows better than to store the pardon records on RNC email servers.
And I would expect there would be some sort of written request for a pardon.
Plus, I recall something to the effect that the pardonee can accept or reject the pardon once offered. If that is so, there should be some sort of paperwork regarding acceptance or rejection in government records.
I've never pursued a pardon for anyone, although I have discussed such a possibility with several clients. I'd like to hear from someone who has first hand knowledge about the paperwork etc. that normally results in connection with seeking and the granting of a pardon and whether they think it would be possible to issue a pardon without the public knowing or without career DOJ officials knowing.
But I wonder what if the President hands a pardon to someone with official Presidential seal, signature and other fancy things that accompany such paperwork? Is that enough? It seems that in this case there is acceptance (after all, the pardonee takes the paperwork, and in any event, later presents it to a court as a shield). It also seems that authenticity wouldn't be that hard to establish.
(As an aside, I seem to recall that no acceptance of pardon is necessary. Even if it is rejected, it is still in force. I may be wrong).
But that guy deserves to be in jail.
The Sheriff responds ''Well, we ain't got no radio here!''.
1. "relatively restrained" -- relative to what standard? Bush's father is the only modern President more stingy with the pardons.
2. John Forte -- mandatory sentences do result in injustice, and there's no other avenue of appeal, but the pardon. Forte may well have been innocent in the common, non-legal sense of the term, and the sentence does seem disproportionate.
3. The Constitution authorizes the President to grant "reprieves and pardons", but says nothing about amnesty. Lincoln's amnesty proclamations, which promised pardons to those meeting certain conditions, including the swearing of an oath of loyalty, were pursuant to an explicit legislative authorization from Congress. Congress had legislated penalties for treason and insurrection, and had also authorized the President to grant blanket amnesty by proclamation. So, the Washington Post's citation of President Lincoln granting blanket amnesty might not be on point, with regard to the Constitutional provision.
I think you overestimate public sympathy for accused terrorists. The public is not the left side of the commentators here.
Damage to the United States would result from such investigations. This is the reason Ford forfeited his election chances by pardoning Nixon.
Do some states require governors to provide rationales? If so "whether a rationale was required" would be a particularly interesting regression parameter to include in such an analysis.
Conceivably such an analysis has been done already. On the off chance that it has, I'll hazard a guess at one of its conclusions: When the executive is required to provide a rationale, this somewhat reduces the correlation between objective measures of a requestor's economic and political influence on the one hand, and the success of their pardon request on the other.
Of course, this does not stop an end run commutation or pardon that the President wants to do without going through the DOJ. However, I believe it extremely unlikely that Bush would pardon/commute Duke Cunningham's sentence. It certainly wouldn't meet the DOJ standards. And it would be like, say, Clinton pardoning Marc Rich.
I have a hard time believing that a few well connected people are the only ones suffering from such injustice. Even if there are not enough votes to change the legislation, an honest executive would direct his AGs to charge them with lesser crimes, instead of granting pardons to a few lucky ones.
Exactly. It's kind of reminiscent of the well-connected drug dealer that Clinton pardoned (which was drowned out in the Marc Rich hoopla).
It seems the war on drugs suddenly becomes unjust when it hits the friends and social equals of politicians.
In the federal system, court loads are managed by plea bargaining. People, who are actually guilty, are undercharged in exchange for being cooperative with expedited procedures. If someone insists on a trial, as Forte did, then they are overcharged, with the full consequence in sentencing.
Tatil: "an honest executive would direct his AGs to charge them with lesser crimes, instead of granting pardons to a few lucky ones."
Sort of a moot point, isn't it? We're talking about a President, who has imprisoned lots of people without charging them with anything. Oh, yeah, and tortured more than a few.
Bruce. Stop it.
There was nothing illegal with keeping people at Guantano when Bush did it. The Supreme court had to reverse its own precidents to give these people the right to a trail.
Tortured a few? By what measure?
Tortured a few? By what measure?"
Good comment. By any reasonable measure, almost everyone there was tortured.
Yes, it was illegal when it was done; the USSC decision did not make new law.
The case would likely differ from Marbury v. Madison in at least one particular: Justice Roberts would deliver the opinion of the Court, with 4 concurring opinions and 4 separate dissents.
Contemporary Conservatism's Moral Relativism Is Vilely Repugnant.
By the Bush administration's own "measure." Bush has declared, via his State Dept, that sleep deprivation and using water to asphyxiate are both forms of torture. (His State Dept made those declarations in the context of condemning certain other countries for using those techniques.) At the same time, there is ample reason to be believe that we have used those methods on our captives.
And then there are stories like the one about Dilawar. A government coroner said we beat him so badly his legs were "pulpified ... I've seen similar injuries in an individual run over by a bus." Dilawar was beaten to death even though "most of us were convinced that the detainee was innocent." Obviously what Dilawar experienced is torture by any standard.
The penalties that were applied are so lenient that they can't be considered anything other than a joke. Three months in prison for beating an innocent man to death? Now that's what I call an unwarranted 'pardon.'
And Obama could burn them. Who would believe Bust? If Bush keeps them, how does he prove that the pardons were granted beforehand?
More to the point, Eli's dad had a scofflaw friend who got hauled into court with a hundred parking tickets. When asked how he plead, he said "For mercy". We need justice in the system, we need mercy. Both are appropriate.
Yes, I'll concede torture under law. Good luck convincing the American people that sleep deprivation is torture as they define it.
If you prosecute President Bush and CIA/military people for sleep deprivation or waterboarding KSM, you likely have a legal case, but the politics will be totally on the defendant's side.
Not to mention that while Americans are being prosecuted, Gitmo prisoners will be being released. Make for good comparisons.
Unlike the leftys here, Obama and his advisors know that the politics are unpredictable and the upside is low for them. President Bush knows that they know.
That is why no trials under Obama and no pardons by President Bush.
I imagine there will be congressional
witchhuntsinvestigations. Let them come.The politics of Congressional hearings may not be what the
witchhuntersinvestigators think they are either. Remember Ollie North?John Yoo may not be a sympathetic figure but I imagine some CIA types might be.
Rich also ponied up $10 million to the Feds. I rather doubt Duke has that kind of cash lying around.
(Not that either Duke Cunningham or Marc Rich deserves a pardon of any kind)
Under what specific statute would you prosecute John Yoo? Or are you in favor of prosecuting lawyers merely for giving legal advice with which you disagree?
No.
I would guess that, too. Except that such a charge against Yoo makes no sense. He was asked to provide a legal opinion. Others disagree with the opinion, obviously. But unless you can somehow prove that Yoo knowingly acted in bad faith then you have no crime.
You're just bitter because Bush refused to pardon you for that matter involving you and the Swedish Bikini Team. And while I admit I would have done the same as you, given the chance, it DOES appear that it's illegal to dispense that much whipped cream in the vicinity of a national monument.
Why would they be? The video did Palin nothing but good, by exposing her critics as the hysterical idiots they are. There was nothing in the least embarrassing about the video, and those who pretended it was embarrassing made fools of themselves.
If he was pardoned why the need for the $10 million.
Hey, his approval ratings could hardly go lower. Maybe it is worth a shot.
So, how well does this work out for people who are actually innocent? I hope we all appreciate the sacrifice they make for the good of the system as they're headed off to jail for life on 145 separate charges.
Bush's historic unpopularity has nothing to do with the WoT and everything to do with spending. You would expect a Republican to be unpopular with Democrats and liberal independents, so the real difference is Republicans and conservatives. He could get up to the mid forties just by pandering to the base, something he doesn't doesn't feel any need to do.
Congressional Stalinesque show-trials would be gross political stupidity for the Democrats, as the people who like his WoT policies but hate his spending would feel compelled to rally around him.
It would be gross stupidity for another reason. At least part of the reason for the collapse of the Roman polity was the practice of each new emperor to put his contesting contemporaries, and those connected with the prior regime, on show trial. Of course, what happened when the current regime fell? more show trials by the successors.
Why wasn't Kruschev executed by Breznev? Because Breznev wanted a nice retirement on the Black Sea too.
The Dems should move on very quickly, unless they think they really can try to emulate Chavez style vote fraud (which isn't working out for him too well either). Setting a show trial precedent will bite you on the *ss eventually.
Losing two wars, screwing up the aftermath of Katrina, shaming the country before the world, alienating our allies, and destroying the banking system and the economy, while more than doubling the national debt -- Bush has been nothing if not an overachiever. How you can pick "spending" out from that pile of . . ., I have no idea.
Maybe Bush will pardon himself -- that would be a curiousity in a man who can't admit a mistake, but sure makes a lot of doozies.
Basically correct regarding out of control spending and loss of conservative support. In addition, the Katrina flailing didn't help. However, in my opinion the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court was the last straw for many conservatives. Bush appears to have permanently lost the support of many conservatives at about the time of the Harriet Miers debacle and his popularity never recovered.
Because most of what you've written isn't actually true. So far the score count on wars is a win for us in Iraq and no decision (yet) in Afghanistan. I think Iraq is probably psst screwing up, but Afghanistan could still go bad without sufficient follow-through on Obama's part.
"Alientating our allies"? Yes, yes, so alienated they went and replaced their anti-American leaders with pro-American leaders.
The "screwing up the aftermath of Katrina" point is ridiculous by historical standards - the federal government's response to Katrina was the most vigorous ever for a hurricane. That meme was a complete fabrication based on a fantasy world that only exists in Democratic talking points and the NYT. But I repeat myself.
The "destroying the banking system and the economy" is something that's been going on since the late '70s when the government got into the business of forcing banks to lend money to people who couldn't pay it back. Bush's big mistake there is being the guy in office when the music stopped. Could he have prevented the crash? No. Could he have done more to lessen the severity of the crash? Sure, but I'd like to point out he was trying to get Congress to regulate Fannie Mae in 2004 only to have the proposed changes killed in Committee by Christopher Dodd. The idea Bush alone is responsible for 30 years of credit inflation is just silly.
As for "doubling the national debt"... well, that was my point. That's something I think is both true and legitimately a result of Bush's policies. In retrospect we should have realized "compassionate conservatism" was just a euphemism for "liberal", but we didn't.
I stand by my original post. If not for the spending Bush's popularity would be in the low 40s, at worst. The fact that Democrats and Democratic leaners really, really, really, really don't like Bush is not very relevant.
I have zero other offenses (not even a traffic ticket), have done substantial community service (both prior and subsequent to my conviction), have a good family, completed college, work hard (even though my conviction has almost entirely eliminated the prospect of meaningful employment from my life).
Unfortunately, I'm not a well connected man. I don't have any friends that are senators or governors... The people who signed the requisite character affidavits are "unimportant" blue collar workers; my closest and dearest friends.
I cannot afford to pay 'pardon consultants' to assist the process. I cannot afford to donate enough money to any political party to be noticed and potentially, gain the favor of- or at least, a sympathetic ear with- someone who might be able to make a difference and get my application seen.
This has crushed my life. All I want to do is move on; be allowed to work at a good job, be allowed to go hunting with my dad, be allowed to feel that the weight is off my shoulders and I've been 'forgiven'. But it won't ever happen.
The pardon system was originally conceived in an era when "federal prosecutions" were basically high treason and piracy. In todays age- an age where Federal Authority extends to every inch of our life and the Feds prosecute people for anything and everything- the notion that one must seek relief from a sitting American President for selling pot, fudging on their taxes is just totally unrealistic and, in my opinion as someone who is 'living it', morally wrong.
I'm not important enough to be pardoned while I'm still a young, vibrant person. The best I can hope for is that I live long enough for a 'token pardon' as an old man.
Completely and absolutely rendering someone onto the periphery of society for the rest of their lives isn't a 'fair consequence' for a mistake. The high-horse riders who say "well, you should've thought of that before you..." aren't being fair, forgiving or reasonable, given the lifelong, unintended consequences that are imposed.
Sorry, dad. I don't think I'll be able to make duck season anymore.
I wasn't trying to make a point about political considerations. My point is that Bush is s hypocrite, because his administration classifies sleep deprivation as torture, but only when other countries do it.
I'll get over it. Meanwhile, Bush is pissed on account of how he ended up with the Bulgarian Bikini Team, while I got the Swedes.
Not too many people know about Bush's escapades with the Bulgarians, so please keep it under your hat. Although I hear Borat may have secretly filmed it.
Thank goodness Bush did nothing to encourage that process. He was just an innocent bystander. It much have been some other George W. Bush who issued a press release that said this:
Hat tip to a commenter here.
"I'll get over it. Meanwhile, Bush is pissed on account of how he ended up with the Bulgarian Bikini Team, while I got the Swedes."
I just don't see what the big deal was 'bout that: A little depiliation, plus some vodka all around . . . Heck, I'd hit that.
I love it when you talk dirty.
That's what she said.
(But not to me.)