Is Bush just given a folder and told "sign these?" Does he even ask who he is pardoning and why? I honestly don't understand how you can inadvertently pardon someone.

It might not end up in court because Toussie has no real reason to pursue the matter. He finished serving a short prison term some time ago and is said to be doing well for himself today in the real estate industry.

I'm not sure which is worse - to fight the revocation and become even more famous, with more and more details being broadcast nationwide, or just hope people lose interest. In either case, Massie will never be seen as innocent, and Bush will never be seen as compassionate or wise. Personally, I hope details come out on how Massie was selected. Unlike Mark Rich, this appears not to have been a quick process (18 mo).

Is there nothing this clown can't screw up?

Only 24 days left, but it feels like eternity.

I'm no attorney, but it seems to me that if a Pardon is signed then the Pardoned individual can be required to testify regarding the crime for which he was pardoned because he is not in any danger of being tried, so the Fifth Amendment does not apply. But that would only be true if the Pardon cannot be withdrawn. If the Pardon can be withdrawn, then it ceased to be a protection against self incrimination.

That would mean that if this Pardon is "withdrawn" and this issue goes to court, then no one who has been pardoned can be required to testify until the court resolve the issue of whether a pardon can be withdrawn. Libby, Rove and others who Bush Pardons can avoid testifying after they get their Pardons until this case is resolved.

That could take years. All the issues for which Bush gives Pardons would be political dead letters by the time that was taken care of, like the Iran-Contra affair.

Is this true? Just wondering.

if bush is successful in asserting that a president can rescind a pardon, does that not open the door for a succeeding president, i.e. obama, to rescind other bush pardons that are deemed objectionable?

The opinion I've seen elsewhere is that Bush tried to take back the pardon because it looks too much like Clinton's pardon of Mark Rich for campaign contributions. This is a problem for Bush only because Senate Republicans are planning to block the nomination of Eric Holder for Attorney General on the grounds that he was involved in okaying the Rich pardon.

If Toussie walks, the Republicans lose a big club - and they want to immediately start off by stopping Obama on a big item right up front in the early days of his administration. It's part of building momentum to push back against everything Obama tries to do. Even if they don't block Holder, they'll put the idea in the press that Obama is just another corrupt Democrat, much as they're trying to do over Blagojevich in Illinois.

It will also make it more difficult for the new attorney general to address the wide spread lawbreaking within the DOJ and the Bush administration in general, if the GOP can taint his credibility. An amazing concept, when one considers the record of the Bush AG's at DOJ - but it's a given the press will buy into it.

If Obama does nothing to pursue any of the criminal activities of the Bush administration, he'll be tacitly surrendering to them from Day One, because they have no intention of doing anything to work with him at all.

Once again Bush administers by not administering. I think this pardon is a reflection of the entire Bush presidency. Make a decision without thought or investigation, and then when you discover that you made a mistake, lie your way out of it, or just say "oops, sorry".

Hoyt asked:

> Is Bush just given a folder and told "sign
> these?" Does he even ask who he is pardoning
> and why?

That is, effectively, how he dealt with requests for stays of execution and sentence commutation in Texas when he was governor -- he left the review of cases to his counsel (one Alberto Gonzalez; where have I heard that name before?) -- and signed off based solely on his recommendation.

Delegating authority to review and vet cases is not the core problem here; it's not taking things seriously enough to put people in charge of these things who, in their turn, will take them as seriously as the boss is expected to.

Marc said:
Once again Bush administers by not administering. I think this pardon is a reflection of the entire Bush presidency. Make a decision without thought or investigation, and then when you discover that you made a mistake, lie your way out of it, or just say "oops, sorry".

The problem is, no one in the Bush administration, except for Richard Clarke, has ever apologized for anything. At best, they admit that "mistakes were made".

The legacy of these idiots and criminals will haunt the country for years.

does that not open the door for a succeeding president, i.e. obama, to rescind other bush pardons - nutcase

US Grant revoked two Andrew Johnson pardons. Both men challenged in court, and lost. He tried to revoke two more, but the courts wouldn't let him. The issue in each case was whether they had received their pardons, not whether the President had officially issued them.

Bush's attempted take-back

It wasn't a take-back, it was a do over;> He finally got one!

I wonder if the Republican party will return the $40,000+ that Toussie's father paid for the pardon. It would seem that this would be the honest thing to do and if they don't, then someone ought to call them on it.

if bush is successful in asserting that a president can rescind a pardon, does that not open the door for a succeeding president, i.e. obama, to rescind other bush pardons that are deemed objectionable?

I sure hope so. The man has fucked over so many people it's only just that he finally fuck over himself.
Haul his ass off to Gitmo without due process, then rendition him to a torture chamber in Abu Ghraib.

The part that seems ridiculous is that the pardon must be received. Who would refuse a Presidential pardon after petitioning for one?

I hate to see such a loathsome criminal run free as much as I hate to see the POTUS make pathetic, imcompetent mistakes. But with the Bush regime, I'm all too accustimed to both.

It smacks big time of "double jeopardy".
Charged for the same crime twice.

Bush pooched it. Rather than admit the mistake and make the Marc Rich pardon appear to be ample human error, he needs to humiliate himself demanding a do-over.

You muffed, Bush. Clinton muffed too. For the exact same reason. Graft. You MIGHT simply own up and surprise everybody with a dash of humility which would really do you boatloads of good, but instead you'll insist that Marc Rich is different somehow and your flunkies that held on to their seats by their fingernails will pipe up in happy chorus.

We're trying to help. Really.

The ghost of Mark Rich has just shown up incarnated as Isaac Toussie. Sure takes the punch out of McConnell's approach to Eric Holder's confirmation. Looks like good ol'Bushman has done it again. Hopefully this mess will linger in the news cycle until say Jan. 10th, 2009. -Kevo

i got lost wandering around in the tubes and i see others beat me to pointing out that pardons can in fact be withdrawn.

i was reading yesterday on the subject over at Pardon Power. they have a list of occasions where "previous presidents revoked their own full and unconditional pardons."

Something extraordinary or bizarre should be expected of Bush and Company from now on. Grab you partner

The Isaac Toussie is a Doozy Doe, with a traditional dosie doe, do your partner here we go, lot more than frauds and hucksters playing,

Chicken in the bread pan peckin at the dough get those tax dollars before we go,

Mainstream Media is the most to grind those stories till the cows come home.

Do the Pelosi Dosie doe she gota line and pole makin us head down to the crawford hole.

Watch out this granny has dogs that bit, they’ell take you whole,

Get those tax bucks two by two, swing and promenade before those dogs bit.

This tax dollar dance is bread licking good, Neo-Coned and Crawford dough swing your partner dosie doe.

Some of you are really missing how this is working for the Bush Administration. Texas Aggie for example. Why return the $40k. Consider that Toussie has already served his term. The only issue for him that a pardon touches is whether he can legally claim to have no criminal record when applying for jobs, grants, loans and the like. So with this maneuver, given the uncertainty about the legality of the pardon repeal, Toussie will be free to answer that he has no criminal record and no one will ever bother to prosecute him on it. At the same time the Bush Administration can claim that with the repeal they aren't selling pardons. Voila, a Bushco win-win.

Trust Little Georgie to fuck up a wet dream. Let's see Snarlin' Arlen Spector try and go after Eric Holder with this on his side.

Further proof that Republican is a synonym for dumbass.

I'm too cynical. My paranoid conspiracy is that Bush withdrew his pardon when certain details came to light. However (according to my conspiracy theory), Bush fully intends for the pardon withdrawal to not be upheld. Thus, Toussie walks and Bush can claim that he tried to undo a "mistake".

If Bush really wanted to rescind the pardon, he could just charge Toussie as a terrorist, and he would be totally $cr3w3d for life.

Who says? Is there any precedent? Couldn't be too many cases of rescinded pardons.

So the question becomes: Would the white house issue a pardon without announcing the pardon has been issued by burying the announcement, pretending there is some disagreement over paperwork for now and that the story simply isn`t ready for the front pages yet, and then a year from now "loose" the fight over this when lawyers from both sides finally get around to settling this issue?

Or did the PR and legacy project people have a handle on the pardons, but then get bypassed by one of those GOP contributers and friends of the Bush family who can just walk in and out of the white house? Oh and by the way this pardon thing is all worked out but if you could just sign it now I can personally give it in time for Christmas wouldn`t that make a great gift?

I've given this a little thought and why the hell does the POTUS have pardon power at all? Does pardon power serve an executive purpose of the presidency? Was it thought that without some "presidential perks" like this that the presidency would be too stultifying for qualified candidates?
Here's how that sentence in the Constitution would read:

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; and he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices."

See, you don't even miss it

Whatever their (lack of) reasoning, there should be an amendment that ends this presidential power.

Tell Congress AG Holder's first duty will be to investigate how Bush was selling pardons.

He will have to start investigating immediately due to the nature of the crimes and misdemeanors associated with such an act.

How was Bush selling pardons?

The Bush haters! You're sick. The guy issued a pardon, got new information, and changed his mind. You just can't handle that concept, can you ... you holier-than-thous.

At least Bush had the decency to correct his mistake.

I do love my country and respect it's laws and traditions, and have taken the oath to protect and defend the US Constitution.

If, in your view, that makes a Bush hater, it does explain much of what's happened to our country for the last eight years.

I am wondering if double jeopardy would apply if he attempts to rescind the pardon. Once the case is pardoned, can a person be convicted again? I think not.