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)

9 Responses to "President grants pardons less than predecessors"

Big Bang Hunter says:

December 30, 2005 at 11:21 pm

– Strange Reid choose Bush41 to cite instead of Jhiminy Peanut, without whos help Lurch Kerry would have never been in a position to try to lie his way into the White House. (Carter issued a blanket pardon to all dis-honorably discharged troops in connection with Viet Nam one hour after being sworn in, which Kerry jumped on to pretend he was a war hero, not the guy who shot himself in the ass twice with granade launchers.)

This is another laugher. If Bush would have pardoned more they still would have grossed. Its just more of the same Bush derangement, but in Reids case he seems to think he’s been elevated to co-president or something. Anything the Pres. chooses to share with the senile Senator is purely a curtousy. The Dems are so freaked out over being powerless they can’t help themselves. They just have to think of some way to be involved, or go even loopier. I think Reid has come unhinged. If he was satient enough he would do well to stop himself from following in the footsteps of his Communist supporters.

Big Bang
Steve Skubinna says:

December 31, 2005 at 1:02 am

Yeah, I expect Reid doesn’t want a repeat of that shameful Mark Rich deal…

Huh… it was Clint- uh, never mind.
Big Bang Hunter says:

December 31, 2005 at 1:19 am

– I think you’re right Steve. I think it was Clinton. The lefties are so busy behind the scenes trying to thwart everything they don’t like about our Republic in the usual slimball liberal, end justifies the means way, at times its hard to keep up.

Bang
Kenwg says:

December 31, 2005 at 1:52 am

Bush I pardoned, before they went to trial, both Casper Weinberger (former Defense Secretary, awaiting trial on charges of lying to Congress) and Duane Clarridge (former C.I.A. official awaiting trial on charges that he misled Congressional investigators about a missile shipment to Iran in 1985). He also pardoned 4 others who had already been convicted or pleaded guilty to Iran-Contra related crimes.

It was as wrong as Clinton’s pardon of Mark Rich. And if Libby (or Rove or whoever) is pardoned it will be just as bad. Corruption and cover-up is so rampant throughout government today, we’re starting to look like an overgrown bananna republic.

Regarding Reid; if you think he’s unhinged, imagine what I must think of George in comparison (picture an image of W runing around Pennsylvania Ave in his Post Office suit, babbling to himself and shooting shooting up anything that moves…)

I’m somewhat surprised Bush has his “Justice” department looking for whoever blew the whistle on his constitutional and legal transgressions. I have a feeling that this is one witch hunt that’s likely to backfire in a big way on Bush, especially if he finds out who it was and tries to prosecute.

The only thing currently saving this President from censure (or impeachment) is a partisan Republican Congress. And if the bursting housing bubble is big enough, even that may not save his be-hind. Republicans better get out the vote in ’06, or big things may be happening in Congress…

Ken G
Dana says:

December 31, 2005 at 10:14 am

Our lovely hostess wrote:

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?

You are incorrect. Remember President Ford’s pardon of former President Nixon; Mr Nixon had resigned from office, but been convicted of nothing. President Ford was preventing a long, damaging, stressful trial that would soak up the national attention for maybe two years.

There have been court cases which have held that the acceptance of a pardon constitutes an admission of guilt, and that was certainly the position taken by the Ford Administration.
Pam says:

December 31, 2005 at 12:26 pm

At Carters urging, Patty Hearst was also pardoned by Clinton. All the other bank robbers faced murder charges just after she was pardoned. I found that odd. But we do allow the POTUS this right. We may complain all we like, but it is their right under the COTUS and Harry Reid has no business butting into GWB’s decisions. He needs no approval from anyone to pardon people.
ArizonaTeach says:

December 31, 2005 at 1:59 pm

I was gonna say what Dana said. It seems to me, though, and I really should look it up, but, you know…laaaaazy….but it seems to me that Ford pardoned Nixon for anything he “may” have done in relation to Watergate…he was vague one what was being pardoned. Hell, Nixon wasn’t even charged with anything, was he?
benning says:

January 1, 2006 at 8:32 am

Dana got it. Reid is trying to link GW with Nixon/Ford. He thinks he’s being subtle. He isn’t.

Clinton made so many horrid pardons in his last days in office that even rabid Dhimmi-crats were embarrassed. Reid just wants to pre-empt and embarrass Bush.

As far as the “rules” on pardons go, the page was interesting but moot. The President’s powers to pardon are fairly absolute. Even Congressional legislation to limit those powers would not likely fly. It would take a Constitutional Amendment to change the President’s powers in any real way.
Severian says:

January 1, 2006 at 12:41 pm

benning said “Dana got it. Reid is trying to link GW with Nixon/Ford. He thinks he’s being subtle. He isn’t.”

True, but there’s also another aspect to it in addition to this. He’s counting on the average person’s lack of attention to the news and what’s going on. By saying Bush shouldn’t pardon Libby, he’s giving the impression to a lot of people that Libby has already been found guilty, not that he’s just been indicted and hasn’t stood trial yet. It’s part of the usual Democratic “big lie” distortion and obsfucation, imply that he’s already convicted, and many will believe it.

Disgusting aint’ it? Time will tell if it works.

Comments are closed.