UPDATE: Presidential Pardon Season

I would assume that any pardon that would create controversy wouldn’t be made in November. Perhaps he will follow his father’s lead and give Christmas Eve pardons.
.
KT, do you suppose anyone in the media can write a story about this process and NOT mention Marc Rich? I think everyone knows about it, but goodness it’s reflexive with these writers.
Cap Weinberger would be a better example, I would think.

I second PNNTO’s comment about Rich. Particularly with the Holder confirmation hearings coming up, it will be so overused. All I would say about it is that IIRC it was done on Clinton’s last day in office. I suspect the really controversial Bush ones will be done on his last day, although Christmas eve might work for some.

Considering the Bald Eagle is seen as a somewhat patriotic symbol, I wonder if we will see outrage from the WingNuts over the pardon of the guy that killed some. Of course considering the work Bush is doing to totally strip the Endangered Species Act before he leaves office pardoning that guy should come as no surprise!

KT here–

P-NNTO and Ivb: I’ve got to disagree with you on this one. I think it’s perfectly understandable that the Marc Rich episode, which was outrageous and relatively fresh in the public’s memory, would be mentioned in what reporters call the “B-matter” of stories about pardons. And I also think that asking Holder about this in his confirmation hearings is also justifiable. None of that is to say that there haven’t been other abuses, but these are ones that involve people who are actually on the scene and relevant to politics today.

And, yes, Ivb, I agree the days to watch are the ones around Christmas and the final ones.

Since this is clearly the most incompetant adminsitration and Presidency in history, any chance that President Bush inadvertantly issues some kind of pardon that basically pardons every person who ever committed a crime in the US?

What is the relevance, to Bush’s pardons not the Holder confirmation, of Marc Rich? Other than “outrage”?
Rich was accused of buying his pardon.
The speculation on Bush’s pardons is coverage of illegal acts and that they might lead to Bush himself?
The fresh in the public’s memory isn’t very satisfying. Again, Weinberger and even Scooter’s commutation seems to be a more accurate parallel.

Nice to know that these criminals have such a loyal friend in the White House… Not to let Clinton off the hook for his shenanigans.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

KT, while a lot of people are ‘concerned’ about Marc Rich and current adminsitration types who Bush ‘may’ pardon, I’m curious about the people who Bush pardoned yesterday (with the exception of Carly Simon’s backup singer). Unless, Bush chose some names at random, there must be some significant circumstances behind his action, as news reports indicate his use of executive clemency is about as frequent as he has rational thoughts.
.
Are you or are any of you colleagues looking into this? I think there’s an interesting story there.

The Marc Rich pardon will be moot in the Holder hearings because if it comes up its going to open up a big can of worms about executive privilege which Bush has hid behind and Scooter Libby’s name will be back in the papers. I expect that after a LOT of media speculation about Marc Rich and how Holder might have helped to “illegally” get him a pardon even though it was thoroughly investigate, you wont hear much about it during the hearings and all the media speculation will do is to hurt Holder’s credibility before he gets into office.
.
KT if you think its legit to talk about it, don’t you think it should also be pointed out that there were congressional Hearings about the Marc Rich pardon which uncovered no wrong doing?
.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/7/6/24738/59490

KT here–

sg: The fact that there was no “wrongdoing” doesn’t mean that it wasn’t wrong to do it.

More on the Rich pardon from the national journal

KT here–

Andy: I am not looking deeply into it, because I simply don’t have time with the tens of thousands of other things that are on my plate. I’m sure some people are. But the vast majority of people who get these pardons get them because there is some huge injustice in their cases, and that fact manages to work its way through the bureaucracy. (The fact that this is handled by the Justice Department is what got Holder in trouble.) Most of these people do not sound as though they have particularly powerful connections.

KT
.
Explain please. Why was it wrong?

Haven’t we Mark Rich-ed this thread to death already.

KT here–

SG: It was wrong because Marc Rich did nothing to deserve a pardon, there was no injustice done to him, he was on the lam, and he got it only because of his political connections.

More about the Rich pardon from Scooter Libby

KT here–

SG: Do you have any information that suggests he was deserving of a pardon?

KT
.
Have you been reading the links I am providing? Scooter Libby said there was no criminal conduct done by Marc Rich and that the governement wouldn’t sit down with him (he was one of Rich’s lawyers initially) and negotiate in good faith and show all their cards. So yes I have information that suggests he was deserving of a pardon

KT here–

SG: Once again, we will have to disagree. Marc Rich was a sleazeball. But quite frankly, I have to agree with newfloridian that I am pretty tired of this conversation.

KT here–

SG: Though I can’t let the Scooter Libby thing go. He was BEING PAID by Rich as his attorney to argue for his pardon. I’m surprised to see him cited here as an authoritative source for truth and justice.

The rightwing extremists ginned up the old faux outrage machine over Rich, so DC journos are conditioned to use that relatively minor presidential pardon to fill out their piece, once again relived that they don’t have to revisit the truly outrageous pardons of George HW Bush of the Iran-Contra conspirators who were about to undergo discovery of Poppy’s complicity in the scandal under Walsh. The pardon of Rich was otherwise completely unremarkable. Like President Reagan pardoning George Steinbrenner.
.
//
On December 24, 1992, twelve days before former Secretary of Defense Caspar W. Weinberger was to go to trial, Bush pardoned him.1 In issuing pardons to Weinberger and five other Iran/contra defendants, President Bush charged that Independent Counsel’s prosecutions represented the “criminalization of policy differences.”NOTE: Sound familiar?]

1 President Bush also pardoned former National Security Adviser Robert C. McFarlane, former Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams, former CIA Central American Task Force Chief Alan D. Fiers, Jr., former CIA Deputy Director for Operations Clair E. George, and former CIA Counter-Terrorism Chief Duane R. Clarridge. The Weinberger pardon marked the first time a President ever pardoned someone in whose trial he might have been called as a witness, because the President was knowledgeable of factual events underlying the case.

The criminal investigation of Bush was regrettably incomplete. Before Bush’s election as President, the investigation was primarily concerned with the operational conspiracy and the careful evaluation of the cases against former National Security Adviser John M. Poindexter and Lt. Col. Oliver L. North of the National Security Council staff, prior to their indictment in March 1988. This included a review of any exculpatory material that might have shown authorization for their conduct. In the course of this investigation, Vice President Bush was deposed on January 11, 1988.
. Source:Bush Pardons Weinberger, Five Others Tied to Iran-Contra
.
Cap Weinberger pushed his own grocery cart in Safeway, and was therefore pardon-worthy.

Needed here: Colgate-Love. Sweet, pasty Colgate-Love.

There was no faux outrage, and it is never mentioned, when Reagan pardoned George Steinbrenner, another well-connected sleazeball who didn’t “deserve” a pardon. It is the different standards for Democrats vs. Republicans, once again.
The 10 Most Notorious Presidential Pardons – George Steinbrenner – TIME

KT
.
No he wasn’t Scooter Libby was already in the Justice Department by the time the pardon came up. He had NO role in advocating a pardon for Marc Rich. He represented Marc Rich when there were still ongoing negotiations between Rich’s lawyers and the New York AG’s office. He had to recuse himself in point of fact when the pardon process was started because he was already working at the Defense Department. If anything he had every reason and legal right to distance himself from the pardon and to throw Rich under the bus but he didn’t. Now Rich is a sleazeball granted, but pardons as I understand them aren’t supposed to be about whether someone is a saint or not. Its supposed to be about whether or not as you said there were merits to granting the pardon. And there WERE merits to the pardon and it WAS investigated in Congress AND Clinton didn’t hide behind executive privilege. I will let it go, but its a little disconcerting that you have the facts wrong about the case but you are still ready to say it was wrong for Clinton to pardon Rich.

That should have read Scooter Libby was already in the Defense Department in the first line

NNTO–
.
Marc Rich should always be mentioned. It’s hard to think to think of a more egregious case.
.
Well, there’s Nixon….

Okay, just wanted to see if there was any reason that Rich was a better example than the GHWB pardons.
Nope, just more of the same old Clinton rules.
.
If “sleazeball” is the disqualifier than you really are opening a can of worms.

Off-topic, but is the Fed an all-powerful demigod agency that can do whatever it wants whenever it wants? I’m not saying I disagree with their action, but it seems like everyone else is over here negotiating every detail tooth and nail and then the Fed just announces these mindblowing moneystorms.

the tens of thousands of other things that are on my plate.
.
Zowie!! TENS of thousands. And here I was just trying to find bacon in the fridge this morning.
.

sgw, thanks for that link in your comment 11 discussing the Rich pardon. Think I’m going to be quoting that a lot in weeks to come.
.
James,LA Excellent points about the faux outrage and many thanks for the link to the TIME article on the 10 Most Notorious Pardons! Interesting how many of them were done by Republican Presidents. Wish the Dems could gin up more faux outrage so things would seem a little more even to the casual observer.

Ah, NNTO, yes, you’re right there. The use of the pardon power to circumvent oversight, and prevent enforcement of the law as applied to, say, foreign policy direction given by the Congress is worse than your everyday graft.
.
Just wait.

While we’re on the subject of using pardons on his own administration, I’d like to reiterate something I’ve said in the past about the FISA bill. My interest isn’t so much in seeing people physically punished for what happened than it is in seeing what happened being thoroughly investigated and brought into the light of day. When the Congress passed the telecom immunity bill it removed the only avenue left in uncovering the thought process that led Bush to order wholsale violations of existing law.

After that, the only hope I have left is if John Ashcroft writes a tell-all autobiography after Bush is safely out of office.

Jay
.
I would think that Poppy Bush’s pardons intended to keep himself and everyone else in the Reagan administration from getting thrown under the jail because of the Iran Contra scandal would qualify as MORE egregious. But hey thats just my opinion

Remember when Marc Rich issued those orders okaying torture, extraordinary rendition and eavesdropping on U.S. citizens without a warrant?
.
Neither do I.

ivb,
journos can be so predictable at times. And then they get all huffy and defensive when you point out they are applying different standards to the Dems versus Repubs.

I guess maybe I should also point out that one of the biggest slams against Rich was that he was dealing with Iranian oil, but weren’t Reagan and Bush 41 supplying ARMS to Iran? Again I think thats more egregious but what do I know?

My point isn’t about whether Marc Rich was deserving of a pardon my point was that it has zero relevance to GWB pardoning the people around him.
It’s Howie “I seem to recall that Clinton did (x)” Kurtz jounalism.
You know, for balance.

outrageous and relatively fresh in the public’s memory
-
Not to pile on here, KT, but the reason it’s prominent in the public mind is that the GOP loves to fling poo at the Clintons, and the media loves to wallow in it. Rich is a well-connected schemer like Steinbrenner, not an abuser of the Constitution like Weinberger, Felt, Nixon, Abrams, Libby, etc.
-
There is no comparison. One story is gossip, the other stories reflect serious problems in the operation of the government.

PNNTO
.
PLEASE don’t mention Gerald Fords’ pardon of Nixon in this conversation then. I mean just because it was also unprecendented and it was a pardon for a guy who had yet to be charged with anything and his pardon covered EVERYTHING he might have done in office, surely that doesn’t make it rise to the level of Rich does it?

sgwhite, I think Libby was more involved in the Rich pardon than your comment suggests. He was his attorney as early as 1985, up until 2000.

sg
.
I think you’re probably right about that. But I also think there’s something really icky about just getting brazenly bought off.

Elvis
.
He was his attorney UNTIL they tried to ask for a pardon. By the way I already posted that link up thread

jay
.
Not to say Clinton wasn’t bought off but I will say they never proved he was and they definitely tried like hell to do so. The Iran Contra scandal has been confirmed many times over. And I think while getting bought off is reprehinsible, abusing the constitution, deceiving the American people, working against foreign governments, potentially helping along the introduction and expansion of the crack cocaine trade in the U.S. and then using the pardon power to save your OWN ass to me ranks a little bit higher on the slimeball scale. Again just my own opinion.

See, no one in the real world cared anything about the Rich pardon; most people didn’t even know who he was or what he had done. It was “hmm, pardon? meh.” The GOP decided to gin up some outrage and the DC journos, who luuuuvvvvv false outrage, ran the story into print with glaring headlines. People were like WTF? Who cares? So the only people who were outrages were the GOP and the DC journos who had an easy story to write up., And it’s an easy story to write up periodically.
.
But when you ask them why it was significant, none of them can give a plausible answer. Because it isn’t significant at all, except to the closed circle of friends in DC. That’s another example of how out of touch DC journos are with what us rubes really care about.

sgwhiteinfla, thanks for the Libby/Rich link. I had read there was some connection between those two but could never find anything definitive.
.
Their connection contributes to Washington/Versailles comparisons, but facts are facts.

He was his attorney UNTIL they tried to ask for a pardon.
-
Fair enough, sgwhite.
-
By the way I already posted that link up thread
-
Yeah, well, you posted a lot of links upthread! Now I see it, had missed it before.
-
I thought I remembered reading Clinton saying that he figured there would be bipartisan support for a Rich pardon, what with the Libby connection, but I can’t find it after a minute of Googling.

lol sorry about the innundation Elvis. Sometimes I get going and don’t let up.

Who needs a pardon when you’ve got a memo?

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,99302,00.html

This is what bothers me about Rich’s pardon. That’s the fact that he never, ever served a day of his sentence. He fled the country. That alone should have disqualified him. Why Eric Holder promoted his pardon should be addressed at his confirmation hearing. Should that disqualify him as AG, I’m not sure. I’d like to wait and hear his answers to this before making further judgement.

But the truth is that the President has the authority to pardon as he sees fit. If that means that it’s done as political payback (or quid pro quo) then I’m not so sure there’s a great deal that we can do short of a Constitutional Amendment limiting that power.

We can use the pardons that Presidents make (in my opinion only) one of two ways. We can use it to score political points and cause embarassment to the other political party (Rich) or we can use it as a tool to show how an administration can abuse this power (Weinberger).

KT here–

J,LA asserts: it is never mentioned, when Reagan pardoned George Steinbrenner

And then he provides a link where TIME declares it one of the 10 most notorious pardons.

Which is true? Is it never mentioned or is it notorious? Because it seems that both of those things cannot be true.

@KT,
.
Look on the bright side. During campaign season, absolutely every scrap of information on every candidate that everybdy knew to be absolutely true was never mentioned.
.
Remember?

google search
.
Results 1 – 10 of about 8,780 for Reagan pardons Steinbrenner
.
Results 1 – 10 of about 244,000 for Clinton pardons Rich
.
Im just sayin

KT here–

SG: Repeat after me: The ONLY THING that matters is what TIME says. Put down that silly Google thing. It’s a fad. You hear me? A FAD!!!!!!

Now, please go out and buy a TIME subscription before the High Sheriffs finalize the layoff lists next week.

Touche, Karen. Very good. You know, I had no idea that Richard Nixon pardoned Jimmy Hoffa. Did you remember that? It’s good that Time Mag does a piece like this occasionally. Because otherwise, us rubes would think that the only person every pardoned was Marc Rich, that sleazeball!

lol KT I forgot the golden rule!

KT here–

Guys, please see the update on the update.

The Onion is AWESOME! LOL

I went to grad school in Madison, and The Onion was distributed free every Tuesday afternoon in the student union. It was truly the highlight of my week.
.
I was there for the 2000 election, and I think my favorite Onion story of all time comes from then: “Visiting Al Gore Calls Pennsylvania ‘A Hellhole.’”
.
My favorite section, which still makes me cry with laughter: “Later in the day, Gore made an appearance at the Johnstown Agriculture Fair, at which he served as judge in the Sorghum Queen pageant. The vice-president was overheard making numerous inflammatory comments off-microphone, including… “This is someone’s idea of an attractive woman?” One contestant, attempting to present Gore with a bushel of Pennsylvania apples, was reportedly waved aside with the words, “No. No f**king way.”
.
Gore concluded his day on the steps of the State Capitol in Harrisburg, where he lowered the Pennsylvania flag, shredded it with a large hunting knife, and urinated on the shreds.

Suzie in MD– that’s one of my favorites, too! I have friends in Scranton, which makes that article even funnier. They distribute the paper copy in Chicago, too. And I stole one of their ads from another city last year: “Journalistic Integrity Comes To Washington, D.C.: The Onion, Washington, D.C. Bureau. Opens April 5th.”
-
These two Onion articles were more prescient than anything that appeared in Time magazine or any other MSM publication, I bet: Bush: ‘Our Long National Nightmare of Peace and Prosperity Is Finally Over’
-
Point: This War Will Destabilize The Entire Mideast Region And Set Off A Global Shockwave Of Anti-Americanism. Counterpoint: No, It Won’t