The thing that aggravates me most about it isn't the president's power to do it, but how people on the one hand will applaud one president but act shocked that another does the same thing. Or, as in this particular case, something a lot less. After all, Bush could have pardoned Libby, if he'd wanted to, but instead commuted the sentence. To me, the more I think about it, he should have pardoned him. After all, Libby wasn't the big fish.

Shouldn't a pardon or a commutation be judged on its own merit, in its own proper context? What's the use of comparing it to what other Presidents have done or how people reacted to that? Wrong is still wrong, and dragging Clinton into all this really doesn't change a thing about that. I'm sure Clinton had his fair share of controversial pardonings, but that should not change a thing about this case on its own.
Of course some level of partisanship will rear its ugly head in matters like these, but surely there's a difference between absolving someone of marihuana charges, and someone who is the center of a huge political scandal. Context is important, not sheer numbers.

It is a political hotbed. That's for sure, but abusing power is abusing power. Bush left the conviction on him. His political career is, or should be, over. Assuming he loses on appeal, which is extremely likely, he'll still have to pay the fines, and do what ever is laid out in his probation, he just won't go to jail. Personally, while I still think that frying the small fish is just a way to say "I told you so", at least the scapegoat that is Libby won't have to spend 30 months in prison. The actual crime that was being investigated, and Libby's offences in that crime are separate issues. If you're going to fry somebody, fry somebody that committed the crime you are investigating, not the official scapegoat. Doing that doesn't send any kind of message to the actual perpetrators. Well, one message; do whatever you want, so long as you have a fall guy, because we'll hang the fall guy instead.

How come we don't hear about all these though? I mean, would many of them be little things by personal friends? Or can anyone apply for a pardon, any normal citizen? Just trying to understand how it all works. I mean, clintons has 396, wtf?

Because most of these pardonings are mostly small potatoes? As someone has said before, it's only the really controversial ones that people get worked up about, as I ( ;) ) demonstrate. On the list on Clinton pardonings, you'll find plenty of people being pardoned who were serving long time jail terms for marihuana charges or something of the like. And these are not just people in his direct circle of friends and acquaintances, no reason to be that cynical. [img]smile.gif[/img] I believe people can petition the President for a pardon (see here).
I do know there was some widespread media coverage when Clinton pardoned a large number of people during the last few days in office though (also see here), definitely sparking controversy across the board. Some of those were quite controversial an sich, in fact.

[ 07-10-2007, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: Papa Schlumpf ]