Bush's pardoning of Libby violates pardoning rules

This is a continuation off the previous post about the Libby pardon.

It's interesting how the White House is not calling this a "pardon."  Instead, they are choosing to use the word "commute."  Nonetheless, it still is at least a partial pardon -- and it is illegal, according to the Justice Department's own web site:

They “require a petitioner to wait a period of at least five yearsafter conviction or release from confinement (whichever is later)before filing a pardon application,”  according to the Justice Web site.

Moreover, in weighing whether to recommend a pardon, U.S. attorneys aresupposed to consider whether an applicant is remorseful. “The extent towhich a petitioner has accepted responsibility for his or her criminalconduct and made restitution to ... victims are importantconsiderations. A petitioner should be genuinely desirous offorgiveness rather than vindication,” the Justice Web site states.

As we have seen with the ongoing battle over Executive privilege, the White House thinks it is above the law.

Useful links:

• Bush justifies Libby pardon
• Harry Reid's office releases statement

Comments

[Arlen]

Bush's commutation (granting partial clemency) of Libby's prison term was a travsesty of justice. That said...

A commutation is not a pardon- Libby's conviction has not been wiped, and he is still required to pay a $250,000 fine.

Also, Federal Pardon Guidelines from the DoJ are not legally binding, and are meant only to be a reccomendation (so even if it was a formal pardon, it still wouldn't be "illegal").

Virtually every modern president has broken the pardon guidelines at least once.

[Chief Editor: Todd]

The Justice Department is the legal arm of the Executive Branch. The White House is violating the rules of its own branch. Also, commutation, partial clemency.....whatever you call it, this is at the very least a partial pardon.

[Arlen]

No. These are guidelines, not rules. Presidents often choose not to follow them. Further, even if they were strict "rules," breaking them would not be breaking the law (making it "illegal"). Only Congress can make laws.

If we want the blogosphere to be committed to accuracy and fairness, we can't just throw these terms around like "illegal" because it diminishes their true meanings. We should save words like "illegal" for when something illegal really is done, not for sensationalist headlines.

[Chief Editor: Todd]

The extent to which President Bush has made the Executive immune from investigation and prosecution from the other two branches of government is illegal, I'm sorry to say. When the Executive Branch makes its own rules for pardoning convicted criminals, then the President, as a member of the Executive Branch, needs to follow them. If he didn't like the rules to begin with, then he could have pressured Alberto Gonzales to issue different ones before this all happened. But now that the tables are turned and one of his own needs pardoning, he changes the rules.

Bush has denied more than 4,000 commutation requests. But not this one.

[granny]

"the White House thinks it is above the law."

Apparently there are none out there who can prove them wrong, or are willing to do so.

The "law" lies trampled and scoffed at by this administration and its cadre, while we still waffle around, and wax poetic, and do nothing at all. It's incredible.

Certainly this "commutation" ~ or whatever the action is called "officially" (and it's sure hard to distinguish "official" these days) is not even a drop in the bucket, compared to the GIGANTIC failures of this administration not only to uphold the law, but abide by it.

If Arlen is correct, and he speaks knowledgably, and the written procedure regarding "pardoning", "cummuting" et. al. are "guidelines", then there's no "breaking" the law...One follows the guidelines, or one doesn't. It's open for interpretation.Hence: "guide".

Which ever way the discussion goes, I stand on my take of it, which is that this is not the place to take a stand. There are far more egregious crimes and misdemeanors already piled up, and waiting to be called to account for.To try to make something of this is clouding the water, and we would lose. And I bet, that's precisely what they're hoping for.

Every ill considered move we make now, trying not to face the real music,(which is that these guys really have broken the law, and flauted the Constitution in ways that are going to make a BIG BIG stink if the investigations are carried forward...) is buying them time to get out of Dodge before the hanging. There's not that much time. Look at how long it's taking to get the Justice Department action moving. Time IS of the essence

[Arlen]

Either way, the Libby sentence commutation (the taking away the prison term but leaving the conviction and quarter mil fine) was terrible, I'm just saying that nobody needs to stretch the case for why it was bad.

[Helen Rainier]

Would this grind so much if Libby had at least put in a perfunctory one month in prison? It would have been outrageous even then, but to do this without the convicted felon having served one day is beyond belief.

[mikey]

Paris Hilton DID more time in jail than Libby !