Obama Refuses to Release List of Pardon Requests

[The Straight Story]

Obama Refuses to Release List of Pardon Requests
Thursday, May 27, 2010

Concerned over where the matter might lead, the U.S. Department of Justice is fighting a Freedom of Information Act request to release the names of more than 9,200 people who were denied pardons by President George W. Bush.

The Justice Department already lost a lower court decision that ordered the government to make the list available to a former Washington Post reporter, George Lardner, who is working on a book about the history of clemency. Government lawyers have appealed to an appellate court in Washington, DC, but losing the next round could result in the Justice Department having to release the names of those who sought pardons and clemency during other administrations.

Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. served in the Justice Department during the Clinton years and was involved in the decision to pardon fugitive Marc Rich, which caused Holder no shortage of embarrassment during his confirmation hearing.

President Bush granted 189 pardons to people who had already served their sentences and commuted (or shortened) the sentences of eleven others, ten of whom had been convicted of drug-related offenses. The eleventh, and most famous, was Lewis “Scooter” Libby, who was sentenced to 30 months in prison for obstruction of justice, perjury and making false statements to federal investigators in the case of the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame. Bush commuted Libby’s sentence before he began to serve it.

http://www.allgov.com/Controversies/ViewNews/Obama_Refuses_to_Release_List_of_Pardon_Requests_100527

[unhappycamper]

1. Could Jack Abramoff be on the pardon list?

He's getting out of the can next month.

[WeDidIt]

3. I'm betting Cheney was on the list. n/t

[unhappycamper]

4. And probably dubya, Runsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith and the whole gang of thieves on the Potomac.

[WeDidIt]

9. And Obama doesn't want the implications of that being out there.

That would create incredible pressure for prosecution if it became public.

[Kahuna]

2. And???

:shrug:

[zipplewrath]

7. It is inconsistent with his "transparency" claims

He campaigned AGAINST this kind of stuff.

Of course he also campaigned agains Cadillac Taxes and mandates.
And for the release of torture photos.
And for removing the troops in 16 months
And ending DADT in "the first 100 days".

But I'm told that his campaign promises are just "goals" and I'm not suppose to hold him to them.

[whistler162]

12. Gotta have something to have a unreasoning falp over this weekend

so why not run this one up a flag pole and see what happens!

[CBGLuthier]

5. This would be a good spot to start reining in those executive powers

Undo some of the damage Bush did to the executive and knock off this bullshit that makes presidents above the law.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

6. "Concerned over where the matter might lead"

What exactly does that mean? Are they then concerned that their own pardon list will be released in the future? Guess what - a Republican President will SURE to release it.

What happened to the much ballyhooed "transparency"? The people have the right to know this information.

[RKP5637]

8. Yep, my question too... "What happened to the much ballyhooed "transparency"?"

[WeDidIt]

10. I think they revealed their hole card with that statement.

If members of the Bush administration who were never formally charged with any crime were on the list (Cheney, Rumsfield, Rice, etc. etc. etc.), it would spark renewed (and justified) cries for prosecution of the members of Bush's administration.

[Festivito]

11. Good. I find release of this list against American values.

Transparency is not the only American value. Justice supersedes it.

These are people who, possibly, are fighting cases involving corrupt judges, prosecutors and witnesses. Such investigations should not alert the corrupt. Releasing information on people wrongly judged can lead those corrupted people to further entrench their positions for example.

This kind of personal information needs to be judiciously revealed, not as a matter of course.

Another link to story (not as support to my opinion above):
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202458684411