No Last-Minute Pardons for Republican Convicts

[Pangloss]

Some of the big names that were seeking clemency but did NOT get attention from the West Wing include Randall "Duke" Cunningham (bribery), George Ryan (racketeering), and Michael Milkin (fraud).

 

But perhaps most significantly, there was nothing for Scooter Libby or Ted Stevens.

 

 

Here are some interesting statistics. (Technically he could do more before he leaves office tomorrow at noon, but the press office says he's done.)

 

Bush:

189 pardons

9 commutations

 

Clinton:

396 pardons

61 commutations

 

(source)

Edited January 19, 2009 by Pangloss

[john5746]

not surprised that Bush pardons less than Clinton, but I am surprised he didn't pardon Libby. I guess he blames Libby for making him look bad during an investigation that really turned up nothing. Or maybe he just doesn't look forward to any tell-all books coming from him. Oh well....

[Phi for All]

Remember Pardongate? I remember being outraged that any president, even one as well-read and knowledgeable as Clinton, could make so many last minute pardons and commutations.

 

Iirc, there were some that smelled pretty bad, too, like pardon me and I'll loan (wink wink) you some money to pay off your attorney's fees from your impeachment proceedings. And there were some bombers on that list that I felt deserved more than they got. I hate cowardly bombers.

[bascule]

But perhaps most significantly, there was nothing for Scooter Libby

 

Bush commuted his sentence shortly after his trial. Why would he pardon him now? I think the damage (to justice) has already been done and the affair remains safely off the radar of most Americans. Pardoning him now would not only accomplish nothing, but would drag the whole affair back into the public spotlight.

[Pangloss]

Fair enough -- I could have mentioned that in my original post.

[bascule]

I am surprised how few pardons there were (especially compared to Clinton) but perhaps Bush figured his reputation was already in the gutter and there was no need to sully it further. Just a guess...

[iNow]

Or, more likely, and I'm just speculating here, but he and his administration were much better at preventing charges from sticking in the first place... that they did such a good job circumventing law that the need for pardens never entered the mix.

 

Pardon 'em? They never even were able to charge 'em.

[john5746]

Bush isn't as sleazy as Clinton. Clinton abused his power in regards to some of those pardons, enough to convince me that this power should be restricted in some way.

 

Regarding Libby, a Bush pardon would absolve him of being a felon? I think that would be important to Libby.

[Pangloss]

I suppose the biggest pardon he didn't do would have to be the self-pardon that liberals feared.

 

Or, more likely, and I'm just speculating here, but he and his administration were much better at preventing charges from sticking in the first place... that they did such a good job circumventing law that the need for pardens never entered the mix.

 

Pardon 'em? They never even were able to charge 'em.

 

You mean because there haven't been as many people depart under negative circumstances, ala Scooter Libby, as compared with previous administrations? Perhaps, but maybe the Bush administration hasn't had to pardon as many of its own former officials because they haven't done as many things wrong as previous administrations.

 

I know the left wants there to be underlying flaws in this administration, but I think the judgment of history is going to be more along the lines of specific errors and lapses in judgment, not a deeply-rooted management problem leading future students of the subject down a primrose path towards a less flawed ideology.

[bascule]

Clinton abused his power in regards to some of those pardons, enough to convince me that this power should be restricted in some way.

 

Yes, I think somebody (SCOTUS?) should have the power to overturn pardons which are related to crimes committed by members of a President's administration or the President himself, at the very least.

 

Bush isn't as sleazy as Clinton.

 

Bush was sleazy in different ways. Commuting Scooter Libby's sentence was some pretty atrocious cronyism... I don't think anyone Clinton pardoned was tangentially involved in crimes Clinton may have committed. In Bush's case, capital offenses... namely treason.

[Pangloss]

Fortunately we don't execute people over ideological differences.

 

At any rate, I think we can all agree that it would be nice to avoid sleeziness in the next administration.

[bascule]

Fortunately we don't execute people over ideological differences.

 

The laws are a little different surrounding the outing of CIA operatives...

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/29/mcclellans-biggest-revela_n_104082.html

 

Scott McClellan: But the other defining moment was in early April 2006, when I learned that the President had secretly declassified the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq for the Vice President and Scooter Libby to anonymously disclose to reporters. And we had been out there talking about how seriously the President took the selective leaking of classified information. And here we were, learning that the President had authorized the very same thing we had criticized.

 

Viera: Did you talk to the President and say why are you doing this?

 

Scott McClellan: Actually, I did. I talked about the conversation we had. I walked onto Air Force One, it was right after an event we had, it was down in the south, I believe it was North Carolina. And I walk onto Air Force One and a reporter had yelled a question to the President trying to ask him a question about this revelation that had come out during the legal proceedings. The revelation was that it was the President who had authorized, or, enable Scooter Libby to go out there and talk about this information. And I told the President that that's what the reporter was asking. He was saying that you, yourself, was the one that authorized the leaking of this information. And he said "yeah, I did." And I was kinda taken aback.

[Pangloss]

So he says.

 

But hey, if the ABB crowd wants to miss the bigger picture and spend the next eight years stamping its feet about impeachment, they can go right on ahead. Because in spite of eight years of them telling us the contrary, it's still very much a free country.

[ecoli]

Obama is not going to waste time trying to slap charges on the Bush admin. He's said as much.

[iNow]

Where? Ever time I've seen him, he pivots to the "we need to focus on the future, not the past" line. I'd be curious to read where "he's said as much."

[ecoli]

Where? Ever time I've seen him, he pivots to the "we need to focus on the future, not the past" line. I'd be curious to read where "he's said as much."

that's the line I'm talking about. It means that he's not going to go after Bush et al. but 'focus on the future.' At least that's my interpretation. Do you think you have a better one?

[bascule]

But hey, if the ABB crowd wants to miss the bigger picture and spend the next eight years stamping its feet about impeachment, they can go right on ahead. Because in spite of eight years of them telling us the contrary, it's still very much a free country.

 

I think you're missing the bigger picture that our leaders are not above the law and should be held accountable for their crimes

[iNow]

Obama is not going to waste time trying to slap charges on the Bush admin. He's said as much.

 

Where? Ever time I've seen him, he pivots to the "we need to focus on the future, not the past" line. I'd be curious to read where "he's said as much."

 

that's the line I'm talking about. It means that he's not going to go after Bush et al. but 'focus on the future.' At least that's my interpretation. Do you think you have a better one?

 

Wow. I TOTALLY misread your post. Sorry. I read that first one to mean "he's sure not going to waste time slapping charges on Bush, and he'll be doing it almost immediately..." Not, "he recognizes slapping charges on Bush is a waste of time and won't be doing it."

 

I am really sorry, ecoli. Not sure why I was so aggressive earlier, especially since I couldn't even read what you wrote properly. My bad.

[ecoli]

Wow. I TOTALLY misread your post. Sorry. I read that first one to mean "he's sure not going to waste time slapping charges on Bush, and he'll be doing it almost immediately..." Not, "he recognizes slapping charges on Bush is a waste of time and won't be doing it."

 

I am really sorry, ecoli. Not sure why I was so aggressive earlier, especially since I couldn't even read what you wrote properly. My bad.

 

lol... no problem. I was wondering why you were sounding so hostile when I pretty much reiterated your exact point. I figured it was some sort of 'misread.'

 

That being said, I probably won't complain if charges are brought up against Bush and company. I don't think Obama should or will waste his time trying to bring down an opponent who's no political threat anymore.

Politicians are not above the law, as bascule says, but charges will have to be brought up in a court of law, just like they would be for anyone else.

[Sisyphus]

That being said, I probably won't complain if charges are brought up against Bush and company. I don't think Obama should or will waste his time trying to bring down an opponent who's no political threat anymore.

Politicians are not above the law, as bascule says, but charges will have to be brought up in a court of law, just like they would be for anyone else.

 

Agreed, but practically speaking it's a bit more complicated than that. Charges would have to be brought by the Justice Department, which is part of the Executive Branch. So it's not like Obama could realistically have nothing to do with it if it were to happen.

 

Of course, there could always be a civil class-action lawsuit or something.....

[Pangloss]

I think you're missing the bigger picture that our leaders are not above the law and should be held accountable for their crimes

 

Or maybe I'm just seeing an even bigger one.

 

The reason there won't any charges is the same reason that Ford pardoned Nixon: Obama doesn't want it to dominate his presidency. Of course Ford turned out to be severely wrong (it probably cost him the election), but it seems unlikely to me that nobody will hate Obama for not prosecuting Bush over his alleged crimes, whereas if he did prosecute the country would be severely divided at the very time that it desperately needs not to be.

 

But folks, if you don't think that position sends a message, after Republicans impeached the previous Democratic president over a blow job behind the Resolute desk, you really know nothing about politics. Democrats win this one without lifting a finger, and nobody, but NOBODY, in Washington will fail to get the message.

[iNow]

Lofty and abstract language and ideals aside for a moment, there is a VERY real chance that the new AG will bring up charges, and the likelihood of Obama standing in their way is slim. He won't be pushing for proscecutions himself, but he won't likely try to block them, either.

[waitforufo]

There is also a VERY real chance that there were no prosecutable crimes.

 

Look at Scooter Libby for example. The man was convicted for lying about a crime for which no one was prosecuted.

Edited January 20, 2009 by waitforufo

[SH3RL0CK]

Lofty and abstract language and ideals aside for a moment, there is a VERY real chance that the new AG will bring up charges, and the likelihood of Obama standing in their way is slim. He won't be pushing for proscecutions himself, but he won't likely try to block them, either.

 

I think it more likely that Obama would make it very clear to the AG not to do anything. While the desire for payback is great, it would also greatly complicate anything else he might want to do. Instead of Obama being able to get media attention on some peice of legislation he wants so that he can get sufficient congressional support, the media might instead be focused on some hearing, etc.

 

Witch hunts (even if actual witches are found as I'm sure they are out there in the GW Bush admin.) won't help him because he is already the President.

[Pangloss]

Lofty and abstract language and ideals aside for a moment, there is a VERY real chance that the new AG will bring up charges, and the likelihood of Obama standing in their way is slim. He won't be pushing for proscecutions himself, but he won't likely try to block them, either.

 

Stand in his way? Why would you think that the AG would do anything of that magnitude without explicit instructions from the Oval Office? The Attorney General is not a congressional appointee or an elected official -- he serves at the pleasure of the President of the United States. His name is Eric Holder, and he was a senior adviser to Obama throughout the campaign. You don't think this subject was roundly debated well BEFORE Obama made the statement you quoted ealier? /bemused

 

What can I say, it's good to have dreams I guess. Personally I think you and bascule are letting hatred color your assessments here. But hey, you could be right and I could be wrong. I guess we'll find out one way or the other.

Edited January 20, 2009 by Pangloss