[1rudeboy]

That certainly is an interesting argument to make: because Clinton may not have followed the process, Bush shouldn't either.

In any case, I am not aware of anyone getting a pardon while their appeal is running, perhaps a historian can help me out.

[pissant]

Scooter

[weegee]

I though that the criminals pardoned by Clinton used a different process, financial kickbacks to the Clintoons.

[deport]

There have been a few issued over the years by various Presidents...... Libby and Nixon come to mind. But if you look closely at President Bush many of his pardons are for minor offenses where the person has served their time and are now back in society. It is basically a record clearing process for them.

[tarheelswamprat]

That certainly is an interesting argument to make: because Clinton may not have followed the process, Bush shouldn't either.

The President's power of pardon and/or commutation under the Constitution is absolute. There is no "process" which he is required to observe or follow. He can issue pardons or commutations whenever he wants, and for whatever reasons he wants.

In any case, I am not aware of anyone getting a pardon while their appeal is running, perhaps a historian can help me out.

While off-hand I'm not aware of a case where a pardon was granted during the actual appeal process either, your raising of this point as an objection to President Bush pardoning these two agents does not even rate the "interesting argument" assessment you so "generously" accorded to doc1019 - yours is simply an irrelevant argument.

Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon before he was even indicted for anything.

Bush 41 pardoned Casper Weinberger immediately after he was indicted, before he even went to trial.

To reiterate: the President is not bound by any "process" with regard to pardons or commutations.

The actual issue at hand in this thread is that President Bush is hiding behind a false procedural argument to avoid and excuse himself from pardoning these men. Worse, the supercilious, backed-handed slap manner in which he chose to have his spokesman deliver the statement, when distilled to its essence, was nothing more than a press-corps version of the celebrated Bush smirk...

[raybbr]

That certainly is an interesting argument to make: because Clinton may not have followed the process, Bush shouldn't either. In any case, I am not aware of anyone getting a pardon while their appeal is running, perhaps a historian can help me out.

Why am I not surprised that you would prefer that these two men stay in jail?

What difference does it make if they are appealing? Bush wants them in jail. If he had any commitment to justice, honor and the sovereignty of the U.S. he would have pardoned them the day they were convicted. Better yet, he would have ordered Sutton to drop the case.

But no. You want to protect a drug smuggler before you want to protect two men who were trying to protect you.

I am not surprised.