Bush's newest pardon, and not one member of his staff on the list

President Bush on Wednesday retracted one of the 19 presidential pardons he granted just before the Christmas holiday.

A story in the New York Daily News said Toussie's father, Robert, donated $28,500 to the national Republican Party in April. It was his first political donation and came just months before Toussie's pardon petition, the newspaper said.

IMHO, it was the right thing to do.

As more of the story comes out I will revise my opinion accordingly.

Those wondering how it came to pass that President George Bush pardoned a businessman on Tuesday and retracted the pardon on Wednesday might find hints to what went wrong by comparing the language in the pardons that preceded them.

Up until last month, virtually every pardon the president had signed took pains to note in the introductory paragraph that, “After considering the applications for executive clemency of the following named persons and a letter from the Department of Justice recommending executive clemency in each case, I hereby grant full and unconditional pardons to the following named persons.’’

Close readers of the master warrant that authorized the 14 presidential pardons President Bush signed before Thanksgiving were struck by the omission of three words: “recommending executive clemency.’’

Its introductory paragraph simply states: “After considering the applications for executive clemency of the following named persons and a letter from the Department of Justice in each case, I hereby grant full and unconditional pardons to the following named persons.’’

Lawyers familiar with the pardon process say the altered phrasing strongly suggests that at least one of the 14 cases did not receive a favorable recommendation from the Justice Department.

One of the 19 pardons President Bush signed on Tuesday went to Isaac Robert Toussie, a Brooklyn real estate developer who bilked scores of small homeowners. But Mr. Bush on Wednesday reversed his decision to pardon Mr. Toussie, with the White House citing “information that has subsequently come to light.”

The administration has thus far resisted calls to release a copy of the master warrant authorizing the 19 pardons. But a person familiar with its contents said it makes no mention of the Justice Department or its team of vetters. The warrant simply reads, “After considering the applications for executive clemency of the following named persons, I hereby grant full and unconditional pardons to the following named persons.’’

The missing words do not make the pardon less kosher than ones that have the Justice Department’s blessing. The Constitution gives the President absolute power to grant pardons for any reason, with or without the consent of his advisers.

At the same time, longstanding guidelines help the Justice Department cull thousands of requests for presidential pardons received each year. Applicants are expected to pay their debts to society in full, express remorse and wait five years before submitting their requests. The department may then interview judges, prosecutors and others before forwarding the application to the White House with a favorable or unfavorable recommendation.

The ordinary process can take years, and lawyers say it is highly unlikely that the department, facing backlogs, will have time to issue recommendations to the outgoing administration on applications only driving up now " in the absence of special pleading.

“There isn’t enough time for the usual process,’’ said Joseph diGenova, a prominent Washington lawyer who said he has been approached in recent weeks by many wealthy people seeking pardons and wanting his help.

Savvy members of the legal bar know they can still try to get the president’s attention by going straight to the White House, and that was apparently the route taken by advisers to Mr. Toussie and at least one other person pardoned this week.

But Mr. Toussie’s pardon provoked an immediate backlash and ire over his family’s history of political gifts, particularly to Republicans. In reversing itself, a regretful White House said it was pulling the pardon back, at least until the Justice Department’s top pardon attorney had “an opportunity to review’’ the case.

The decision to pull back the pardon could undermine other efforts to bypass the Justice Department and its labyrinth of rules, given how Mr. Toussie’s pardon was found to be defective by the very fact of having averted review by the department.

mysteryman wrote:

IMHO, it was the right thing to do.

As far as I know, under the Constitution, the president's power to issue pardons is absolute and cannot be overruled - meaning he can forgive anyone he wants, at any time.

I think that it hasn't been very nice for Bush to be forced to withdraw a pardon 24 hours after issuing it.

'It's, at best, embarrassing. At worst, it's an extraordinary example of this White House's ability to bollox up one bit of presidential authority that he clearly has,' as Doug Berman said according to agencies (a law professor at Ohio State University and a close follower of presidential clemency decisions according to media).