President grants pardons less than predecessors

… and the USA Today acts like that’s a bad thing.

Is it? Seems just about everyone they quoted for the article thinks so.

Another part of this story I found comment-worthy was this tidbit:

Last month, some Senate Democrats cited the Iran-contra pardons as they asked Bush to rule out a pardon for I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby. Vice President Cheney’s former chief of staff faces trial on charges of obstruction of justice and perjury in the CIA leak case.

In a letter to Bush, Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada and three other senators asked Bush to disclose whether the possibility of a Libby pardon had been discussed in the White House. Reid encouraged Bush to “avoid falling in the footsteps of his father.”

Correct me if I’m wrong, but assuming that Libby is acquited on the charges against him re: Plamegate (and I’m not predicting he will be), would he even need a pardon by the President? Maybe it’s because it’s late and I’m on my second glass of wine but I’m not understanding Reid’s request – I thought that someone had to be convicted of a crime before being considered for a pardon. If I’m right, isn’t it rather presumptuous of Reid to make the request in the first place?

I’ll take a look on this page at the requirements in an attempt to answer my own question, but I’d like to read your comments on it as well.

(Cross-posted at Blogs For Bush)

Comments are closed.