On Deck : Government Universal Health Care

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

Holder disagrees with you. At his conformation hearing Holder said he should have consulted with prosecutors and studied the issue more closely before making that statement of Neutral leaning positive.


http://usgovinfo.about.com/blprespardons.htm

While Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution places no limitations on the president's power to grant or deny pardons, the Justice Department's U.S. Pardon Attorney prepares a recommendation for the president on each application for presidential "clemency," including pardons, commutations of sentences, remissions of fines, and reprieves.

The Pardon Attorney is required to review each application according to the following guidelines: (The president is not obliged to follow, or even consider the recommendations of the Pardon Attorney. See: Sec. 1.10)

A person seeking executive clemency by pardon, reprieve, commutation of sentence, or remission of fine shall execute a formal petition. The petition shall be addressed to the President of the United States and shall be submitted to the Pardon Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530, except for petitions relating to military offenses.
http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clemency.htm#disclosure

(a) Upon receipt of a petition for executive clemency, the Attorney General shall cause such investigation to be made of the matter as he or she may deem necessary and appropriate, using the services of, or obtaining reports from, appropriate officials and agencies of the Government, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

As an initial investigative step in a pardon case, the Office of the Pardon Attorney contacts the United States Probation Office for the federal district in which the petitioner was prosecuted to obtain copies of the presentence report and the judgment of conviction, as well as information regarding the petitioner's compliance with court supervision, and to ascertain the Probation Office's views regarding the merits of the pardon request. If review of the pardon petition and the data obtained from the Probation Office reveals information that clearly excludes the case from further favorable consideration, my office prepares a report to the President for the signature of the Deputy Attorney General recommending that pardon be denied.

http://www.usdoj.gov/archive/pardon/adams1.htm
If the FBI report suggests that favorable treatment may be warranted, or in cases which are of particular importance or in which significant factual questions exist, the Office of the Pardon Attorney requests input from the prosecuting authority (e.g., a United States Attorney, a Division of the Department of Justice, or in some cases, an Independent Counsel) and the sentencing judge concerning the merits of the pardon request. If the individual case warrants, other government agencies, such as the Internal Revenue Service or the Immigration and Naturalization Service, may be contacted as well. In appropriate cases in which the offense involved a victim, the prosecuting authority is asked to notify the victim of the pendency of the clemency petition and advise him that he may submit comments concerning the pardon request. Upon receipt of the responses to these inquiries, my office prepares a report and a proposed recommendation for action upon the case. The report is drafted for the signature of the Deputy Attorney General and is submitted for his review. If the Deputy Attorney General concurs with my office's assessment, he signs the recommendation and returns the report to my office for transmittal to the Counsel to the President. If the Deputy Attorney General disagrees with the disposition proposed by the Office of the Pardon Attorney, he may direct the Pardon Attorney to modify the Department's recommendation. After the recommendation is signed by the Deputy Attorney General, the report is transmitted to the Counsel to the President for the President's action on the pardon request whenever he deems it appropriate.

as rich was not on probation, there was no probation officer to contact was there?

second, there is as stated above "no obligation" to contact any other party in order to review the application.

last, there is only a prosedure outlined to contact other parties "If the FBI report suggests that favorable treatment may be warranted, or in cases which are of particular importance or in which significant factual questions exist". not needed in this case.

thanks for the information confiming exactly what I have been posting.

[aquaadverse]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

as rich was not on probation, there was no probation officer to contact was there?

second, there is as stated above "no obligation" to contact any other party in order to review the application.

last, there is only a prosedure outlined to contact other parties "If the FBI report suggests that favorable treatment may be warranted, or in cases which are of particular importance or in which significant factual questions exist". not needed in this case.

thanks for the information confiming exactly what I have been posting.

I really don't don't know why you are working so hard when it was acknowledged by everyone, including Holder, that it was a very botched process. The only question is if Holder was a stooge and being used or if he was a participant.

Best practices are just that. He wasn't on probation because he fled the country to escape prosecution. If you are saying that the information gathered and the people investigating explaining how and why charges were filed and the evidenced used to justify it is not needed to analyze the question of fitness for a pardon, you've gone around the bend and waved bye-bye to objectivity about 50 miles back. You keep accusing me of making things up but everything I quoted has been part of the debate for years on this. The owners manual for my vehicle doesn't tell me to check my mirrors before changing lanes, but it doesn't stop it from being necessary and a best practice.

The pardoning of a person who has fled the country to escape prosecution is so beyond the pale it generated bipartisan outrage.

Your insistence that there is nothing to see here, just move along, because there isn't a codified process for someone hauling ass before even being tried, is like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reJpj-rrsVQ

Holder himself said he should have spoken to prosecutors. You just keep looking more and more foolish. Rich was on the FBI most wanted list and fled the country to escape prosecution. His wife funneled a million dollars into a fund Clinton had full control over, additional sizable contributions to the Democrat Party and Clinton's defense fund. You are probably the only person in the US besides Rich and his ex-wife who doesn't feel this triggered the need to examine the circumstances and the role of the Justice Department.

From http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obamas-...ardon-scandal/

I'm giving that link because it refutes your claim of a partisan witch hunt.

I linked to the document that the Justice Department pardon attorney had submitted to Congress outlining the normal procedures that specifically mentioned consultation with the federal court system that had jurisdiction. I linked to Justice department documents clearly stating the federal attorneys are used as a part of the process if required to get a full vetting of the facts and circumstances. Using an argument that he wasn't on probation when you know perfectly well the main objection was he fled before undergoing the process that produces it is pretty lame. As are your condescending comments. There is little reason to continue a discussion on this with you.

Thanks for playing.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

I really don't don't know why you are working so hard when it was acknowledged by everyone, including Holder, that it was a very botched process. The only question is if Holder was a stooge and being used or if he was a participant.

Best practices are just that. He wasn't on probation because he fled the country to escape prosecution. If you are saying that the information gathered and the people investigating explaining how and why charges were filed and the evidenced used to justify it is not needed to analyze the question of fitness for a pardon, you've gone around the bend and waved bye-bye to objectivity about 50 miles back. You keep accusing me of making things up but everything I quoted has been part of the debate for years on this. The owners manual for my vehicle doesn't tell me to check my mirrors before changing lanes, but it doesn't stop it from being necessary and a best practice.

The pardoning of a person who has fled the country to escape prosecution is so beyond the pale it generated bipartisan outrage.

Your insistence that there is nothing to see here, just move along, because there isn't a codified process for someone hauling ass before even being tried, is like this:

Holder himself said he should have spoken to prosecutors. You just keep looking more and more foolish. Rich was on the FBI most wanted list and fled the country to escape prosecution. His wife funneled a million dollars into a fund Clinton had full control over, additional sizable contributions to the Democrat Party and Clinton's defense fund. You are probably the only person in the US besides Rich and his ex-wife who doesn't feel this triggered the need to examine the circumstances and the role of the Justice Department.

I'm giving that link because it refutes your claim of a partisan witch hunt.

I linked to the document that the Justice Department pardon attorney had submitted to Congress outlining the normal procedures that specifically mentioned consultation with the federal court system that had jurisdiction. I linked to Justice department documents clearly stating the federal attorneys are used as a part of the process if required to get a full vetting of the facts and circumstances. Using an argument that he wasn't on probation when you know perfectly well the main objection was he fled before undergoing the process that produces it is pretty lame. As are your condescending comments. There is little reason to continue a discussion on this with you.

Thanks for playing.

interesting that you are arguing against the very dept of justice items you yourself posted previously. rather schizoid to say the least.

there is no obligation of the pardon attorney to involve anyone in the review of a pardon request such as rich's. that was a point I have made and you also provided links to validate.

eric holder didn't grant the pardon request, nor did eric holder circumvent any processes but followed the required processes, in sending the pardon request to the white house.

the house committee on government reform, which held hearings on the rich pardon chaired by dan burton who is no stranger to politicizing events, was criticized by the democrats on that very committee for a report on holder that "is partisan, relies on innuendo, and makes unsubstantiated allegations of wrongdoing" as well as "mixes facts with suppositions". yet you use that tainted report. so much for objectivity.

the "pajamamedia" blog is full of inaccuracies (how could holder have acted out of a desire to get appointed as gore's ag when gore had already lost the election when the pardon was granted?) and falsehoods it is a partisan hackjob. is this what you use to support an argument? failure out of the gate.

I said early on in your inaccurate demonizing of eric holder that if you have a problem with the rich pardon your anger and criticism should be directled at bill clinton, who granted the pardon, who worked with quinn (and scooter libby btw) to go against tradition and good judgement in granting a pardon to a fugitive. rather than look at the facts and follow that idea you attempt to label holder as so political he can't objectively handle an investigation into the cia. I can't and will not defend clinton, the pardon was not justified nor was it correct. that doesn't lead me to make incorrect and audacious conclusions on holder.

eric holder is not to blame, eric holder did not violate any requirements, eric holder is not guilty of anything but doing his job.

holder is doing likewise with the cia investigation. you have ignored the fact that he went to a special prosecutor who was a republican appointee. you ignored the fact that he is not using any political appointees in justice to work on the investigation. ignore is a crucial part of the word ignorance.

thanks for playing.