Mark Rich Scooter Libby Arpaio

[SHRED]

The pardons just keep getting worse.

[Bluepinky]

1. Scooter Libby wasn't granted a full pardon, his prison term was commuted.

The conviction is still on his record, and he paid a $250,000 fine.

[SHRED]

2. I think we know why he was pardoned

[Cicada]

3. Marc Rich was innocent and his pardon was appropriate

Marc Rich was not convicted in a contested trial. He fled in anticipation of Giuliani's indictment. There were tax evasion and trading with Iran charges. The trading with Iran violations related to a law struck down as unconstitutional. Rich would not have been convicted had there been a contested trial because his appeal would have prevailed. On the tax count two distinguished law professors, one the husband of Ruth Bader Ginsberg, the other Bernard Wolfman of Harvard, effectively the guy who "wrote the book" on what tax laws meant, told Clinton that Marc Rich took reasonable positions in how he reported the contested matters on his tax returns. Tax fraud requires knowingly taking an unreasonable position which just wasn't the case with Rich. He got professional advice which the two professors said was sound. Also Denise Rich wasn't the only person supporting the pardon. The government of Israel strongly urged the pardon because Rich was critical to the efforts of the Mossad in the Middle East. Were he in jail the success of the Mossad would have been greatly harmed.

"Everyone knows" the pardon was corrupt, based on contributions by Denise. But what "everyone knows" in this case is bull shit. Marc Rich did not break tax or trading with Iran laws.

[former9thward]

7. Marc Rich was one of the biggest, if not the biggest, tax evader in U.S. history.

Rich's companies pled guilty to 35 counts of tax evasion and paid $90 million in fines.

Former President Jimmy Carter said, "I don't think there is any doubt that some of the factors in his pardon were attributable to his large gifts. In my opinion, that was disgraceful."

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/feb/21/news/mn-28265

Clinton himself later expressed regret for issuing the pardon, saying that "it wasn't worth the damage to my reputation."

“Marc Rich is to asset concealment what Babe Ruth was to baseball,” said Arthur J. Roth, New York state commissioner of taxation and finance.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-marcrich-idUKBRE95P0C920130626


Clinton's top advisers, Chief of Staff John Podesta, White House Counsel Beth Nolan, and adviser Bruce Lindsey, testified that nearly all of the White House staff advising the president on the pardon request had urged Clinton to not grant Rich a pardon.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=121734

[Cicada]

9. You did not refute that his convictions were not justified

You state that he did other bad things - yet he was not even charged with crimes for those other acts, let alone convicted of them. For the crimes which were pardoned: the trading with Iran crime was not a crime because the law violated the constitution and was struck down. The two tax fraud convictions obtained without a contested trial were determined by two revered tax professors not to constitute tax fraud.

You may be correct that Rich did other bad things. So a conviction for burglary in New York while you were actually in Australia should be permitted to stand because allegedly you robbed a bank in Indiana a year earlier?

The pardon was appropriate because Rich was not guilty. Whether he is a bad man or a good man is irrelevant.

[JI7]

4. those are not even on the same level

[frazzled]

5. This is different

This is uncharted territory. Yes, on its face the Constitution’s pardon power would seem unlimited. And past presidents have used it with varying degrees of wisdom, at times in ways that would seem to clash with the courts’ ability to render justice. But the Arpaio case is different: The sheriff was convicted of violating constitutional rights, in defiance of a court order involving racial profiling. Should the president indicate that he does not think Mr. Arpaio should be punished for that, he would signal that governmental agents who violate judicial injunctions are likely to be pardoned, even though their behavior violated constitutional rights, when their illegal actions are consistent with presidential policies.

...

The only effective means courts have to prevent or stop governmental violations of constitutional rights is through injunctions. But injunctions have teeth only when they have the potential of a contempt conviction behind them. In other words, in issuing an injunction, a court is saying, “stop doing that or else.” The “or else” is a criminal conviction for contempt, leading to a fine, imprisonment or both. Absent the “or else,” the injunction is all but meaningless.

...

In short, under the Constitution one cannot be deprived of liberty without a court ruling upon the legality of the detention. The power of courts to restrain government officers from depriving citizens of liberty absent judicial process is the only meaningful way courts have to enforce important constitutional protections. But if the president can employ the pardon power to circumvent constitutional protections of liberty, there is very little left of the constitutional checks on presidential power.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/opinion/trump-arpaio-pardon-arizona-sheriff.html?src=me&_r=0

[Hugin]

6. Sleep tight, people.

We are now in a Dictatorship.

[highplainsdem]

8. Preet Bharara said the Rich pardon stunk to high heaven, but the Arpaio pardon stinks even more

Link to tweet