Set your betting and expectations on the last Bush pardons

TPM points out the pardon clock is really ticking now for the Bushies. If no political pardons are announced, I'll be surprised and will have to slightly raise my estimation of the failed presidency. If they only pardon Scooter and maybe some nobodies, that fits the terrible estimation I have of them. If they issue broad pardons of many individuals or even sweeping pardon statements that are designed to protect everybody, including Bush and Cheney, it will show how that presidency will be remembered for the ages.

Here's their last chance to do something, anything, better than Clinton did. We'll see in a few days.

UPDATE Jan. 19: Atrios has a good point, "Pardoning the people below him would remove any 5th amendment reasons to not testify," although subordinates also lose the incentive to inform on others. Looks unlikely to happen now other than two small bones thrown to the right wingers. Bush has slightly exceeded my expectations on this issue, but not enough to matter much.

Who Bush pardons next month, and whether Obama can (and will) reverse the pardons

An interesting dustup from Bush's latest pardon attempts - after it was publicly revealed that one recipient's father gave almost $30,000 to the Republican party, Bush is trying to take the pardon back, and one 140-year-old case suggests he might be able to do it. If the pardon has been issued but not delivered and accepted, then it remains revocable.

I've been wondering whether Bush will try and push the envelope of the pardon power next month, issuing a blanket pardon without names attached to anyone involved in any capacity with extraordinary rendition and authorized interrogation techniques. I've thought he'd do it without naming names not just to exempt as many underlings as possible, but also in order to pardon himself and Cheney without doing so expressly. The problem comes with the old case at the link above, that "A pardon is a deed, to the validity of which delivery is essential, and delivery is not complete without acceptance, and a pardon by an outgoing President may be revoked by his successor before delivery."

I'm not sure if the concepts of delivery and acceptance still operate today, or how they worked for Carter's blanket pardon of draft evaders. To the extent they still work though and allow Bush to revoke his pardon, Obama could do the same thing.

Something Obama may have to think about.

UPDATE: See the comments, and also here for whether Bush really can revoke the pardon. I think that insofar as the legal question is open, Bush would have estoppel problems if he claimed that Obama couldn't revoke pardons that Bush himself gave but had not "delivered." I also think Obama would likely duck the issue, though.

Libby commutation may be about incentives, not polls

From Digby:

I'm not a lawyer, but I have to assume that this means he can still appeal --- which means he can still take the fifth if the congress calls him to to testify. Very convenient.

...

Update: Marcy Wheeler agrees about the fifth ... and says Bush is obstructing justice:

Well, George did it. Made sure that Scooter wouldn't flip rather than do jail time. He commuted Libby's sentence, guaranteeing not only that Libby wouldn't talk, but retaining Libby's right to invoke the Fifth.

This amounts to nothing less than obstruction of justice.

I hope nobody's expecting the DC press corps to see it that way.

Sounds plausible to me, both legally and politically. Here's my conspiratorial addition: commuting but not pardoning means that Bush can hold out the incentive of a potential pardon to Libby for the next 18 months, regardless of whether he gives one in the end. You lose control of an underling by giving him nothing, or by giving him everything he wants - the commutation means you keep control.

The Democratic presidential candidates should say they would never issue commutations or pardons outside of the established process, or at least they won't do it for anyone connected to top people in their administration.

(Cross-posted at the John Edwards website.)

Pardons, part 2

This time, unlike last time, the media is interested in discussing the pardon issue. I'm not sure why - maybe because rightwingers are now coming out full force to subvert democracy, or because it's a lot closer to happening now?

Democrats should take the same tactic as last time - demanding Bush say what he'll do. Even better, they should demand the Republican candidates say whether it would be appropriate to pardon Libby.

Probably a good chance for the non-Hillary candidates to push an issue that's awkward for her, given that Bill's pardon for his half-brother stank, and his pardon of Marc Rich was fishy. Hillary might want to decide whether to distance herself from the less-savory aspects of the Clinton administration.