British Expatriate Network

President Bush pardons eight people


WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush pardoned eight people, including a man convicted of bootlegging 45 years ago, the Justice Department announced Friday.

The first round of clemency orders in Bush's second term brings his total since taking office to 39 pardons and sentence commutations.

Bush's father, President George H.W. Bush, issued 77 pardons during his single term from 1989 to 1993, according to statistics collected by the University of Pittsburgh law school.

President Clinton, by contrast, granted clemency to 456 people during his eight years in office, including 176 on his last day at the White House. One of those was the contentious pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich, former husband of Democratic Party donor Denise Rich.





Most presidents since the beginning of the 20th century have granted hundreds if not thousands of pardons and sentence commutations, led by Franklin D. Roosevelt's 3,687 over four terms. Only two presidents never used their constitutional authority to grant clemency 19th century chief executives James Garfield and William H. Harrison. Both died before serving a year in office.

Those granted pardons were

— Alan Dale Austin, Mabank, Texas, misapplication of mortgage funds, sentenced October 1987 to two years in prison and $22,000 in restitution.

— Charles Russell Cooper, Corpus Christi, Texas, bootlegging, sentenced May 1959 in South Carolina to three years probation.

— Joseph Daniel Gavin, East Elmhurst, N.Y., court-martialed by the Army in 1984 for failure to obey an order and other charges and given a bad conduct discharge.

— Raul Marin, El Paso, Texas, failure to appear, sentenced January 1982 to six months in prison, five years probation.

— Ernest Rudnet, Tamarac, Fla., conspiracy to file false tax returns, sentenced March 1992 to one year probation.

— Gary L. Saltzburg, Clovis, N.M., theft of government property, sentenced January 1995 to 18 months probation, community service.

— David Lloyd St. Croix, Kenmare, N.D., disposing of stolen explosives, sentenced June 1989 to two years probation and a $500 fine.

— Joseph William Warner, McLaughlin, S.D., arson on an Indian reservation, sentenced November 1995 to eight months in prison, a $5,000 fine, and restitution of $5,560.
E-mail | Print

If they already served their sentences (a lot of probation), what is the point? Unless they were naughty during probation and owe prison time?

If they had decent rehabilitation of offenders would you need these pardons? Do they get to vote again? Are they all mates of Republicans?

Not that the Dems wouldn't do that but just wondered for curiosity's sake.

I think its just to clear there record .
And as you say all (well most )presidents do it ,i think they have to be recommemded for this to happen ,im sure presidents dont hunt thou thousands of papers to find a candidate for this distinction ,
Some do get to vote depending on the crime and the state they reside in ,some get A pardon to pay back a past favour proberly .

Thats how politics work . :)

I just think pardons are better saved for people who are proven innocent however many years later.

Just clearing someone's record because they are your "mate" smacks of corruption. The Clinton-Rich scenario was the worst case I can recall of late.

And this is the democracy that needs spreading around the world o

Of course it does .
Hav,nt you heard me before declare IMO MOST politicans are currupt .,,in my view there is no differance in either of the parties as far as *you sctatch my back ill scratch yours senerio goes , but then im very cynical .

Our system is not perfect, do you know one that is ???, curruption existed in USSR ,the HUSSIEN IRAG , in the ARAFAT PALISTINE and there seems to be a lot of it in the UN to just mention a few .
The best we can do is to expose it where we find it and take steps to limited it by the procees we have of democratic govt .

Couldn't agree more. What on earth is the point in pardoning people who served very short terms in 1982?

And the Clinton-Rich thing I just don't get. Why would he do that? It's utterly demented. Leads me to believe that he either didn't pay much attention to whatever was stuck in front of him that night, or figured it'd slip under the radar.

But there is a difference between being legal and illegal. At least if it is supposed to be illegal, there is hope for the rest of us that one day they will be caught. But to have a system that allows this AND it is legal makes a mockery of what is supposed to be a democracy and one that insists on making other countries the same. This is a decision made by the people, this is something that is done by one man who as the power over life and death - is that what the USA complained about the USSR for - having one man being able to make decisions over another person. and something the US are still complaining about in Russia and other countries and yet carry on themselves! :-?

I think John had it right, the pardon clears the record and thus allows people to do things that convicted felons might no be able to do.

Its a strange power. It is (I think) the only absolute power the president has and is derived from the supposedly devine powers of the English Monarchy. What possessed the founding fathers to include it in the constitution, I don't know (although I dare say a good google might reveal all.

Clinton's last minute pardons were astonishing and highlighted the practice, although the fact that Republicans have gone quite on this now betrays their belief that they might want to use the power. Certainly Gerald Ford (watergate) and both Reagan and Bush Senior (Iran Contra) used the power for political purposes.

However the Rich thing, as I recall was unique because Rich had not been convicted, mainly because he was out of jurisdiction. Some on the right have suggested that Clinton had an affair with Denise Rich or that there was other dirt that he feared. However, given it was his last day in office, and we already knew more than enough about his extra marital activities, I'm not convinced.

The one common thread with absolute powers is that they corrupt absolutely and one has to suspect that sometimes the power is used merely because they can.

I'm sure that there are deeper reasons behind each of the cases that Bush the Junior pardoned, I'd be surprised if there wasn't some serious pre-pardon vetting and consideration given Rove's iron grip on everything in the Whitehouse.