Most Worthy Pardon Petition

[Judas Maccabeus]

Well, there is still two weeks........

Although I doubt that this would be considered through normal channels. Two weeks is too little time.

One would presume that the adult daughter could come and go as she pleased, as she has not committed any crime, but the FBI might want to talk to her, and where she got her Passport would give them a clue where mom is.

J.M.

[Valerie]

The best thing you could possibly do is pray. The coming administration is so lgbtq which is how she ended up in this position to begin with and why she had to flee this country.

[temporal1]

RZehr:
.. And miracles happen.

[ken_sylvania]

Quite frankly, if that's really all you were trying to do, you could have accomplished it with serving up the side of contempt for the president that you added. Would you care to also enlighten us on what the Constitution of the United States says about the DOJ pardon office's role in the pardon process?

Fine, YOU feel free to explain the pardon application process as it exists in the Trump Administration since I apparently got it wrong.

I didn't say you got it wrong, just that you added a lot of extra political baggage that wouldn't have been necessary. The thing I think you got wrong was your claim that you were "not trying to be political" and "only trying to answer barnhart's questions." But since you suggested it....

According to the Constitution, the President of the United States has the sole power of pardons. The pardon process, similar to many other powers entrusted to Congress and the President, has over time increasingly been managed by the DOJ bureaucracy. This has been done in an effort to ensure that the most worthy cases are presented to the President for pardon, and to help manage the political implications associated with who gets pardoned. President Trump distrusts (perhaps a better word would be detests) the machinery of Government and the expertise of people outside his inner circle of friends. In the real world in which I live (I believe Ken called this an "alternate reality"), we currently have a president who somewhat takes after President Lincoln in his habit of bypassing the professional members of his staff and intervening in cases that catch his fancy. Our current president seems to view pardons as a kind of currency or weapon available, (as he sees it, to correct wrongs visited upon his supporters by the opposition), as I see it, to protect those who are willing to be loyal to him at all costs.

It just so happens that there is nothing at all in the Constitution to suggest that a president ought to be restricted to offering pardons only to those recommended by the DOJ.

[Ken]

Quite frankly, if that's really all you were trying to do, you could have accomplished it with serving up the side of contempt for the president that you added. Would you care to also enlighten us on what the Constitution of the United States says about the DOJ pardon office's role in the pardon process?

Fine, YOU feel free to explain the pardon application process as it exists in the Trump Administration since I apparently got it wrong.

I didn't say you got it wrong, just that you added a lot of extra political baggage that wouldn't have been necessary. The thing I think you got wrong was your claim that you were "not trying to be political" and "only trying to answer barnhart's questions." But since you suggested it....

According to the Constitution, the President of the United States has the sole power of pardons. The pardon process, similar to many other powers entrusted to Congress and the President, has over time increasingly been managed by the DOJ bureaucracy. This has been done in an effort to ensure that the most worthy cases are presented to the President for pardon, and to help manage the political implications associated with who gets pardoned. President Trump distrusts (perhaps a better word would be detests) the machinery of Government and the expertise of people outside his inner circle of friends. In the real world in which I live (I believe Ken called this an "alternate reality"), we currently have a president who somewhat takes after President Lincoln in his habit of bypassing the professional members of his staff and intervening in cases that catch his fancy. Our current president seems to view pardons as a kind of currency or weapon available, (as he sees it, to correct wrongs visited upon his supporters by the opposition), as I see it, to protect those who are willing to be loyal to him at all costs.

It just so happens that there is nothing at all in the Constitution to suggest that a president ought to be restricted to offering pardons only to those recommended by the DOJ.

The process is there to make it fair, equitable, and understandable for the tens of thousands of Americans across the country who want to request clemency. It isn't some deep-state DOJ attempt to assert bureaucratic control. It was passed into law by bipartisan votes of Congress. It provides a mechanism for ordinary people to request clemency, and a way for the thousands of requests to be reviewed and presented to the president.

If you throw that all away, then only the most rich and powerful will ever be able to navigate the informal avenues of access to the president for pardon requests. Like the Manfort and Flynn pardons by this president, or the Marc Rich pardon by Clinton.

Every other president of both parties largely relied on the pardon office to review and vet clemency requests. Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich was one of the few egregious exceptions and was rightly criticized at the time for that reason. George W Bush, by contrast largely avoided making any controversial or self-dealing pardons and was commended for that reason.

[ken_sylvania]

Fine, YOU feel free to explain the pardon application process as it exists in the Trump Administration since I apparently got it wrong.

I didn't say you got it wrong, just that you added a lot of extra political baggage that wouldn't have been necessary. The thing I think you got wrong was your claim that you were "not trying to be political" and "only trying to answer barnhart's questions." But since you suggested it....

According to the Constitution, the President of the United States has the sole power of pardons. The pardon process, similar to many other powers entrusted to Congress and the President, has over time increasingly been managed by the DOJ bureaucracy. This has been done in an effort to ensure that the most worthy cases are presented to the President for pardon, and to help manage the political implications associated with who gets pardoned. President Trump distrusts (perhaps a better word would be detests) the machinery of Government and the expertise of people outside his inner circle of friends. In the real world in which I live (I believe Ken called this an "alternate reality"), we currently have a president who somewhat takes after President Lincoln in his habit of bypassing the professional members of his staff and intervening in cases that catch his fancy. Our current president seems to view pardons as a kind of currency or weapon available, (as he sees it, to correct wrongs visited upon his supporters by the opposition), as I see it, to protect those who are willing to be loyal to him at all costs.

It just so happens that there is nothing at all in the Constitution to suggest that a president ought to be restricted to offering pardons only to those recommended by the DOJ.

The process is there to make it fair, equitable, and understandable for the tens of thousands of Americans across the country who want to request clemency. It isn't some deep-state DOJ attempt to assert bureaucratic control. It was passed into law by bipartisan votes of Congress. It provides a mechanism for ordinary people to request clemency, and a way for the thousands of requests to be reviewed and presented to the president.

If you throw that all away, then only the most rich and powerful will ever be able to navigate the informal avenues of access to the president for pardon requests. Like the Manfort and Flynn pardons by this president, or the Marc Rich pardon by Clinton.

Every other president of both parties largely relied on the pardon office to review and vet clemency requests. Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich was one of the few egregious exceptions and was rightly criticized at the time for that reason. George W Bush, by contrast largely avoided making any controversial or self-dealing pardons and was commended for that reason.

I think a process for reviewing pardon requests is good. I am somewhat perplexed about where Congress gets the authority to do anything at all about pardons, other than by exercising the power of the purse.

For the most part, the existing pardon review process is difficult if not impossible for anyone who doesn't have connections, money, or a legal aid firm working pro bono.

The system of government established in the Constitution was set up to be operated by men of restraint and wisdom. As recent history shows, this makes it vulnerable to misuse by crooks when they manage to work their way into positions of power. I'm not at all sure, though, that the answer is to remove power from elected persons and vest it in career government officials. At any rate, it seems to me that such a change ought to require a constitutional amendment.

[temporal1]

I didn't say you got it wrong,
just that you added a lot of extra political baggage that wouldn't have been necessary.

The thing I think you got wrong was your claim that you were "not trying to be political" and "only trying to answer barnhart's questions." But since you suggested it....

According to the Constitution, the President of the United States has the sole power of pardons. The pardon process, similar to many other powers entrusted to Congress and the President, has over time increasingly been managed by the DOJ bureaucracy. This has been done in an effort to ensure that the most worthy cases are presented to the President for pardon, and to help manage the political implications associated with who gets pardoned. President Trump distrusts (perhaps a better word would be detests) the machinery of Government and the expertise of people outside his inner circle of friends. In the real world in which I live (I believe Ken called this an "alternate reality"), we currently have a president who somewhat takes after President Lincoln in his habit of bypassing the professional members of his staff and intervening in cases that catch his fancy. Our current president seems to view pardons as a kind of currency or weapon available, (as he sees it, to correct wrongs visited upon his supporters by the opposition), as I see it, to protect those who are willing to be loyal to him at all costs.

It just so happens that there is nothing at all in the Constitution to suggest that a president ought to be restricted to offering pardons only to those recommended by the DOJ.

“Unnecessary contempt” has been normalized in mainstream reporting (it may be the central reason i unplugged satellite tv in 2016, then “unplugged” from most of the rest in summer 2020.)
When you simply pointed this out, more contempt, directed at you, followed.

in my view, comparison of Lisa Miller’s situation, a biological mother, and those involved, with crimes of many of these others, leaves abundant hope for clemency/mercy. and miracles.

i have never invested effort in attempt to understand or judge presidential pardons, no matter which president. ever. it’s their prerogative. so be it.

i appreciate what you’re sharing here, it’s interesting.
i always appreciate your tone and patience.

[ken_sylvania]

When you simply pointed this out, more contempt, directed at you, followed.

Thanks temp, but in this case, I don't think "contempt" is the right word to describe Ken's response to me. Maybe it was bit snarky, but I wouldn't call it contempt.

Remember that words actually do have meaning. If we exaggerate, using stronger words than are accurate to the situation, we actually damage our ability to communicate because we muddle the meanings of words. It's serious business to accuse people of contempt, hate, etc. Labeling others with these terms just because they hold different opinions than we do destroys our ability to dialog with, and learn from, other people.

Even though Ken disagrees with me about a variety of topics, he generally is polite and thoughtful in how he discusses things, and I hope that I can be the same.

[temporal1]

When you simply pointed this out, more contempt, directed at you, followed.

Thanks temp, but in this case, I don't think "contempt" is the right word to describe Ken's response to me. Maybe it was bit snarky, but I wouldn't call it contempt.

Remember that words actually do have meaning. If we exaggerate, using stronger words than are accurate to the situation, we actually damage our ability to communicate because we muddle the meanings of words. It's serious business to accuse people of contempt, hate, etc. Labeling others with these terms just because they hold different opinions than we do destroys our ability to dialog with, and learn from, other people.

Even though Ken disagrees with me about a variety of topics, he generally is polite and thoughtful in how he discusses things, and I hope that I can be the same.

i agree with you on all points.
there is a matter of interpretation. in my experience, i understood the response as unapologetic “contempt,” not exaggerated; but certainly, as you say, it’s up to interpretation. either way, i agree, it’s wise to deescalate, not respond in kind. (i try to do this!) not always successful.

as an observer, i wanted to share deserved appreciation.

“snarky,” beyond debate.
i have been taken to the briar patch for less.

[Ken]

I think a process for reviewing pardon requests is good. I am somewhat perplexed about where Congress gets the authority to do anything at all about pardons, other than by exercising the power of the purse.

I looked it up. According to wiki: Since 1789 various offices within the federal government have provided the president with administrative support for the exercise of executive clemency. A presidential order in 1865 formally delegated this responsibility to the Department of Justice. The office's current name was adopted in 1894.

So the Pardon Office started with George Washington and was formalized with the DOJ at the end of the Lincoln Administration. And at the order or request of the President, not Congress. It doesn't look like this was ever anything that came from Congress, since pardon power is constitutionally vested in the President, and not delegated by Congress. It looks like the DOJ (which is under presidential authority) simply promulgated pardon regulations and standards itself. No doubt under the oversight of whichever presidents were in office at the time. And any subsequent president was free to update and modify those standards, which has no doubt happened over time.

Absent the pardon office at the DOJ (or something similar within the White House) how does anyone seeking clemency know: (1) how to make a clemency request, (2) where to submit it, (3) what information the request should contain, and (4) what standards will be used to evaluate the request?

Without the Pardon Office, how does Lisa Miller or anyone acting on her behalf go about making a clemency request? An online petition on a Canadian web site and hope that someone in the White House notices? Is this the correct approach? I doubt anyone at the White House is at all familiar with this case. Does the online petition contain enough information for White House attorneys or presidential staff to evaluate the legitimacy and merit of the request and raise it to the top of what must be a giant stack of thousands of last-minute clemency requests from across the country? Is all the information in the petition sworn to as accurate and complete under penalty of perjury as is normally required of all clemency requests?

If people are serious about this request. And it isn't just a publicity stunt to drive traffic to that web site. Then they should know the answers to those questions.